Ex parte SMITH et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 28, 1998

08237537 (B.P.A.I. May. 28, 1998)

Application for patent filed May 3, 1994.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte JAMES C. SMITH and DARWIN A. BECKER
__________
Appeal No. 97-1149
Application No. 08/237,5371
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before ABRAMS, STAAB and CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judges.
ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the decision of the examiner finally
rejecting claims 1-8, which constitute all of the claims of
record in the application.
The appellants’ invention is directed to a method (claims
1-4) and an apparatus (claims 5-8) of determining a desired
pressure across fuel injectors of an internal combustion engine.
Appeal No. 97-1149
Application No. 08/237,537
2
The subject matter before us on appeal is illustrated by
reference to claim 1, which has been reproduced in an appendix to
the appellants’ Brief on Appeal.
THE REFERENCE
The reference relied upon by the examiner to support the
final rejection is:
Betki et al. (Betki) 5,237,975 Aug. 24, 1993
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Betki.
The statement of the rejection is found in Paper No. 3 (the
first office action), while the explanation of the rejection is
found in the Paper No. 15 (the Examiner’s Answer).
The opposing viewpoints of the appellants are set forth in
the Brief and the Reply Brief.
OPINION
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness (see In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
Appeal No. 97-1149
Application No. 08/237,537
3
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), which is established when the
teachings of the prior art itself would appear to have suggested
the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art
(see In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed.
Cir. 1993)). If the examiner fails to establish a prima facie
case, the rejection is improper and will be overturned. See In
re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir.
1988).
The objective of the appellants’ invention is to provide
improved accuracy in metering the fuel to internal combustion
engines of the type which utilize fuel injectors supplied from a
fuel rail. As manifested in independent method claim 1, the
invention comprises the steps of
determining a first fuel injection pressure required to
keep fuel in the fuel rail liquid;
determining a second fuel injection pressure to keep
the fuel injectors operating in a low-sensitivity
region of their fuel flow curve; and
selecting the larger of the first and second fuel
injection pressures as the desired fuel injection
pressure to be maintained so as to provide liquid fuel
at a minimum absolute fuel injection pressure.
By way of understanding the substance of the claim language, the
appellants point out that problems arise if the fuel is not kept
at such pressure in the fuel rail as to maintain it in the liquid
Appeal No. 97-1149
Application No. 08/237,537
4
state (specification, page 4), and that the “low-sensitivity
region” of the fuel injectors is a portion of the operating range
where the fuel injector fuel flow is relatively insensitive to
small variations in the length of the opening of the injectors.
Injector fuel flow sensitivity is a function of the time the
injector is kept open, the pressure across the injector, the
temperature of the fuel and the injectors, the fuel viscosity,
and other factors. Specification, pages 4 and 5.
Our understanding of the examiner’s position is that all of
the steps recited in claim 1 inherently are accomplished by the
system disclosed by Betki. However, we do not agree with the
reasoning that he has set forth to substantiate that position.
Nowhere in the Betki reference is there any discussion of the
operating ranges of the injectors, much less use of the phrase
“low sensitivity region,” nor is there a disclosure of the
factors which the appellants have listed as being related to this
factor. Thus, even if we accede, arguendo, to the examiner’s
position that Betki selects one or the other of two pressure
levels at which to operate the system, there is no evidence which
supports the conclusion that one of these pressure levels is
related to the required “low sensitivity region.” We also remain
unconvinced that Betki’s determination of the pressure
Appeal No. 97-1149
Application No. 08/237,537
5
differential across the injectors encompasses the appellants’
step of “determining” the fuel injection pressure which will
maintain the fuel in the liquid state, especially when
considering that Betki establishes that this must be maintained
at a minimum value of 40psi (column 3, lines 2 and 3, and 55-58).
No such limit is set forth in the appellants’ disclosure or
claims, and they argue that they do not wish to be constrained by
such, for situations can arise in which the pressure need not be
as high as 40psi (Brief, pages 5-7).
It therefore is our view that the teachings of Betki fail to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the
subject matter of independent claim 1, and we will not sustain
the rejection.
Independent apparatus claim 5 contains the same limitations,
and therefore the rejection on the basis of Betki suffers from
the same problems, and will not be sustained.
It follows that the rejection of dependent claims 2-4 and
6-8 also will not be sustained.
Appeal No. 97-1149
Application No. 08/237,537
6
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
)
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD )
Administrative Patent Judge)
Appeal No. 97-1149
Application No. 08/237,537
7
Peter Abolins
Ford Motor Company
911 Parklane Towers East
One Parklane Boulevard
Dearborn, MI 48126