Ex Parte Ikeda

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

13499049 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/499,049 06/12/2012 Yuji Ikeda
38834 7590 10/03/2016
WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP
1250 CONNECTICUT A VENUE, NW
SUITE 700
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
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.
120053 5047
EXAMINER
AHMED, JAMIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2886
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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):
patentmail@whda.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUJI IKEDA
Appeal2015-002923
Application 13/499,049
Technology Center 2800
Before: BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 In our Opinion below, we refer to Specification filed March 29, 2012
("Spec."), Final Action mailed April 9, 2014 ("Final Act."), Appeal Brief
filed September 4, 2014 ("App. Br."), Examiner's Answer mailed November
5, 2014 ("Ans."), and Reply Brief filed January 5, 2015 ("Reply").
2 Appellant identifies Imagineering, Inc. as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal2015-002923
Application 13/499,049
The claims are directed to an observation plug comprising a spark
plug, an objective optical system, and a set of light conduction paths
(independent claim 1) and a spark observation system (independent claim 8).
Claim 1, reproduced below with limitation language at issue italicized, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An observation plug, comprising:
a spark plug body that ignites gas in a combustion
chamber by means of an electric discharge generated in a
discharge gap located in the combustion chamber, wherein the
spark plug body includes an observation hole penetrating
therethrough in an axial direction at a location dislocated from
the discharge gap;
an objective optical system which is provided in the
observation hole and which has an incident surface which faces
toward the discharge gap, thereby including the discharge gap
in an observation area of the objective optical system, wherein
the objective optical system bends a course of light received
from the incident surface and forms an image of the observation
area within the observation hole; and
a set of light conduction paths provided in the
observation hole, wherein the set of light conduction paths
causes the image of the observation area, which is to be formed
by the objective optical system, to be divided into a plurality of
portions and transmitted therethrough.
App. Br. 11 (Claims App'x).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Wahl et al., ("Wahl")
Philipp et al.,
("Philipp")
US 6,487,899 Bl
US 6,649,924 Bl
2
Dec. 3, 2002
Nov. 18, 2003
Appeal2015-002923
Application 13/499,049
REJECTIONS
Claim 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(b) as anticipated by
Philipp. Claims 4-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Philipp in view of Wahl.
OPINION
Appellant argues that Philipp does not disclose all elements of the
observation plug of claim 1. App. Br. 9. The other independent claim, claim
8, also requires the observation plug of claim 1 (App. Br. 13 (Claims
App'x)), thus all of the claims stand or fall with claim 1.
Claim 1 requires a spark plug body that ignites gas in a combustion
chamber by means of an electric discharge generated in a discharge gap
located in the combustion chamber. App. Br. 11 (Claims App'x). The sole
issue raised by Appellant is whether Philipps teaches the limitation "an
objective optical system ... which has an incident surface which faces
toward the discharge gap, thereby including the discharge gap in an
observation area of the objective optical system," specifically, whether
Philipp teaches an observation area of the objective optical system that
includes the discharge gap of a spark plug. Id. at 4-5. Our decision turns on
interpretation of "observation area."
During prosecution, an application's claims are given their broadest
reasonable scope consistent with the specification. In re Am. A cad. of Sci.
Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The words used in a claim
must be read in light of the specification, as it would have been interpreted
by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id. The
3
Appeal2015-002923
Application 13/499,049
broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation at issue here requires that
the discharge gap of the spark plug is within the observation area of the
objective optical system, i.e., that creation of a spark at the discharge gap is
detectable within the observation area. The observation area is that portion
of a chamber from which an incident surface can reflect light to the objective
optical system. See Spec. 3, 11. 6-10.
An annotated version of Figure 1 of Appellant's application is
reproduced below:
\
Incident surface (I Oa; see Fig. 2)
Figure 1 of the application is a schematic configuration diagram of a
spark observation system, showing the objective optical system 10, central
electrode 11, ground electrode 2, discharge gap 60, and the observation area.
Spec. 12, 11. 4-14. Figure 1 above has been annotated by Appellant to
indicate incident surface lOa. The claimed incident surface faces toward the
discharge gap, thereby including the discharge gap in an observation area of
the objective optical system. App. Br. 11 (Claims App'x).
4
Appeal2015-002923
Application 13/499,049
With regard to the objective optical system, the Examiner contends
that Philipp teaches
an objective optical system (Fig. 1 @ 4, Col 4, line 30-44, Fig.
