Ex Parte Straub

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 14, 2017

12752274 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2017)

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.
12/752,274 04/01/2010 ROBERT D. STRAUB P011389-PTDE-DPH 2160
74175 7590 08/16/2017
Harness Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (GM)
P.O. Box 828
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
EXAMINER
LE, VIET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2017 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):
gm-inbox@hdp.com
troymailroom @hdp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT D. STRAUB
Appeal 2015-007993
Application 12/752,274
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Robert D. Straub (Appellant)1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 6—11, and 16—20.2 We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is GM GLOBAL
TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 2—\ and 12—15 are canceled {id.), and, according to the Examiner,
claim 5 is in allowable condition (Ans. 4).
Appeal 2015-007993
Application 12/752,274
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to fuel injectors. Spec. 11. Claim
1, reproduced below from pages 17—18 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A fuel injector comprising:
a housing defining a longitudinal bore, a high pressure
fuel duct in communication with the longitudinal bore and a
valve seat including a valve seat surface and an aperture, the
valve seat surface being in communication with the high
pressure fuel duct and the aperture extending through the valve
seat surface and being in communication with the longitudinal
bore, the housing further defines a nozzle having a nozzle wall
and a nozzle outlet, the nozzle extends between the valve seat
and the nozzle outlet and an entirety of the nozzle continuously
tapers inwardly from the aperture of the valve seat to the nozzle
outlet;
a pintle nozzle assembly including a stem and a pintle,
the pintle defining a terminal end of the entire pintle nozzle
assembly, the pintle nozzle assembly being at least partially
disposed within the longitudinal bore and being variably
displaceable between a first position and a second position, the
pintle nozzle assembly abutting the valve seat in the first
position to seal the aperture, the pintle nozzle assembly being
displaced from the valve seat in the second position to open the
aperture, the pintle being disposed within the nozzle and having
a constant diameter dimension along an entire length thereof
from a proximal end adjacent said stem to a distal end of the
pintle where both the pintle and the entire pintle nozzle
assembly terminate, wherein an area between the pintle and the
nozzle wall varies along at least a portion of the length of the
nozzle such that the area increases as the actuation assembly
2
Appeal 2015-007993
Application 12/752,274
moves the pintle nozzle assembly between the first position and
the second position; and
an actuation assembly coupled with the pintle nozzle
assembly, wherein the actuation assembly operates to move the
pintle nozzle assembly to a plurality of positions between the
first position and the second position.
REJECTIONS3
Claims 1, 6, 8—11, 16, and 18—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heinrich (US 2,017,028, issued Oct. 8,
1935) and Mock (US 1,952,816, issued Mar. 27, 1934).4
Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Heinrich, Mock, and Matsumura (US 7,306,169 B2,
issued Dec. 11, 2007).
ANALYSIS
Obviousness Based on Heinrich and Mock
Claims 1, 6, and 8—10
The Examiner finds that Heinrich discloses a fuel injector
substantially as recited in claim 1, including, inter alia, a housing defining a
nozzle, and a pintle nozzle assembly including a pintle (pin z) disposed
within the nozzle and having a constant diameter from a proximal end to a
distal end of the pintle, where the both pintle and the pintle assembly
3 A rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) has been withdrawn, and
the Examiner has deemed the claim to be in allowable condition. Ans. 4.
4 Although claims 10 and 20 are not included in the heading of this rejection,
these claims are addressed in the body of the rejection. Final Act. 2, 4. We
consider the Examiner’s omission a typographical error.
3
Appeal 2015-007993
Application 12/752,274
terminate. Final Act. 2—3 (citing Heinrich, Figs. 1, 5, 6). The Examiner
relies on Mock to teach a nozzle continuously tapering radially inwardly to
