Ex Parte Luft

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 25, 2007

10089668 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 25, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is not binding
precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HEINZ LUFT
____________

Appeal 2007-2439
Application 10/089,668
Technology Center 3700
____________

Decided: July 25, 2007
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals the final rejection of claims 26-29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

INTRODUCTION
Appellant claims a fuel injector for injecting fuel in an internal
combustion engine (claim 26). The fuel injector has an adjusting body (40)
placed in direct contact with a sleeve (24) so that a fuel amount flowing per
Appeal 2007-2439
Application 10/089,668

unit time through the fuel injector depends on a position of the adjusting
body in the sleeve (claim 26; Figure 2, 3, and 4). Appellant indicates that
including the adjusting body (40) permits flow rate of the fuel to be adjusted
in a mechanical manner (Specification 3: 15-18).
Claims 26, 28, and 29 are illustrative:
26. A fuel injector for a fuel injection system of an internal
combustion engine, in particular for direct injection of fuel into a
combustion chamber of the engine, the fuel injector comprising:

an actuator;

a valve closing body to form a sealing seat with a valve seat face;

a valve needle mechanically linked to the actuator and to be acted
upon by a restoring spring in a closing direction, to actuate valve closing
body;

a sleeve to pre-stress the restoring spring; and

an adjusting body placed in direct contact with the sleeve so as to be
adjustable so that a fuel amount flowing per unit of time through the fuel
injector depends on a position of the adjusting body in the sleeve.

28. The fuel injector of claim 26, wherein the restoring spring is
supported on an injection end of the sleeve.

29. The fuel injector of claim 27, wherein the position of the adjusting
body is variable in the sleeve via a first adjusting tool.

2
Appeal 2007-2439
Application 10/089,668

The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference as evidence
of unpatentability:
Boecking1 WO 01/11220 A1 Feb. 15, 2001 (Aug. 1, 2000)

The rejection as presented by the Examiner is as follows:
1. Claims 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
unpatentable over Boecking.2
Appellant separately argues independent claim 26 and dependent claims
28 and 29. Accordingly, dependent claim 27 stands or falls with claim 26.

OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 102 REJECTION OVER BOECKING
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 26
The Examiner’s construction of claim 26 includes, in relevant part, the
following: (1) the claim 26 phrase “sleeve to pre-stress the restoring spring”
corresponds to Boecking’s part indicated by reference numeral 13 that abuts
the nozzle spring 12 (Answer 3), and (2) the claim 26 phrase “an adjusting
body placed in direct contact with the sleeve so as to be adjustable”

1 The Examiner relies on the equivalent US Patent 6,626,371 B1 for an
English language translation of the German language WIPO document (WO
01/11220 A1). Appellant does not dispute the use of US Patent 6,626,371
B1 as an English language equivalent of the German language WIPO
document. We refer to the US Patent 6,626,371 B1 in our opinion below.
2 Appellant has not contested the availability of WO 01/11220 A1 under §
102(e) as asserted by the Examiner, and WO 01/11220 A1 is clearly
available as prior art under § 102(a). Accordingly, any error on the part of
the Examiner, regarding which section of 35 U.S.C. § 102 is applicable, is
harmless.
3
Appeal 2007-2439
Application 10/089,668

corresponds to Boecking’s bush 16 which moves during operation of the fuel
injector (Answer 3).
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not established a prima facie
case of anticipation because claim features are not disclosed by Boecking
(Br. 3). Specifically, Appellant contends that Boecking fails to disclose “a
sleeve to pre-stress the restoring spring” as recited in claim 26 (Br. 3).
Appellant contends that the part indicated by reference numeral 13 of nozzle
needle 5 in Boecking does not pre-stress nozzle spring 12 (Br. 3). Appellant
argues that Boecking does not disclose “an adjustment body” as recited in
claim 26 (Br. 4). Appellant further argues that Boecking’s bush 16 (i.e.,
sleeve according to Appellant) is moveable, whereas Appellant’s claimed
invention has fixed sleeve 24 into which a moveable adjusting body 40 is
inserted (Reply Br. 2).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and find them
unpersuasive for the reasons indicated below.
During examination, “claims … are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and … claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re American Academy of
Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the
applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to
obtain more precise claim coverage. Id.
Boecking discloses that nozzle spring 12 is pre-stressed between
collar 17 and the end-face (13) (i.e., sleeve) of the nozzle needle 5
(Boecking, col. 4, ll. 13-24). The cooperation of the end-face 13 (i.e.,
4
Appeal 2007-2439
Application 10/089,668

