Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 4, 2020

2020001050 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2020)

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.
14/735,509 06/10/2015 Ian CATTERMOLE 83526589 6701
28395 7590 08/04/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
REINBOLD, SCOTT A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/04/2020 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte IAN CATTERMOLE and PAUL THOMAS REINHART

Appeal 2020-001050
Application 14/735,509
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, and 21–28. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford
Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-001050
Application 14/735,509

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 6 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. An engine comprising:
a cylinder head defining an exhaust valve guide bore
having a continuous, cylindrical side wall intersecting a wall of
an exhaust port;
a cylindrical washer having an outer diameter sized to be
press fit with the side wall of the bore such that an outer face of
the washer is flush with the wall of the exhaust port adjacent
thereto, the washer defining an exhaust valve stem passage
having a diameter less than a diameter of the bore; and
an exhaust gas valve guide spaced apart from an inner
face of the washer to form an air gap therebetween and having a
cylindrical outer wall circumferentially contacting the side
wall;
wherein a coating is provided on at least one of the inner
and outer faces of the washer, the coating configured to control
a temperature of the guide during engine operation; and
wherein a length of the air gap between the guide and the
washer is sized to control a temperature of the guide during
engine operation to reduce heat transferred to the guide while
preventing overcooling and provide thermal expansion of the
guide to reduce wear.

REFERENCES
Name References Date
Gordon US 2,797,677 July 2, 1957
Rezy, Jr. (“Rezy”) US 4,184,328 Jan. 22, 1980
Marlin et al. (“Marlin”) US 5,460,139 Oct. 24, 1995
Haselkorn US 6,125,810 Oct. 3, 2000
Haefeli GB 568940 A Apr. 26, 1945
Appeal 2020-001050
Application 14/735,509

3

Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Haefeli, Haselkorn as evidenced by Rezy, Marlin, and
Gordon.
Claims 6, 11, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Haefeli and Haselkorn as evidenced by Rezy.
Claims 8 and 22–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Haefeli, Haselkorn as evidenced by Rezy, and Marlin.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Haefeli, Haselkorn as evidenced by Rezy, and Gordon.

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 calls for an engine having “a cylinder head
defining an exhaust valve guide bore having a continuous, cylindrical side
wall intersecting a wall of an exhaust port” and “a cylindrical washer having
an outer diameter sized to be press fit with the side wall of the bore such that
an outer face of the washer is flush with the wall of the exhaust port adjacent
thereto.” Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added). Similar to claim 1,
claim 6 calls for a cylinder head including “[a] washer extending between an
exhaust port and a bore sized to receive a valve guide, the washer having an
outer diameter sized for a press fit with a continuous side wall of the bore”
and “a first side of the washer positioned to be flush with an adjacent wall of
the exhaust port.” Id. (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that Haefeli discloses a cylinder head defining an
exhaust valve guide bore intersecting a wall of an exhaust port and a
cylindrical washer. Final Act. 8–9 (citing Haefeli, 1:15–30, 61–81, 2:26–58,
Appeal 2020-001050
Application 14/735,509

4

Fig. 1).2 Notably, the Examiner finds that Haefeli’s shroud F and exhaust
passage E correspond to the claimed “cylindrical washer” and “exhaust
port,” respectively. Id. at 9. However, the Examiner also finds that Haefeli
fails to disclose “a cylindrical washer having an outer diameter sized to be
press fit with the side wall of the bore such that an outer face of the washer
is flush with the wall of the exhaust port adjacent thereto,” as recited in
claim 1. Id. More specifically, Haefeli teaches positioning shroud F in
exhaust passage E. Haefeli, 2:86–87, Fig. 1; see Appeal Br. 3.
The Examiner looks to Haselkorn’s teachings, as evidenced by Rezy’s
teachings, to remedy the deficiency of Haefeli’s disclosure. Final Act. 8, 10.
The Examiner finds that Haselkorn’s second valve guide sleeve 42
corresponds the claimed “cylindrical washer.” Id. at 10 (citing Haselkorn,
Fig. 1). More specifically, the Examiner finds that Haselkorn’s second valve
guide sleeve 42 “ha[s] an outer diameter sized for a press fit with the side
wall of the bore . . . such that an outer face . . . of the washer is flush with
the wall of the exhaust port.” Id. (citing Haselkorn, col. 4, l. 57 – col. 5, l. 6,
Fig. 1).3 The Examiner reasons:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art . . . to have substituted the cylindrical washer having an
outer diameter sized for a press fit with the side wall of the bore
such that the outer face of the washer is flush with the wall of
the exhaust port adjacent thereto taught by Haselkorn for
Haefeli’s cylindrical washer [(i.e., shroud F)] attached to the

