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

Ex Parte ICHIHASHI et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 14, 2018

14169265 - (D) (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. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7, and 8. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 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. Â§ 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. Â§ 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. Â§ 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