Ross Dykstra. Pursifull et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 29, 2019

14042971 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/042,971 10/01/2013
36865 7590 01/21/2020
MCCOY RUSSELL LLP
806 S.W. BROADWAY, SUITE 600
PORTLAND, OR 97205
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ross Dykstra Pursifull
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
83387215 6730
EXAMINER
LAGUARDA,GONZALO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/21/2020 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):
usptomail@mccrus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte CHIH-CHANG CHOU and WAN-YI LIN
Appeal2017-010008
Application 14/042,971
Technology Center 3700
Before BRADLEY B. BAY AT, FREDERICK C. LANEY, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision (mailed Sept. 8, 2016, hereinafter "Non-Final Act.") rejecting
claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pursifull (US
2009/0090331 Al, pub. Apr. 9, 2009) and Cheever (US 2014/0150751 Al,
pub. June 5, 2014). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Appellant's counsel appeared for an oral hearing on September 12, 2019.
We REVERSE.
1 We use the word "Appellant" to refer to "applicant" as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Ford Global Technologies, LLC as
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-010008
Application 14/042,971
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
By way of background, the Specification explains that "[m]any
internal combustion engines utilize Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) to
increase the power efficiency and range over which the fuel can be delivered
to [a] cylinder" of an engine. Spec. 1. The Specification notes that "GDI
fuel injectors may require high pressure fuel for injection to create enhanced
atomization for more efficient combustion" and that "a high-pressure fuel
pump may be used to increase the pressure of fuel delivered" to these fuel
injectors. Id. The high-pressure fuel pump may include a solenoid actuated
"spill valve" (SV) to control flow of fuel into the high-pressure fuel pump,
but throughout operation the actuation of the SV may generate
noise/vibration/harshness (NVH). Id. The Specification states that the
inventors "recognized potential issues" with the previous approaches to
address these NVH conditions, but contends that those issues could be
overcome, "at least partially," by operating a solenoid valve coupled to a
direct injection fuel pump, comprising adjusting a pull-in electrical energy of
the solenoid valve based on a fuel injection pump volumetric efficiency.
Claims 1, 10, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below
and is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A method for operating a solenoid valve coupled to an
inlet valve of a fuel injection pump, comprising:
adjusting a pull-in electrical energy of the solenoid valve,
including adjusting a pull-in applied voltage level of a duty
cycle of the solenoid valve and a pull-in applied voltage
duration of the duty cycle, based on a fuel injection pump
volumetric efficiency.
Appeal Br. 28, Claims App. ( emphasis added).
2
Appeal2017-010008
Application 14/042,971
ANALYSIS
The Examiner's determination that independent claims 1, 10, and 15
would have been obvious in view of Pursifull and Cheever depends on a
finding that Pursifull discloses adjusting a pull-in electrical energy of a
solenoid valve coupled to an inlet valve of a fuel injection pump based on a
fuel injection pump volumetric efficiency. See Non-Final Act. 2, 4, 5.
Appellant argues that Pursifull does not support this finding by Examiner.
Appeal Br. 10-11, 24, 26. For the following reasons, we agree.
The Examiner cites paragraphs 4, 16, 17, 19, 24, and 25 of Pursifull as
disclosing adjusting a pull-in electrical energy of the solenoid valve,
including adjusting a pull-in applied voltage duration of the duty cycle,
based on a fuel injection pump volumetric efficiency. Non-Final Act. 2, 4,
5. The Examiner, however, does not identify anything specific within these
paragraphs that supports these findings. Subsequently, in response to
arguments made by Appellant before the Non-Final Action, the Examiner
explains that paragraph 24 of Pursifull "discloses how the desired rail
pressure would create a high pressure pump command to move a specified
amount of fuel into the fuel rail" and paragraph 19 "discloses controlling the
'flow control valve' which is item 142, a solenoid, 'to control the amount of
fuel delivered during the pump stroke."' Id. at 7. The Examiner states
paragraph 19 is not dealing only with the volume of fueled delivered, but "if
one has a certain volume of fuel to deliver to the fuel rail one must know the
volumetric efficiency of the pump to accurately control the flow control
valve to deliver said volume." Id. The Examiner asserts, "[t]he volumetric
efficiency of a pump will inform a person how many units of fuel can be
moved by the pump." Id. The Examiner explains further,
3
Appeal2017-010008
Application 14/042,971
Id.
[p Jaragraph 25 discloses determining a volumetric efficiency
error and paragraph 19 discloses controlling volume pumped by
controlling the solenoid valve, it would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to consider an already contemplated error in the high
pressure fuel injection pump when controlling the solenoid
valve to control a volume of fuel actually pumped to the fuel
rail.
In the Answer, the Examiner notes that "[t]here is always
inefficiencies in pumps which is a measurement called volumetric
efficiency." Ans. 3. The Examiner asserts that, in paragraph 25, Pursifull
"discloses how the command signal operating the pump (shown in fig. lB as
controlling the solenoid valve) is used to 'identify the efficiency of the
higher pressure pump'" and that, in paragraph 30, Pursifull discloses an
efficiency setpoint for the high pressure fuel pump, which can be varied by
the control system. Id. The Examiner concludes, "[t]he only control that the
control system has to directly command the high pressure pump is through
the solenoid valve and so this variation of the volumetric efficiency is done
through the voltage provided to the solenoid valve." Id. at 4.
We agree with the Examiner that Pursifull discloses a solenoid valve
coupled to an inlet valve of a fuel injection pump, which has a controller that
enables an efficiency setpoint to be either fixed or varied, and that Pursifull
discloses calculating and using volumetric efficiency, but the Examiner has
not shown that Pursifull discloses using volumetric efficiency to control the
selection of the efficiency setpoint for the pump. First, Pursifull teaches that
the efficiency setpoint can be either set "to provide desired pump efficiency
or effectiveness" or "the efficiency setpoint can be varied responsive to
pump temperature, pump speed, fuel temperature, or other ambient
4
Appeal2017-010008
Application 14/042,971
conditions." Pursifull ,i 30. In other words, Pursifull suggests fixing the
efficiency setpoint value or varying that values based on factors other than
volumetric efficiency calculated. Second, although Pursifull also teaches
controlling the high pressure pump, which has the solenoid valve, based on
fuel pressure error to maintain a prescribed fuel rail pressure (id. iJ24),
Pursifull teaches using volumetric efficiency to control a different pump in
the system-namely, the lower pressure pump, which does not include a
solenoid valve (id. iJ25). See id. Fig. 2. Specifically, Pursifull states that the
volumetric efficiency "can be used by controller 214 to identify and issue a
pump commandfor the lower pressure fuel pump 130." Id. ,i 25, Fig. 2
(emphasis added). None of the other paragraphs of Pursifull cited by the
Examiner suggest using volumetric efficiency to actually control the high
pressure pump. On this record, the Examiner simply has not made a
showing sufficient to establish Pursifull discloses adjusting a pull-in
electrical energy of a solenoid valve coupled to an inlet valve of a fuel
injection pump based on a fuel injection pump volumetric efficiency.
As a result, a preponderance of the evidence fails to support the
Examiner's obviousness determination of independent claims 1, 10, and 15,
as well as those claims depending therefrom. Therefore, we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 as being unpatentable in view of
Pursifull and Cheever.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
5
Appeal2017-010008
Application 14/042,971
DECISION SUMMARY
1-20 § 103 Pursifull, Cheever
REVERSED
6
1-20