Ex Parte ThoemmesDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 23, 201310564226 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2013) 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. 10/564,226 05/31/2006 Franz Thoemmes 10191/4495 7534 26646 7590 04/24/2013 KENYON & KENYON LLP ONE BROADWAY NEW YORK, NY 10004 EXAMINER BOECKMANN, JASON J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3752 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/24/2013 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 FRANZ THOEMMES ____________ Appeal 2011-003228 Application 10/564,226 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JAMES P. CALVE, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 8, 10, and 14-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over French (US 6,382,532 B1; iss. May 7, 2002) and Kobayashi (US 2002/0185555 A1; pub. Dec. 12, 2002). App. Br. 2. Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-13 have been cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2011-003228 Application 10/564,226 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 8 and 15 are independent. Claim 8 is reproduced below: 8. A fuel injector comprising; a valve needle; an armature forming an axially movable valve part together with the valve needle; a restoring spring acting upon the armature; a magnetic coil cooperating with the armature; a valve-seat body; a valve-closure member, which forms a sealing seat with the valve-seat body, being provided on the valve needle; and a valve sleeve surrounding the armature and the valve needle along the entire length of the armature and the entire length of the valve needle, a wall thickness of the valve sleeve varying across its axial extension; wherein the wall thickness of the valve sleeve decreases in a discharge direction of the fuel in order to limit noise emissions; wherein an outer diameter and a radial cross section of the valve sleeve decrease between an inflow-side region and a discharge-side region on a collar which also separates the inflow-side region having greater material strength from the discharge-side region having lower material strength; wherein the radial cross section and the wall thickness of the inflow-side region are constant from the collar to a location axially beyond the valve needle in a direction opposite the discharge direction of the fuel; wherein the decreased radial cross section and the decreased wall thickness of the discharge-side region are constant from the collar to a discharge-side end of the valve sleeve, the discharge-side end of the valve sleeve disposed axially beyond the valve-closure member; and wherein the constant decreased radial cross section and the constant decreased wall thickness of the discharge-side region extend axially beyond the valve needle in both the discharge direction of the fuel and the direction opposite the discharge direction of the fuel. Appeal 2011-003228 Application 10/564,226 3 ANALYSIS Appellant argues claims 8, 10, and 14-22 as a group. App. Br. 4-7. We select claim 8 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). The Examiner found that French discloses a fuel injector 10 with a valve sleeve 14 surrounding the armature 30 and valve needle 42 where the outer diameter and radial cross section of the valve sleeve decrease between an inflow-side region and a discharge-side region on a collar as recited in claim 8, but does not disclose that a wall thickness of the valve sleeve varies across its axial direction at the collar and decreases in a discharge direction of the fuel. Ans. 4. However, the Examiner found that Kobayashi discloses a fuel injector 1 with a valve needle 26, armature 7C, and valve sleeve 22 having a wall thickness that varies across its axial direction and decreases in a discharge direction of a fuel and the outer diameter and radial cross section of the valve sleeve decrease between an inflow side region and a discharge- side region on a collar. Ans. 4-5 (citing fig. 4). The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to make the upper portion of French’s valve sleeve 14 with a greater wall thickness than the wall thickness of the bottom section to allow the valve sleeve to be able to bear a higher pressure when molten plastic is applied thereto when the plastic cover is made by injection molding, as taught by Kobayashi. Ans. 5 (citing Kobayashi, para. [0037]). Appellant argues that there is no apparent reason to modify French in the manner proposed by the Examiner because French’s fuel injector 10 is overmolded with plastic overmolding 98 and therefore the unmodified valve sleeve 14 of French is capable of withstanding pressures encountered during overmolding. App. Br. 5. Appellant also asserts that the upper portion of the valve sleeve 14 is already reinforced by insertion of extension tube 70, Appeal 2011-003228 Application 10/564,226 4 filter 78, and ring structure shown in Figure 1 so that the entire portion of the jacket 14 is interiorly reinforced. Reply Br. 2-3. These arguments do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious, based on Kobayashi’s teaching to make an upper portion of a valve sleeve thicker to bear the high pressures of overmolding, to modify French in this manner to further increase the strength of the valve sleeve of French to be more suitable for withstanding the high pressures of the overmolding. The Examiner reasoned that even though French’s injector can withstand overmolding pressures, increasing the valve sleeve thickness as taught by Kobayashi will further improve its ability to withstand the high pressures of overmolding. Ans. 8. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (skilled artisan need not be motivated to combine the prior art for the reasons contemplated by an inventor). Appellant also argues that overmolding 98 is applied to the upper and lower portions of French’s valve sleeve 14 so there is no reason to increase only the thickness of the upper portion, particularly where the upper portion has additional structure for reinforcement and the lower portion has a non- reinforced region over which overmolding 98 is formed. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 3-4. Appellant further argues that Kobayashi’s injector is overmolded on the upper and lower portions, but only the upper portion has a thicker wall because the upper portion has no reinforcement, while the bottom portion is reinforced by various structures such as core tube 8 and a valve seat. Reply Br. 3. Appellant asserts that the bottom portion thus requires less strength than the upper portion, which must, in and of itself, bear pressure exerted during the overmolding and this difference explains the need for additional strength in the upper portion of the case. Id. Appellant also asserts that the Appeal 2011-003228 Application 10/564,226 5 upper portion of French’s sleeve is substantially reinforced in all regions while the bottom portion of jacket 14 has unreinforced portions, including a region where overmolding 98 is applied, and the Examiner does not explain why the thickness of the lower, non-reinforced region of French’s jacket 14 would not be thickened relative to the substantially reinforced upper portion. Reply Br. 3-4. These arguments are not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s finding that Kobayashi explicitly teaches that the wall thickness of an upper portion of a valve sleeve should be increased to strengthen and reinforce the upper portion of the valve sleeve for overmolding, or the determination that it would have been obvious to modify French’s valve sleeve in the same manner for the same reason. Ans. 9. Appellant’s attorney arguments are not evidence and amount to an individual attack on the references where the Examiner has relied on the combined teachings of the references. We sustain the rejection of claim 8. Appellant does not offer separate arguments for the rejection of claims 10 or 14-22. App. Br. 4-7. Therefore, for the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 14-22 as unpatentable over French and Kobayashi. DECISION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 8, 10, and 14-22. 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 mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation