Ex Parte Monros

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 6, 2018

13858733 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 6, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/858,733 04/08/2013 Serge V. Monros
26252 7590 07/06/2018
KELLY & KELLEY, LLP
6320 CANOGA A VENUE
SUITE 1650
WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367
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.
SVMTEC-54768 4493
EXAMINER
PICON-FELICIANO, RUBEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
07/06/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SERGE V. MONROS
Appeal2017-010965
Application 13/858,733 1
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant appeals from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, and 11-14. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to the Appellant, "[t]he real party in interest is the
Applicant/Inventor, Serge V. Monros." Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-010965
Application 13/858,733
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A plasma header gasket for a diesel engine, comprising:
a laminated substrate comprising dielectric layers, the
substrate having an aperture, wherein the aperture corresponds to
a piston cylinder in an engine block for the diesel engine;
a plurality of pairs of conductors associated with the
substrate, wherein each of the plurality of pairs of conductors
comprises electrically conductive circuit traces disposed
between the dielectric layers;
a plurality of plasma igniters, each electrically connected
to one of the plurality of pairs of conductors, each of the plurality
of plasma igniters comprising a pair of exposed electrodes
defining an electrode gap extending from an edge of the aperture
into the piston cylinder; and
a microprocessor control unit electrically connected to the
plurality of pairs of conductors, wherein the microprocessor
control unit is programmed to spark the plurality of plasma
igniters in time with a piston in the piston cylinder and
programmed to spark the plurality of plasma igniters sequentially
around the edge of the aperture.
Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Lipski (US 5,046,466, issued Sept. 10, 1991), Clarke
(US 6,161,520, issued Dec. 19, 2000), Ikeda (US 8,602,005 B2, issued
Dec. 10, 2013), and Lee (US 7,299,785 Bl, issued Nov. 27, 2007).
2
Appeal2017-010965
Application 13/858,733
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Lipski, Clarke, Ikeda, Lee, and Novak et al. (US 5,659, 132, issued
Aug. 19, 1997) (hereinafter "Novak"). 2
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1 and 11, and dependent claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 12, and 13
Independent claim 1 recites "a microprocessor control unit ...
programmed to spark the plurality of plasma igniters sequentially around the
edge of the aperture." Appeal Br., Claims App. Independent claim 11
includes a substantially similar limitation as that of claim 1. See id.
In rejecting claims 1 and 11, the Examiner finds:
Lee teaches the plasma header gasket system of claim 19,
wherein the microprocessor control unit is programmed to spark
the plurality of igniters (Col. 8, lines 1-3) sequentially around a
particular aperture (Col. 5, lines 2-4; Col. 8, lines 66-67 and
Col. 9, lines 1-2) so as to create a combustion vortex in the
corresponding piston cylinder (Col. 4, lines 33-34). Lee teaches
these features to reduce ping and knock with low octane fuels by
having a controlled ignition producing multiple flame fronts
around the periphery of the combustion chamber (Col. 4, lines
22-24).
Answer 7, 12 (italics added); see also id. at 12-13. Here, although the
Examiner rejects claims 1 and 11, the Examiner references claim 19 (now
cancelled).
2 In light of the Appellant's response to the rejection of claims 5 and 14,
which recognizes Lee as a reference in the rejection (Appeal Br. 11-12), we
understand the Examiner's failure to include Lee in the ground of rejection
as a minor oversight. See also Answer 14.
3
Appeal2017-010965
Application 13/858,733
In referencing claim 19, the Examiner carries over a finding from
earlier in the prosecution history. In the First Office Action (mailed Feb. 11,
2015), the Examiner made an identical finding for the rejection of claim 20
(an original claim), which depends from claim 19. First Office Action 21.
Original claim 20 recited, "[t]he plasma header gasket system of claim 19,
wherein the microprocessor control unit is programmed to spark the plurality
of igniters sequentially around a particular aperture so as to create a
combustion vortex in the corresponding piston cylinder." Spec. 18.
Notably, claim 20, recites "so as to create a combustion vortex in the
corresponding piston cylinder," whereas claims 1 and 11 do not include this
recitation. See supra. Claims 19 and 20 were cancelled by amendment, and
claim 1 was amended to include, among other things, "a microprocessor
control unit ... programmed to spark the plurality of plasma igniters
sequentially around the edge of the aperture." Amendment 5, 8 (emphasis
omitted, filed May 7, 2015). Claim 11 was amended to include a similar
amendment. Id. at 7. In the subsequent Office Actions and in the Answer,
the Examiner's finding was maintained, the only difference being adding
emphasis to the citations. See, e.g., Second Office Action 6-7 (mailed Jan.
15, 2016); Third Office Action 6-7 (mailed Sept. 20, 2016); Fourth Office
Action 7 (mailed Jan. 11, 2017); Answer 7.
