Ex Parte Pechtold et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 11, 2014

11341546 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2014)

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.
11/341,546 01/27/2006 Rainer Pechtold GP-306942 2311
65798 7590 04/11/2014
MILLER IP GROUP, PLC
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
42690 WOODWARD AVENUE
SUITE 300
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
EXAMINER
CHAUDRY, ATIF H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/11/2014 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 RAINER PECHTOLD and RALPH T. J. HOBMEYR
____________________

Appeal 2011-009118
Application 11/341,546
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-009118
Application 11/341,546

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6, 9, 10, 19-21, 23, 26, and 271. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A coolant reservoir assembly comprising:
a coolant reservoir for storing a cooling fluid and
including a gas region therein, said coolant reservoir including
a fill port in fluid communication with the inside of the coolant
reservoir; and
a multi-functional unit mounted to the coolant reservoir
and covering the fill port, said unit including a vent line and a
fill line, said unit further including a first vent valve in fluid
communication with the fill port and the vent line, said first
vent valve automatically venting the gas region if the pressure
of the gas region exceeds a first predetermined pressure, said
unit further including a second vent valve in fluid
communication with the vent line and the fill port, said second
vent valve automatically venting the gas region if the pressure
in the gas region exceeds a second predetermined pressure, said
unit further including a check valve in fluid communication
with the vent line and the fill port, said check valve allowing air
to enter the coolant reservoir if the pressure within the gas
region is below ambient pressure, said unit further including a
fill valve, said fill valve selectively connecting the fill line to
the fill port after the gas region is vented, said unit further
including an integrated body containing the vent line, the fill

1 The Examiner withdrew claims 5, 7, 8, 11-18, 22, 24, and 25 from
consideration as being drawn to a non-elected species. Non-Fin. Rej.
(mailed Mar. 9, 2010).
Appeal 2011-009118
Application 11/341,546

3
line, the first vent valve, the second vent valve, the check valve,
the fill valve, and a plurality of fluid passageways.

Evidence
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Cherrington
Taylor
Igarashi
Shields
McMullin
Smith
US 3,073,333
US 4,437,492
US 4,483,461
US 4,502,516
US 4,584,164
US 5,050,690
Jan. 15, 1963
Mar. 20, 1984
Nov. 20, 1984
Mar. 5, 1985
Apr. 22, 1986
Sep. 24, 1991
Crepeau
Guyer
US 2004/0080186 A1
US 2005/0161521 A1
Apr. 29, 2004
Jul. 28, 2005

Rejections
Claims 19 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cherrington and Shields.
Claims 20, 21, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cherrington, McMullin, and Shields.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cherrington, McMullin, Shields, and Taylor.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cherrington, McMullin, Shields, and Smith.
Claims 19 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Crepeau, Cherrington, and Shields.
Claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 20, 21, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crepeau, McMullin, Cherrington, and
Shields.
Appeal 2011-009118
Application 11/341,546

4
Claims 6 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Crepeau, McMullin, Cherrington, Shields, and Taylor.
Claims 4 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Crepeau, McMullin, Cherrington, Shields, and Smith.
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Crepeau, McMullin, Cherrington, Shields, and Igarashi.
Claims 19 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Guyer, Cherrington, and Shields.
Claims 1, 9, 10, 20, 21, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Guyer, McMullin, Cherrington, and
Shields.
Claims 6 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Guyer, McMullin, Cherrington, Shields, and Taylor.
Claims 4 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Guyer, McMullin, Cherrington, Shields, and Smith.
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Guyer, McMullin, Cherrington, Shields, and Igarashi.

OPINION
All of the Examiner’s rejections rest in relevant part on the
Examiner’s finding that Cherrington discloses a multi-functional unit
comprising a vent line, a fill line, and a vent valve and a check valve in fluid
communication with the fill port and the vent line, as called for in claims 1
and 19. The Examiner finds that Cherrington discloses “a multi-functional
unit CP mounted to the reservoir and covering the fill port . . . comprising: a
fill line 1; a fill valve 2 . . . a vent valve in fluid communication with the fill
Appeal 2011-009118
Application 11/341,546

5
port and a vent line . . . a check valve (vacuum valve) in fluid
communication with the vent line and the fill port . . . .” Ans. 4; see also id.
at 8-9, 10-11, 15, 16-17.
Paragraphs [0025]-[0026] and [0031]-[0034] of Appellants’
Specification clearly disclose a single vent line 56, 118 housed within the
multi-functional unit 10, 100, that is in fluid communication with the first
vent valve 72, the second vent valve 76, and the check valve 66. See also
Figs. 1 and 3.
Cherrington discloses a tight-fill system for tank truck loading and
discharging comprised of a cover plate CP having a filling spout S with a
connecting line 1 and a loading valve 2, a vent valve assembly 18, a gauge
19, a whistle unit 20, and a filter unit 22. Cherrington, Figs. 1, 2.
Cherrington’s vent assembly 18 vents air or gas from the tank as it is filled;
gauge 19 gives a visual level reading when the tank reaches the completely
full position; whistle vent assembly 20 gives an audible signal when the
product is flowing into the tank; and air filter assembly 22 filters all air
entering into the compartment to remove solid contaminants. Col. 2, l. 69 to
col. 3, l. 5; col. 3, ll. 12-14, 44-48.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that “Cherrington fails to disclose a vent
valve in fluid communication with the fill port and the vent line, or a check
valve in fluid communication with the vent line and the fill port” and that
“[t]here is no other fluid communication of these devices with a vent line.”
App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner responds that “[a]ll the accessories contained in the
integrated body have fluid passageways. All the fluidic components are in
Appeal 2011-009118
Application 11/341,546

6
fluid communication with one another through the interior of the tank.”
Ans. 20.
The Examiner has not specifically identified the structure in
Cherrington that constitutes the vent line called for in claims 1 and 19. The
Examiner’s discussion of Cherrington at pages 4-5, 8-9, 10-11, 15, 16-17,
and 20 of the Answer alleges that Cherrington discloses a vent valve and a
check valve in fluid communication with a fill port and a vent line, but does
not indicate where such a vent line, common to both valves, is found in
Cherrington. Thus, the Examiner fails to establish a prima facie case that the
subject matter of independent claims 1 and 19 and their dependent claims
would have been obvious.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1-4, 6, 9, 10, 19-21, 23, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6, 9, 10, 19-21, 23, 26,
and 27 is reversed.
REVERSED

hh