sleeve) of nozzle needle 5 and the collar 17 on bush 16 operates to form a
pre-stressed nozzle spring 12. Hence, we find, like the Examiner, that
Boecking’s end-face 13 (i.e., sleeve) does pre-stress the nozzle spring 12.
Boecking discloses Appellant’s argued claim feature.
Regarding Appellant’s second argued distinction, “an adjusting body
placed in direct contact with the sleeve so as to be adjustable,” Boecking
discloses this claim feature. As the Examiner indicates, Boecking discloses
that bush 16 moves up and down in response to pressure changes to effect an
opening or closing of the nozzle needle 5 (Boecking, col. 5, ll. 2-9).
Moreover, Boecking shows that bush 16 is positioned within the end-face 13
(i.e., sleeve) of nozzle needle 5 (Boecking, Figures 1 and 2). Thus, Boecking
discloses Appellant’s second argued distinction.
Appellant’s argument that his sleeve 24 is fixed and adjusting body 40
moves within the sleeve 24, whereas Boecking’s “sleeve 16” (i.e., bush) is
moveable (Reply Br. 2), is directed to features of the sleeve and adjusting
body that are not claimed. Claim 26 does not recite that the sleeve is fixed
or that the adjusting body moves within the sleeve (claim 26). Accordingly,
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Examiner has
appropriately construed claim 26 in a broad and reasonable manner
consistent with the Specification. American Academy of Science, 367 F.3d
at 1364, 70 USPQ2d at 1830. Based on this claim construction, the
Examiner has established that Boecking discloses Appellant’s argued
distinctions. We affirm the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of argued claim 26
and non-argued claim 27.

5
Appeal 2007-2439
Application 10/089,668

CLAIM 28
Appellant argues that nozzle spring 12 of Boecking is supported on a
non-injection end of control chamber 15 whereas claim 28 recites that the
restoring spring is supported on an injection end of the sleeve (Br. 4).
We have considered Appellant’s argument and find it unpersuasive
for the reasons below.
The Examiner takes the position that Appellant has failed to indicate
which end is the injection end and thus, “the broadest reasonable
interpretation of ‘injection end’” can include any “end” which is associated
with “an injection” (Answer 7). The Examiner uses this construction of the
claim term “an injection end” to determine that, since fuel is throttled into
control chamber 15 via inlet throttle 19, the end-face 13 of nozzle needle 5
which abuts the nozzle spring 12 must be “an injection end” (Answer 7).
We agree.
As noted above, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification during examination.
American Academy of Science, 367 F.3d at 1364, 70 USPQ2d at 1830. An
applicant “may demonstrate an intent to deviate from the ordinary and
accustomed meaning of a claim term by including in the specification
expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear
disavowal of claim scope.” American Academy of Science, 367 F.3d at
1365, 70 USPQ2d at 1831.
Appellant has not included in his Specification “expressions of
manifest exclusion or restriction” that would lead us to conclude that “an
injection end” has a different meaning than the ordinary and accustomed
meaning given to it by the Examiner. We determine that the Examiner
6
Appeal 2007-2439
Application 10/089,668

reasonably construed “an injection end” to include the end-face 13 (i.e.,
sleeve) of nozzle needle 5 which includes inlet throttle 19 through which
fuel is throttled (i.e., injected).
We affirm the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claim 28.

CLAIM 29
Appellant argues that Boecking does not disclose the claim feature
“the position of the adjusting body is variable in the sleeve via a first
adjusting tool” (Br. 5). Appellant further argues that Boecking’s bush 16
moves by variation in fluid pressure not via an adjusting tool (Br. 5).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and find them
unpersuasive for the reasons below.
The Examiner takes the position that claim 29 does not require the
adjusting tool (Answer 7). Stated differently, the Examiner contends that
claim 29 only requires that the adjusting body be capable of adjustment
(Answer 7). We agree.
Claim 29 does not require an adjusting tool be part of the claimed fuel
injector. As the Examiner indicates, Appellant discloses that the adjustment
bolt 45 (i.e., adjusting tool) is removed from the fuel injector and the filter
element 25 is replaced in the central recess 47 after adjustment
(Specification 8: 26-29). This disclosure indicates that the adjustment tool is
not part of the fuel injector. Rather, the claimed fuel injector need only have
an adjusting body that is capable of being adjusted via an adjusting tool. In
re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In the present case, Boecking’s fuel injector is capable of adjustment
using the control valve member 22 and the rod positioned atop control valve
7
Appeal 2007-2439
Application 10/089,668

member 22. Specifically, when control valve member 22 opens, the
pressure drops in the control chamber 15 while fuel continues to flow into
the nozzle spring chamber 10 via fuel inlet 11 such that the pressure in
spring chamber 10 is greater than in control chamber 15 (Boecking, col. 4, ll.
35-54). This causes the nozzle needle 5 to move upwardly and open the fuel
orifice 7 (Boecking, col. 4, ll. 35-54). When the control valve member 22
closes, the fuel in spring nozzle chamber 10 is throttled through inlet throttle
25 such that auxiliary control chamber 24 fills first (Boecking, col. 4, ll. 63-
67, col. 5, ll. 1-9). Thus, closing the control valve member 22 creates a
higher pressure in auxiliary control chamber 24, which forces the bush 16
downwardly and lifts the bush 16 from its seat on retaining body 3
(Boecking, col. 5, ll. 1-9). Thus, control valve member 22 acts as an
adjustment tool such that bush 16 (i.e., adjusting body) is capable of
adjustment depending on the position of the control valve member 22 (i.e.,
adjustment tool).
Boecking’s control valve member 22 acts hydraulically, instead of
mechanically, to vary the position of the adjusting member. However, claim
29 does not require that the adjustment tool act in a particular manner to
vary the position of the adjustment body.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s § 102 rejection
of claim 29.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 26-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being unpatentable over Boecking is AFFIRMED.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
8
Appeal 2007-2439
Application 10/089,668

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

sld/ls

Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
One Broadway
New York, NY 10004

9