the outlet, and reasons that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill to modify Heinrich’s nozzle to have a continuous, radially inward taper
because “it is well-known in the art that adjusting and changing the shape of
a nozzle would result in a predictable spray pattern and it would have been
obvious to apply a well-known nozzle since it would only require routine
skill in the art.” Id. at 3.
Appellant traverses, arguing, inter alia, that “the cylindrical portion Z
of [Heinrich] is not where the entire pintle nozzle assembly terminates”
because “[Heinrich] has an unlabeled tapering diameter section below
section Z and an outwardly tapering section at the distal end.” Appeal Br.
12. Thus, Appellant asserts, “[Heinrich] fails to disclose a pintle having a
constant diameter dimension along an entire length thereof where both the
pintle and the entire nozzle pintle assembly terminate, as claimed.” Id.
The Examiner responds by interpreting the claim term “terminate” not
to preclude having other accessories or components attached to the terminal
end of the pintle. Ans. 5. Continuing, the Examiner explains that the
“tapering component (such as element 13 shown in Figs. 8-9 [similar] to that
of Figs. 2-4 used in the [rejection])” “are sections attached to the terminal
end of the pintle assembly, the terminal end ending where Z and 13 are
attached.” Id.
The “tapering component” referenced by the Examiner is an obtuse
cone, which is used to guide the jet of fuel sprayed from Heinrich’s fuel
injector and which ensures proper atomization of the fuel so that proper
4
Appeal 2015-007993
Application 12/752,274
ignition combustion is achieved. Heinrich 2, col. 2,11. 17—21; 3, col. 1,
11. 31—48, 58—61; 3, col. 2,11. 1—9, 27—32. Heinrich further discloses that
this obtuse cone is an integral part of the pin (which the Examiner finds to
correspond to the recited pintle): “The lower part of the pin is made
obtusely conical for guiding the jet of fuel, and in such a way that the obtuse
cone with its larger diameter forms the lower end of the needle.'1'’ Id. at 2,
col. 2,11. 17—21 (emphasis added). We note that Heinrich’s pin z is an
extension of needle b. Id. at 1, col. 1,11. 13—16. We, therefore, disagree
with the Examiner’s determination that the obtuse cone is a separate
component attached to the pin rather than being an integral part thereof. The
rejection of claim 1 is, thus, based on an erroneous factual finding, and the
conclusion of obviousness cannot stand. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011,
1017 (CCPA 1967).
Regarding the Examiner’s citation to Heinrich’s Figure 6 (Final Act.
3), we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “[bjecause the nozzle
includes spraying holes ‘A’, even a modification of the cylindrical guide to
have a tapering surface does not result in the entire nozzle having a
continuous taper all of the way to the nozzle outlet, as claimed” (Reply Br.
6-7).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
of claim 1 or its dependent claims 6 and 8—10 as being unpatentable over
Heinrich and Mock.
Claims 11, 16, and 18—20
Independent claim 11 recites an engine assembly including a fuel
injector similar to that recited in claim 1, including, inter alia, the
5
Appeal 2015-007993
Application 12/752,274
requirement that “the pintle . . . having a constant diameter dimension along
an entire length thereof from a proximal end adjacent said stem to a distal
end of the pintle where both the pintle and the pintle nozzle assembly
terminate.” Appeal Br. 21—22 (Claims App.). The Examiner rejects claim
11 in the same manner as claim 1 (Final Act. 2—3), and Appellant relies on
the same arguments discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1
(Appeal Br. 11—12).
For the same reasons as discussed above, we also do not sustain the
rejection of claim 11 or its dependent claims 16 and 18—20 as being
unpatentable over Heinrich and Mock.
Obviousness Based on Heinrich, Mock, and Matsumura
Claim 7 depends from claim 1, and claim 17 depends from claim 11.
Appeal Br. 19, 22 (Claims App.). Because Matsumura is not relied upon by
the Examiner in any manner that would remedy the deficiencies noted above
with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 11, we likewise do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 17 as being unpatentable over
Heinrich, Mock, and Matsumura.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 6—11, and 16—20 is
reversed.
REVERSED
6