Ex Parte Kawaguchi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2016

12139214 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/139,214 06/13/2008
65565 7590 08/24/2016
SUGHRUE-265550
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20037-3213
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Y asunori KAW A GU CHI
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.
Ql08598 1956
EXAMINER
ROGERS, DAVID A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2856
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2016 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):
SUGHRUE265550@SUGHRUE.COM
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte Y ASUNORI KAWAGUCHI and TOSHIO OIKE
Appeal2014-007485
Application 12/13 9 ,214
Technology Center 2800
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the
Examiner to twice reject claims 1 and 6-10. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). An Oral Hearing was held on July 15, 2016.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A liquid level detecting apparatus for detecting a liquid
level of a fuel, the apparatus comprising:
Appeal2014-007485
Application 12/13 9 ,214
a resistance plate which includes an insulating plate and a
resistor mounted on the insulating plate, the resistor having a
plurality of conductive segments;
a sliding body including an arm holder, a constituent
member connected to the arm holder, at least one contact
disposed on the constituent member for contacting on the
conductive segments, the at least one contact sliding over the
conductive segments in accordance with a change of the liquid
level of the fuel, the constituent member including a first contact
holding portion, a second contact holding portion, and a proximal
end portion;
a float which is displaced in accordance with the change
of the liquid level of the fuel; and
a float arm which interconnects the arm holder of the
sliding body and the float, and moves the sliding body in
accordance with a displacement of the float;
wherein at least a surface of the constituent member of the
sliding body is comprised of a material having a corrosion
resistance to the fuel, and at least a surface of the float arm is
comprised of the material same as the material of the surface of
the constituent member so that the surface of the float arm and
the surface of the constituent member have substantially the
same oxidation-reduction potential to prevent the occurrence of
an electrochemical reaction there between,
wherein the constituent member of the sliding body and at
least the surface of the float arm are comprised of stainless steel
to form an oxide film by causing chromium (CR) contained in
the stainless steel to react with oxygen (02) contained in the fuel,
thereby suppressing a sulfurization of the stainless steel due to a
sulfide component contained in the fuel,
wherein the at least one contact of the sliding body is made
of gold or gold alloy, or a surface of the at least one contact is
plated with gold or gold alloy, and
wherein the proximal end portion is insert-molded into the
arm holder and interconnects the first contact holding portion and
the second contact holding portion such that the first contact
holding portion and the second contact holding portion are
electrically connected together via the proximal end portion.
2
Appeal2014-007485
Application 12/13 9 ,214
REFERENCES AND REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Forgue US 2006/0219004 Al
Crary et al. US 2006/0266112 Al
Miyagawa et al. US 2007 /0085532 Al
Oct. 5, 2006
Nov. 30, 2006
Apr. 19, 2007
Kirk, CONDUCTIVITY OF GASOLINE-ETHANOL-WATER MIXTURES, published
in Fuel, Vol. 62, Dec. 1983.
Hill, THE IMPORTANCE OF CHEMICAL TREATMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE
WELDING OF STAINLESS STEEL AND ALUMINUM, presented to The Philippine
Welding Society, Oct. 1997.
Claims 1 and 6-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Forgue, Crary, Miyagawa, Kirk, and Hill. Non-Final Act.
3-7.
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend "[ c ]laim 1 recites, inter alia, three essential
components: the constituent member (26), float arm (11 ), and contact (27,
28)" and "specifies a material relationship among these members." App. Br.
6. Appellants dispute the applied combination of references teaches or
suggests the material relationship, namely, that "the constituent member of
the sliding body and at least the surface of the float arm are comprised of
stainless steel" and "the at least one contact of the sliding body is made of
gold or gold alloy, or a surface of the at least one contact is plated with gold
or gold alloy," as recited in claim 1.