We understand the statement "so as to create a combustion vortex in
the corresponding piston cylinder" in the Examiner's finding to be directed
to the rejection of claim 20, which is a cancelled claim. This is a minor
oversight or harmless error because "so as to create a combustion vortex in
the corresponding piston cylinder" is not recited or otherwise required by
claim 1 or 11. Similarly, the Appellant "notes that this is not a limitation of
4
Appeal2017-010965
Application 13/858,733
any of the claims at issue, but language that the Examiner has pulled from
applicant's written description." Reply Br. 5---6. To the extent that the
Appellant is referring to a recitation in original claim 20 (cancelled), we
agree. However, as will be discussed below, to the extent the Appellant is
arguing that the statement "so as to create a combustion vortex in the
corresponding piston cylinder" supports impermissible hindsight, we are not
persuaded.
Turning to the Appellant's argument, the Appellant acknowledges that
Lee teaches "[ t ]he unique controlled firing characteristics of the invention
allow that the igniter system 10 can fire the ignitions simultaneously or with
a momentary delay between each ignition." Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis
omitted) (quoting Lee, col. 8, 1. 66-col. 9, 1. 2). The Appellant argues "Lee
wholly fails to teach or disclose sequential firing around an aperture or even
the creation of a combustion vortex, Lee cannot support the Examiner's
obviousness rejection without the benefit of [impermissible] hindsight
reconstruction." Id. at 11; see id. at 8-10.
First, we note that the Examiner's finding that Lee teaches a control
ignition of a plurality of igniters sequentially around an aperture is
adequately supported because Lee teaches a momentary delay between each
ignition of multiple ignitors (Lee, col. 8, 1. 63---col. 9, 1. 2). For example, Lee
teaches three ignitors positioned around the perimeter of a single cylinder,
where each ignitor ignites with a momentary delay between each ignition.
See id. at Figs. 9-12, col. 6, 11. 10-13 ("The embedded igniters around the
perimeter of the combustion chamber produce a peripheral flame front
.... "). In this example, the first ignitor ignites, then the second ignitor
ignites, and then the third ignitor ignites, which corresponds to a control that
5
Appeal2017-010965
Application 13/858,733
"spark[ s] the plurality of plasma igniters sequentially around the edge of the
aperture," as recited in claim 1. But see Reply Br. 3 (The Appellant argues
that Lee does not "suggest any sequence or order to any sparking of igniters
whether around the edge of an aperture or not."). Further, we also note that
when three ignitors ignite with a momentary delay between each ignition,
they inherently do so in either a clockwise or counter-clockwise manner.
Second, to the extent that the Examiner's rejection includes a finding
that Lee teaches a combustion vortex in the corresponding piston cylinder
(see Appeal Br. 9-10 (citing Lee, col. 4, 11. 33-34); Reply Br. 6), although
this finding is inadequately supported, it is either a minor oversight or
harmless error. See supra. Similarly, the Examiner's rejection includes the
rationale that
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
... to modify the combination as discussed above to have the
microprocessor control unit be programmed to spark the plurality
of igniters sequentially around a particular aperture so as to
create a combustion vortex in the corresponding piston cylinder
in order to reduce ping and knock with low octane fuels by having
a controlled ignition producing multiple flame fronts around the
periphery of the combustion chamber.
Fourth Office Action 7, 12 (italics added). The inclusion of the phrase "so
as to create a combustion vortex in the corresponding piston cylinder" in the
Examiner's rationale is harmless error. Supra.
Third, we note that the Appellant acknowledges the Examiner's
rationale for the further modification of Lipski in view of Lee's teachings,
i.e., "[reducing] ping and knock with low-octane fuels and multiple flame
fronts around a periphery of the combustion chamber (col. 4, lines 22-24)."
Reply Br. 7. Thereafter, the Appellant contends that the Examiner's
6
Appeal2017-010965
Application 13/858,733
rationale "to develop the sequential firing around the edge of the aperture" is
inadequately supported because
[Lee's] suggestion of multiple flame fronts has more to do with
the fact that there are a plurality of igniters in the aperture (as
opposed to the single spark from a lone spark plug) and less to
do with the suggestion of a sparking "sequentially around the
edge of the aperture".
Id. The Appellant's argument is not persuasive. Lee describes "[a]nother
object of the embedded igniter system is to reduce ping and knock with low
octane fuels by having a controlled ignition producing multiple flame fronts
around the periphery of the combustion chamber." Lee, col. 4, 11. 21-24
(emphasis added). Lee's description of a "controlled ignition" is directed to
"producing multiple flame fronts around the periphery of the combustion
chamber," which includes a controlled ignition where there is a momentary
delay between each ignition of multiple ignitors (id. at col. 8, 1. 63---col. 9,
1. 2).
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1
and 11, and dependent claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 12, and 13.
Dependent claims 5 and 14
The Appellant does not provide further arguments for the rejection of
claims 5 and 14. See Appeal Br. 11-12. The Appellant merely relies on the
arguments presented for the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1
and 11 for this ground of rejection. For the same reasons we have sustained
the rejection of claims 1 and 11, we likewise sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 5 and 14.
7
Appeal2017-010965
Application 13/858,733
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9,
and 11-14.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8