Ex Parte Wieland et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 201612747735 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/747,735 06/11/2010 Steffen Wieland 022862-9109 8235 34044 7590 12/21/2016 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch) 100 EAST WISCONSIN AVENUE MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 EXAMINER MACKAY-SMITH, SETH WENTWORTH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3753 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/21/2016 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): mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEFFEN WIELAND, MARION SCHIEBER-STITZ, TOBIAS LANDENBERGER, TILMAN MIEHLE, and JOCHEN WESSNER Appeal 2014-009208 Application 12/747,735 Technology Center 3700 Before LINDA E. HORNER, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Steffen Wieland et al. (“Appellants”) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated January 10, 2014 (“Final Act.”), rejecting claims 8—15 and 24—30.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants identify Robert Bosch GmbH as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2014-009208 Application 12/747,735 BACKGROUND The disclosed subject matter “is based on a fuel metering unit for a high-pressure fuel pump.” Spec. 12. Claims 8 and 30 are independent. Claim 8 is reproduced below: 8. A fuel metering unit for regulating the delivery quantity on the intake side of a high- pressure fuel pump of a fuel injection system for an internal combustion engine, in which the fuel metering unit has a regulating valve that is actuated by an electromagnet and that has a valve member, the electromagnet having an armature and an armature bolt, the armature bolt being supported axially displaceably in at least one bearing bush, wherein the at least one bearing bush is embodied as a solid, undivided metal component, the bearing bush includes a bearing face in which the armature bolt is guided, the bearing face is at least slightly convexly curved in an axial direction of a longitudinal axis of the armature bolt, wherein, in the bearing bush, the bearing face is adjoined in the axial direction of the armature bolt by noncylindrical faces, wherein the noncylindrical faces are embodied as conical or curved, an inner diameter of the bearing bush increases in the axial direction moving away from the bearing face, and the bearing face is shorter than each of the noncylindrical faces. REJECTIONS 1. Claims 8, 9, 12, 24, 25, and 27—30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Abe (US 2008/0011886 Al, published Jan. 17, 2008) and Reichert (US 7,423,421 B2, issued Sept. 9, 2008). 2 Appeal 2014-009208 Application 12/747,735 2. Claims 10, 11, 13—15, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Abe, Reichert, and Trudeau (US 6,519,847 Bl, issued Feb. 18, 2003). DISCUSSION Rejection 1 In rejecting both independent claims 8 and 30, the Examiner relied on Abe for various limitations, but found that “Abe does not specifically teach a particular length of noncylindrical or bearing faces.”2 Final Act. 4, 7. The Examiner found, however, that Reichert teaches the use of a bearing area that is of shorter length than the noncylindrical (Column 4, line 29) bearing area (Figure 1 and Column 4, line 24) in order to minimize frictional forces while allowing misalignment (Column 4, lines 15—30; specifically lines 26—27 “freedom of axial movement”). Id. at 4—5, 7. According to the Examiner, “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to improve the device of Abe by using a bearing that allows misalignment by minimizing the bearing surface as taught by Reichert.” Ans. 3—4, 6.3 For both independent claims, Appellants argue that “the Examiner is incorrect that one of ordinary skill in the art would substitute any portion of the sleeve 21 of Reichert for the guide 127 of Abe.” Appeal Br. 9; see also 2 Claim 8 recites “the bearing face is shorter than each of the noncylindrical faces.” Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). Claim 30 recites “the noncylindrical faces are embodied as conical along a length longer than the bearing face.” Id. at 15. 3 In the reasoning statements in the Final Office Action, the Examiner also discussed “reducing friction.” Final Act. 5,7. With the Answer, the Examiner removes those portions of the reasoning statements. Ans. 8. 3 Appeal 2014-009208 Application 12/747,735 id. at 10-11 (relying on arguments made for claim 8 to address claim 30). According to Appellants, “Abe makes clear that the plunger portion 114A moves linearly” whereas “Reichert, on the other hand, teaches pivoting motion of the actuator rod 25 inconsistent with linear motion.” Id. (citing Abe 128 and Reichert, col. 4,11. 25—30). Appellants contend that “the pivoting motion permitted by the constriction 45 of Reichert is contrary to the straight reciprocating motion taught within Abe” and that “one of ordinary skill in the art would avoid such a combination and at the very least would see no reason to modify the device of Abe to include such an inconsistent feature.” Id. Appellants also argue that “the allegation that misalignment within the fuel injection valve of Abe is permissible or acceptable for such a device is a conclusory leap not supported within Abe or by anything else the Examiner has set forth.” Id. at 10. The Examiner responds that “the possible motion of the rod within the device of Reichert” “is not relied upon for the rejection” in that “Reichert is only relied upon for the teaching that a smaller bearing face, or area, allows misalignment (some degree of tilt angle) if necessary.” Ans. 8. The Examiner also states that “[t]he device of Abe is improved by allowing some misalignment because a bearing face that is not relieved at the ends would tend to cause the shaft to bind as it reciprocates” and that “Abe Figures 2 and 3A already teach that some relief or bevel is necessary.” Id. at 9. Rejections based on obviousness must be supported by “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not provided 4 Appeal 2014-009208 Application 12/747,735 adequate articulated reasoning to modify Abe with the relied-upon teachings from Reichert to support the conclusion of obviousness. See Appeal Br. 9— 11. As argued by Appellants, the Examiner has not shown that modifying the identified “bearing bush”—plunger guide 113 of Abe (which includes guide hole 127)—to allow misalignment of plunger portion 114A (i.e., allow tilt off the vertical axis as shown in Figure 2) would be permissible or acceptable in the context of the relied-upon embodiment in Abe. Ans. 4, 6; see Appeal Br. 10. As noted by Appellants, Abe discloses that “the slim and long plunger portion 114A is guided by the guide hole 127 of the plunger guide 113 and the guide hole of the guide member 115 so as to perform straight reciprocating motion.'1'’ Abe 128 (emphasis added and boldface omitted); see Appeal Br. 9. Further, because the guide hole in guide member 115 (Abe, Fig. 1) also provides guidance to plunger portion 114A {id. 128), it is unclear that modifying plunger guide 113 as proposed would result in “allowing] misalignment” of plunger portion 114A. Ans. 4, 6. Although the Examiner is correct that portions of guide hole 127 at the interface with plunger portion 114A are beveled {see Ans. 9; Abe, Fig. 2), we do not agree that this shows that “some relief... is necessary” (thereby supporting the reasoning statement) without also showing that “relief’ from binding is already provided (and thereby undermining the reasoning statement). See Reply Br. 3. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 30, or the rejection of claims 9, 12, 24, 25, and 27—29, which depend from claim 8. 5 Appeal 2014-009208 Application 12/747,735 Rejection 2 Claims 10, 11, 13—15, and 26 depend from claim 8. Appeal Br. 12—14 (Claims App.). The Examiner’s added reliance on Trudeau does not remedy the deficiencies discussed above (see supra Rejection 1). Thus, for the same reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 10, 11, 13—15, and 26. DECISION We REVERSE the decision to reject claims 8—15 and 24—30. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation