10537032 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2013)

Ex Parte Miller

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 2013

10537032 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/537,032 11/14/2005 Frank Miller 10191/3696 1223 26646 7590 02/25/2013 KENYON & KENYON LLP ONE BROADWAY NEW YORK, NY 10004 EXAMINER GORMAN, DARREN W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3752 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/25/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte FRANK MILLER ____________ Appeal 2010-000431 Application 11/537,032 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BRETT C. MARTIN and TIMOTHY J. O’HEARN, Administrative Patent Judges. O’HEARN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-000431 Application 11/537,032 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a heated fuel injection device. The Examiner has rejected claims 14–17, 19–24, 26 and 28 as anticipated and claim 25 as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a device for injecting and vaporizing fuel. The device employs an electric heating element to assist particularly in cold operating conditions. Claim 14 is the sole independent claim and is reproduced below: 14. A dosing device for a liquid fuel, for input into a chemical reformer in order to recover hydrogen or into a post-combustion device in order to generate heat, comprising: at least one metering device to meter fuel into a metering conduit; a nozzle body adjoining the metering conduit, the nozzle body having at least one spray discharge opening which opens into a metering chamber; and at least one heating element with which heat can be delivered to the fuel, including at least one of a wire braid networked in mesh fashion, and a tubular hollow element, wherein the heating element delivers heat at least to a part of at least one of the metering conduit, the adapter, the metering device, and the nozzle body, and wherein the fuel is heated into an entirely vapor phase. Appeal 2010-000431 Application 11/537,032 3 THE REJECTIONS Claims 14-17, 19-24, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Krohn (US 5,947,091, iss. Sep. 7, 1999). Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krohn. ISSUE The issue presented by this appeal is whether the Examiner was correct in finding that the device taught in Krohn includes at least one heating element as defined in claim 14 and its dependents. ANALYSIS Rejections of claims 14-17, 19-24, 26 and 28 Regarding the anticipation rejections of the above claims, we agree with the Examiner's finding of features that correspond to features set forth in the claims. Appellants argue that Krohn does not, in its figures or its text, disclose a structure in which the heating elements deliver heat to any of the potential heat recipients recited in the claims. App. Br. 3–4. The Examiner's response to this cites to Col. 5. Ll. 35–38 of Krohn, which states “depending on the shape of the injected fuel stream, some of the injected fuel may also strike the inside surface of receptacle sleeve 22, where it is also evaporated if receptacle 22 is hot enough.” Ans. 6. The Examiner also cites to Col. 5, ll. 42–44 of Krohn, which states that the fuel is “heated by heating element 43 and by outlet valve 30 which is also heated by the heating element.” Ans. 7. Finally, the Examiner finds that, due to the contact or close proximity of the component parts in Krohn with the heating elements, heating would naturally occur by convection and/or conduction. Appeal 2010-000431 Application 11/537,032 4 Ans. 7–8. Appellant’s only counter to this point is that Krohn does not “mention” that there is direct contact to provide for heat transfer. Reply Br. 2. We note that regardless of whether it is expressly mentioned in the text, it is evident from a review of figure 1, as the Examiner explains in the Answer. Answer 7-8. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings. Appellant entered an amendment after final which added the limitation regarding the fuel being “heated into an entirely vapor phase.” Appellant argues that this is lacking in Krohn and seems to suggest that this clause requires complete vaporization prior to entry into the metering chamber. App. Br. 4. As the examiner correctly points out, there is no question that Krohn shows a device in which there is “complete vaporization”. Abstract, ll. 5-7; and see Col. 2, ll. 2-3. Moreover, the Examiner correctly points out that the claim language does not require that complete vaporization occur before entry into the metering chamber as Appellant argued. Ans. 9. Again, we agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings in this regard. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 14, and dependent claims 15-17, 19- 24, 26 and 28, as anticipated by Krohn. Rejection of Claim 25 Although Appellant presents a separate section arguing the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25 as obvious over Krohn, Appellant relies upon the same argument above with respect to claim 14. Ans. 5. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 25 for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 14. Appeal 2010-000431 Application 11/537,032 5 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 14-17, 19-26 and 28 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED. Klh