Ex Parte ICHIHASHI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 14, 2018

14169265 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/169,265 01/31/2014
23117 7590 08/16/2018
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Katsuhiro ICHIHASHI
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
RYM-2018-3326 7771
EXAMINER
MACKAY-SMITH, SETH WENTWORTH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KA TSUHIRO ICHIHASHI, FUMIAKI ARIKA WA,
NAOKI MITSUMATA, and MASAHIRO WATANABE
Appeal2017-010867
Application 14/169,265
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Katsuhiro Ichihashi et al. ("Appellants") appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7, and 8. 1 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 DENSO CORPORATION is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal2017-010867
Application 14/169,265
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention is directed to an electromagnetic valve. Spec.
1 :8. Sole independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. An electromagnetic valve comprising:
a driving portion generating a magnetic attractive force
according to an energization;
a valve body having
an orifice through which a fluid flows, and
a valve seat around an opening portion of the
orifice; and
a valve element displacing according to the magnetic
attractive force and a fluid force that is applied from the fluid,
to vary a passage area between the valve element and the valve
seat, wherein
the passage area between the valve element and the valve
seat is less than or equal to a passage area of the orifice, when
the valve element is placed at a maximum lift position that is
separated farthest from the valve seat in a case where the valve
element abuts on a stopper limiting a movement range of the
valve element, and
the stopper is arranged on an end surface of the driving
portion opposite to the valve element.
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Schepp (US 2011/0147624 Al, published June 23, 2011)
and Karl (US 2012/0211691 Al, published Aug. 23, 2012).
2) Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Schepp, Karl, and Shimizu (US 8,350,651 B2, issued Jan. 8, 2013).
2
Appeal2017-010867
Application 14/169,265
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
Claim 1 recites, in part, "the passage area between the valve element
and the valve seat is less than or equal to a passage area of the orifice." See
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Schepp discloses most of the limitations of
claim 1, but finds that Karl's disclosure that passage area 6 is a "minimum"
cross section meets the above limitation, because it
inherently requires that this "passage area ( 6) between the valve
element (2) and the valve seat (3) is less than or equal to a
passage area of the orifice ( 4)" as claimed in [ c ]laim 1, since a
minimum area inherently requires that no area exists that is
smaller, including the area of passage ( 4 ).
Ans. 4.
Appellants argue that the disclosure in Karl of "'minimum' cross
section 6" compares the area of that region of the valve seat only to other
regions of the valve seat where "'the annular cross section 8 widens."'
Reply Br. 3 ( citing Karl ,r 21 ). According to Appellants, Karl does not
disclose any area relationship between passage 4 and minimum cross section
6, and that Karl's disclosure of a "'minimum"' cross section does not
inherently establish a relationship between these regions. Id. For the
reasons discussed below, Appellants' arguments are persuasive.
Karl discloses that fluid is deflected into an "annular cross section 8
between the closing body 2 and the valve seat 3," and that "a minimum cross
section 6 for the fluid flow is formed between the valve seat 3 and the
closing body 2 at the position of the sealing line 5." Karl ,r,r 19, 21.
Although we appreciate that the term "minimum" would exclude smaller
areas, we agree with Appellants that Karl's minimum cross section 6 is a
3
Appeal2017-010867
Application 14/169,265
subset of annular cross section 8 defined between closing body 2 and valve
seat 3, as seen by the dashed rectangle in Figure 1 of Karl. See Karl ,r 19,
Fig. 1. That is, minimum cross section 6 is a minimum value for the area
between valve seat 3 and closing body 2, not the smallest cross sectional
area of any passage of the valve. As Appellants correctly note, Figure 3 of
Karl supports Appellants' position because Figure 3 also shows "minimum
cross section 6" that similarly defines a minimum value for the area between
valve seat 3 and closing body 2 for the partially open state. See Reply Br. 2-
3; see also Karl ,r,r 21, 22, Fig. 3.
In the absence of disclosure in Karl of a relationship between the area
of Karl's passage 4 and minimum cross section 6, the Examiner's assertions
in the Answer regarding Karl's inherent disclosure of the area of passage 4
does not address all the claimed features. The Examiner has not directed us
to any disclosure in Schepp that discloses the claimed passage area
relationship. As the rejection is based on unsupported and inadequate
factual findings, the conclusion of obviousness cannot stand. See In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). Therefore, we do not sustain
the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 2-5 and 7 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Appeal
Br. 12-13 (Claims App.). We do not sustain the rejection of these
dependent claims for the same reasons stated above for claim 1.
Rejection 2
Claim 8 depends from claim 1. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). The
Examiner does not rely on the additional disclosure of Shimizu in any
manner that remedies the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1 based on
4
Appeal2017-010867
Application 14/169,265
Schepp and Karl stated above. Non-Final Act. 6. For the reasons stated
above, we likewise do not sustain the rejection of claim 8.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5, 7, and 8 is reversed.
REVERSED
5