8 and 11 ) which is provided in the observation hole (Fig. 1 @
8, Col 4, line 43-46 ) and which has an incident surface (Fig. 4,
@bottom middle portion ofwall 14, i.e., the central electrode
of the spark plug) which faces toward the discharge gap (Fig. 4,
illustrates the discharge gap between the spark plug
electrode and the ground lead and the electrode is facing
toward the discharge gap), thereby including the discharge gap
in an observation area (Fig. 1 @ 5, Col 4, line 43-51, teaches
spark plug is opening into the combustion chamber 5 and
Fig. 4, illustrates at end portion of the spark plug includes a
central electrode, a ground electrode and the discharge gap)
of the objective optical system, ( Fig. 1 @ 4, Col 4, line 30-44,
Fig. 8 and 11 ), wherein the objective optical system (Fig. 1 @
4, Col 4, line 30-44, Fig. 8 and 11) bends a course of light
received from the incident surface (Fig. 8 and 11) and forms an
image of the observation area within the observation hole ( Col
2, line 20-24 )
Final Act. 3 (emphasis in original). Figure 1 of Philipp, as annotated by the
Examiner, is reproduced below:
f;~·
£7
-~'.
JlJt
l~~i
11il~
Iii!~ .,9
7 111~1
-~ .. ;~1if1 . . 4
5
Appeal2015-002923
Application 13/499,049
Ans. 4 (showing Philipp Fig. 1 with annotations by the Examiner). The
Examiner identifies element 5 of Philipp Figure 1 as the "entire observation
area" of claim 1. Id. at 3. Philipp identifies element 5 as the combustion
chamber. Philipp col. 4, 11. 36-38.
Appellant disputes the Examiner's characterization of Philipp's
combustion chamber as the "entire observation area," arguing instead that
"measuring sector M" of Philipp is the observation area. App. Br. 8.
Measuring sector Mis essentially located in a plane 15 (see Figure 1
above) normal to the longitudinal axis of the spark plug. Philipp col. 4, 11.
51-53. The sensor ends of the optical fibers are located in the wall of the
cylinder, distributed radially. Id. at col. 2, 11. 14-16; col. 4, 11. 46--47. The
viewing angles of the individual optical fibers uniformly cover measuring
sector M of the combustion chamber. Id. at col. 4, 11. 49-51. In the area of
each sensor end 8 a deflector element 17 is provided which will deflect the
viewing direction of the optical fibers by an angle a of about 90°. Id. at 11.
61-63.
A portion of Figure 7 of Philipp, annotated to identify the deflector
elements and wall 14, is reproduced below:
6
Appeal2015-002923
Application 13/499,049
deflector element
17~
deflector element
17
Figure 7 is a longitudinal section through the measuring device of
Philipp. Philipp col. 4, 11. 17-18. Philipp discloses that ifthe deflection
angle a created by deflector element(s) 17 is greater or less than 90°,
measuring sector Mis formed by an umbrella-like area in the shape of an
envelope of cone. Id. at col. 5, 11. 21-26.
Appellant's annotated version of Figure 4 of Philipp is reproduced
below:
Discharging gap
Figure 4 shows an oblique view of a spark plug provided with optical
sensors as disclosed by Philipp, wherein sensor ends 8 are located centrally
7
Appeal2015-002923
Application 13/499,049
compared to wall 14. Holes in wall 14 permit light to reach deflector
element 17 and sensor ends 8. The discharging gap is distal to the distal end
ofwall 14.
Appellant explains that sensor ends 8 can detect light only in the area
between the sensor holes and the cylinder wall. App. Br. 8. Comparing
Figures 1, 4, and 7 of Philipp confirms that sensor ends 8 (optical sensors),
located inside wall 14, will receive reflected light from deflector elements 17
only in the area described by Philipp as "measuring sector M," which is
formed by an umbrella-like area in the shape of an envelope of cone,
illustrated by broken lines in Figure 1. See Philip col. 5, 11. 21-26.
An annotated enlargement of a portion of Figure 1 is reproduced
below:
15
discharging gap
This portion of Figure 1, which exhibits a section through the
measuring device of Philip, illustrates measuring sector M in relation to the
discharging gap. We agree with Appellant that measuring sector M is the
entirety of the observation area for sensor ends 8 of Philipp. A spark in the
discharging gap will not be detected by the deflector elements inside wall
14, thus measuring sector M cannot include the discharging gap. Therefore,
we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
8
Appeal2015-002923
Application 13/499,049
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-12 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
9