2 The Examiner annotates Haefeli’s Figure 1 to identify portions Haefeli’s
internal combustion engine that correspond to the engine components of
claim 1. Final Act. 8.
3 The Examiner annotates Haselkorn’s Figure 1 to identify portions
Haselkorn’s internal combustion engine that correspond to the engine
components of claim 1. Final Act. 10.
Appeal 2020-001050
Application 14/735,509

5

cylinder head via a twisting motion to achieve the predictable
result to attaching the cylindrical washer to the cylinder head in
a conventional manner to provide thermal protection to the
valve guide.
[The] Examiner further asserts that press fitting is well-
known, conventional, and routine in the art and that multiple
means of securing valve guides and washers are known in the
art as further evidenced by Rezy.
Id. (citing Haselkorn, col. 4, l. 57 – col. 5, l. 6; Rezy, col. 2, ll. 55–67).
In response, the “Appellant submits that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not modify Haefeli as suggested by the Examiner to reach the
limitations of claim 1.” Appeal Br. 5. The basis of the Appellant’s
argument stems from Haefeli’s teaching that:
The effect of the shroud is to screen the valve stem from the
direct effect of the exhaust flame and prevent undue heating of
the valve stem, and consequently allow of a greater proportion
of heat from the valve head flowing to the valve guide thus
reducing the temperature at the valve.

The shroud also prevents the flame impinging on the portion of
the valve stem which moves in and out of the guide; and so
prevents burning of the lubricating oil.
Id. at 3 (citing Haefeli, 1:31–43, 1:81–2:9). The Appellant points out that
“Haefeli explicitly describes that the shroud is used to shield the valve stem
by extending into the exhaust port.” Id. at 4. In this case, the Appellant
points to an issue that we cannot resolve in favor of the Examiner’s
rejection.
First, we note that the Examiner’s rejection clearly expresses a reason
for modifying the attachment of Haefeli’s shroud to the cylinder head to be
press fit; namely, a substitution of an attachment that has a twisting motion
for one with a press fit. Supra. However, the Examiner fails to provide a
Appeal 2020-001050
Application 14/735,509

6

clear reason as to why, as the result of the combined teachings, the outer
face of Haefeli’s shroud F necessarily would be positioned flush with the
wall of exhaust passage E.
Second, inasmuch as the Examiner’s rejection involves a further
modification following the proposed substitution, the Examiner fails to
provide clear reasoning as to why it would have been obvious to have
modified the outer face of Haefeli’s shroud F to be flush with the wall of
exhaust passage E. The Examiner’s reliance on Rezy’s teachings does not
remedy this gap in reasoning.
Third, if shroud F were to be flush with the wall of exhaust passage E,
then that configuration would diminish the shroud’s ability to screen the
valve stem from the exhaust flame, prevent undue heating of the valve stem,
reduce the temperature of the valve, and prevent burning of lubricating oil.
See Appeal Br. 3 (citing Haefeli, 1:31–43, 1:81–2:9); see also Ans. 8. In
response to the Appellant’s arguments in this regard, the Examiner focuses
on the notion that the proposed modification does not remove the heat break
(i.e., space H) between the top of Haefeli’s shroud F and the bottom of
Haefeli’s valve guide D (Haefeli, 2:29–31). See Ans. 7–9. Insofar as the
Examiner is suggesting that one of ordinary skill in the art would infer that
the drawbacks associated with the exposed valve stem could be acceptable in
view of other advantages, there is no discussion on the record as to why this
is so. Consequently, we determine that the Examiner fails to adequately
establish on this record why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
modified shroud F to be flush with the wall of exhaust passage E after
weighing all of the facts pertinent to the proposed modification.
Appeal 2020-001050
Application 14/735,509

7

Lastly, we note that the Examiner fails to rely on the teachings of
Marlin or Gordon in any manner that would remedy the deficiencies in the
Examiner’s rejection as discussed above. Thus, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Haefeli, Haselkorn as evidenced by
Rezy, Marlin, and Gordon.
The Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Haefeli and Haselkorn as evidenced by Rezy
includes the same deficiencies as the rejection of independent claim 1. See
Final Act. 13–15. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 6 and dependent claims 11, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Haefeli and Haselkorn as evidenced by Rezy. And,
similar to the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner’s reliance on the teachings
of Marlin or Gordon fails to remedy the deficiencies in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 6. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
dependent claims 8, 22–24, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Haefeli, Haselkorn as evidenced by Rezy, and Marlin or
Gordon.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 21 103 Haefeli, Haselkorn,
Rezy, Marlin, Gordon

1, 2, 4, 21
6, 11, 25, 26 103 Haefeli, Haselkorn,
Rezy
6, 11, 25,
26
Appeal 2020-001050
Application 14/735,509

8

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
8, 22–24 103 Haefeli, Haselkorn,
Rezy, Marlin
8, 22–24
27, 28 103 Haefeli, Haselkorn,
Rezy, Gordon
27, 28
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4, 6,
8, 11,
21–28

REVERSED