Appellants argue (i.) Miyagawa is "silent as to both a constituent
member and a contact" and therefore, does not disclose the material
3
Appeal2014-007485
Application 12/13 9 ,214
relationship among the three components. Id. at 9. Appellants also argue
(ii.) Kirk does not teach the material relationship because Kirk would lead
the ordinarily skilled artisan to form all three components from stainless
steel. Id. Lastly, Appellants argue (iii.) the combination of Kirk and Crary
is improper because Kirk discourages the use of dissimilar metals and Crary
teaches the use of dissimilar metals and the combination amounts to
impermissible hindsight. Id. at 10-11.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We agree with and
adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions to the extent consistent with
our analysis below.
Arguments (i.) and (ii.) constitute individual attacks on the references,
which are not persuasive to show non-obviousness. Ans. 2 (citing In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981)). Further, argument (i.) is not
responsive to the Examiner's specific findings. The Examiner cites
Miyagawa to teach the use of stainless steel in liquid-level detecting devices
located within a fuel tank and cites Forgue as teaching the claimed
"constituent member." Ans. 2-3. Appellants' arguments do not address the
cited teachings of Forgue. See generally App. Br. 6-11.
Contrary to argument (ii.), claim 1 does not preclude "the at least one
contact of the sliding body" from also being made of stainless steel, like the
floating arm and the constituent member. All claim 1 requires is that "the at
least one contact of the sliding body is made of gold or a gold alloy, or a
surface of the at least one contact is plated with gold or gold alloy." That is,
claim 1 does not preclude the at least one contact of the sliding body from
being made of stainless steel and being plated with gold or a gold alloy.
Moreover, the Examiner acknowledges Kirk could suggest that all three
4
Appeal2014-007485
Application 12/13 9 ,214
claim elements are made of or include the same material and instead, cites
Crary to teach contacts that are formed of a material different from that of
the material forming the constituent member. Ans. 4.
With regard to argument (iii.), the Examiner finds "Kirk teaches that
dissimilar metals can be source of galvanic corrosion," and further finds "not
all dissimilar metals exhibit gross or even significant galvanic corrosion."
Id. The Examiner further finds using gold for the contacts (in combination
with stainless steel elements) would not have created a galvanic corrosion
issue. Id. at 5. The Examiner evidences the findings with a citation to Penn
Engineering (Oct. 2005):
Metals close to one another on the chart generally do not have a
strong effect on one another, but the farther apart any two
metals are separated, the stronger the corroding effect on the
one higher in the list.
Gold and stainless steel are quite close together as opposed to,
for example, stainless steel and aluminum. There would be
mm1mal, if any, galvanic corrosion between gold and stainless
steel. See also the reference to La Clusienne-Clufix (dated 17
April 2012) where table on page 7 shows that gold and stainless
steel do not exhibit significant galvanic corrosion. It is also
stated in La Clusienne-Clufix:
A few ways of fighting against this corrosion: choose metallic
pairs in which the elements are as close as possible in the table
opposite ...
Ans. 4--5 (internal quotations omitted). Based on these findings, the
Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled
artisan to combine the teachings of Kirk and Crary.
We concur with the Examiner's conclusion. The Supreme Court held
that "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
5
Appeal2014-007485
Application 12/13 9 ,214
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). In fact, Appellants
acknowledge that, "since the contact of the sliding body is made of gold, the
ionization tendency of which is lower than that of stainless steel, the most
critical part of the system (i.e., contact of the sliding body) is protected from
corrosion." App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 5. Appellants do not present sufficient
evidence that would persuade us corrosion protection would have been an
unexpected result of combining stainless steel and gold members,
particularly in light of the Examiner's finding that the ordinarily skilled
artisan would have understood that as "an inherent property of stainless
steel, ... chromium forms a passivation layer in the presence of oxygen"
(Non-Final Act. 6).
In view of the above, we are not persuaded the Examiner improperly
combined Kirk and Crary, nor are we persuaded the Examiner improperly
relied on hindsight.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Forgue, Kirk, Crary, Miyagawa, and Hill teaches
or suggests the disputed limitation, nor the limitations recited in dependent
claims 6-10, which are not separately argued. Therefore, we sustain the 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1and6-10.
6
Appeal2014-007485
Application 12/13 9 ,214
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 6-10 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7