Elbkaily, Marwan et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 3, 2020

13411136 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 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.
13/411,136 03/02/2012 Marwan Elbkaily 48259.1349/83229916 1093
67318 7590 01/03/2020
Dykema Gossett PLLC
39577 Woodward Avenue
Suite 300
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
EXAMINER
STASHICK, ANTHONY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2020 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):
ipmail@dykema.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARWAN ELBKAILY and BALACHANDRA DESHPANDE
Appeal 2018-004642
Application 13/411,136
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and LEE L.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 6–9 and 14–17. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-004642
Application 13/411,136
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims2 are directed to a fuel pipe having a trigger point which
allows the fuel pipe to buckle if there is a structural disruption of the vehicle.
Spec. ¶ 2.
Claims 6, 14, and 17 are independent. Claims App. 3–5. Claim 6,
reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
6. A fuel delivery assembly for a motor vehicle, the
fuel delivery assembly comprising:
a fuel filler supply port;
a metal fuel filler pipe that includes a bend and that is
connected to said fuel filler supply port, said fuel filler pipe
having a body with a trigger point comprising a crimp formed in
the body and at the bend, said crimp having an interior wall
within said body that defines a straight bridge portion extending
transverse to a long axis of said body; and
a fuel tank inlet pipe connected to said fuel filler pipe and
connected to a fuel tank, said body of the fuel filler pipe
extending between the fuel tank inlet pipe and the fuel filler
supply port.
Claims App. 3.

2 Appellant filed a substitute claims appendix (hereinafter “Claims
Appendix” or “Claims App.”) on October 17, 2017, in response to a Notice
of Defective Appeal Brief dated September 20, 2017. The Notice of
Defective Appeal Brief indicated that the appendix Appellant submitted on
February 22, 2017, did not contain a correct copy of the appealed claims
because the listed claims did not match the last entered amendment. Notice
of Defective Appeal Brief, Sept. 20, 2017, items 3–4. Another such Notice,
dated February 10, 2017, was issued for a similar error in an appendix
submitted on January 6, 2017. See Notice of Defective Appeal Brief, Feb.
10, 2017, items 3–4; Advisory Act., Oct. 18, 2016, items 3, 7 (denying entry
of an amendment).
Appeal 2018-004642
Application 13/411,136
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
DeRosa US 3,963,055 June 15, 1976
Fiedler US 3,979,010 Sept. 7, 1976
Jeltsch US 6,021,816 Feb. 8, 2000
Oberheide US 6,612,621 B2 Sept. 2, 2003

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 6–9 and 14–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fiedler and (Jelsch and/or Oberheide).
II. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Oberheide and Fiedler.
III. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over DeRosa, Fiedler, and Jeltsch.

OPINION
Rejection I–Fiedler, Jeltsch, and/or Oberheide (Claims 6–9 and 14–17)
Appellant argues for the patentability of the claims which are subject
to the first ground of rejection, i.e., claims 6–9 and 14–17, as a group. Br. 5
(“[c]laims 6–9 and 14–17 stand or fall together.”). We select claim 6 as
representative of the group, and claims 7–9 and 14–17 stand or fall with
claim 6.
The Examiner finds that Fiedler discloses many of the elements
recited in claim 6, but relies on Jeltsch to disclose “[an] equivalent
corrugated pipe [1] comprising said crimp having an interior wall within said
Appeal 2018-004642
Application 13/411,136
4
fuel filler body that defines a straight bridge portion extending transverse to
a long axis of said body.” Final Act. 2–3 (citing Fiedler 3:15–25; Figs. 1, 2;
Jeltsch Fig. 3E).
Appellant argues
the Final Office Action has failed to establish a prima face case
of obviousness because none of the cited references teaches or
suggests “a metal fuel filler pipe that includes a single bend
having a peak defined by a straight bridge portion and that is
connected to said fuel filler supply port, said fuel filler pipe
having a body with a trigger point comprising a crimp formed in
the body and at the bend.
Br. 6. Thus, Appellant emphasizes two limitations, (i) a single bend in the
fuel filler pipe and (ii) a trigger point comprising a crimp.
Appellant next asserts
The Final Office Action opines that Fiedler's “annular
reinforcing corrugations 5” is the same as the trigger point. The
trigger point allows the fuel pipe to buckle if there is a structural
disruption of the vehicle, thus reducing or entirely eliminating
the amount of displacement of the fuel filler pipe into the fuel
tank during the structural disruption. In other words, the trigger
point is a safety mechanism in the filler pipe. None of the
references cited by the Examiner in the Final Office Action
disclose such a feature. Moreover, neither Jeltsch, nor any of the
remaining references, teaches or suggests this feature.
Id. ((emphasis added). Based on these statements, Appellant concludes the
rejection of claim 6 should be reversed.3 Id.
Regarding Appellant’s discussion of the requirement in claim 6 for “a
single bend having a peak,” the Examiner determines Appellant’s argument

3 Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s reasoning for making the
proposed modification to the pipe of Fiedler. Br. 7.
Appeal 2018-004642
Application 13/411,136
5
based on this limitation is not commensurate with the scope of claim 6. Ans.
3.
The Examiner has the better position on this point. Appellant’s
Appeal Brief, filed on December 2, 2016, included a claims appendix with
an un-entered amendment to claims 6, 14, and 17 adding the limitation that
the bend in the fuel filler pipe be a “single” bend. See Br. 11–13; Advisory
Act., Oct. 18, 2016, items 3, 7. The claims on appeal do not contain this
limitation. See Claims App. 3–5. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
Appellant’s argument regarding “a single bend” in the filler pipe is not
commensurate with the scope of the claims on appeal.
The Examiner asserts that Appellant’s other argument relies on how
the recited trigger point performs during an accident and finds that
corrugations 5 of Fiedler perform in the same manner. Ans. 4–5. According
to the Examiner, Fiedler discloses that the presence of corrugation 5
facilitates deformation of filler pipe 2. Id. at 5 (citing Fiedler 2:16–24). The
Examiner also finds Fiedler discloses providing a destruction-free
deformation of filler pipe 2 during an accident, thereby avoiding the danger
of a fuel spill. Id. The Examiner finds that Fiedler teaches this structure
improves safety. Id. (citing Fiedler 2:53–61). In light of these
determinations, the Examiner finds that, aside from the “single straight
bridge” limitation, Fiedler’s corrugations 5 correspond to the trigger point
recited in claim 6. Id. at 2.
The Examiner’s finding that corrugation 5 of Fiedler corresponds to a
trigger point as recited in claim 6 is supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. Fiedler explains, “[a]n easy deformability of the filler pipe is
ensured by the annular reinforcing corrugations.” Fiedler 2:19–21. “Still a
further object of the present invention resides in a fuel tank which assures a
Appeal 2018-004642
Application 13/411,136
6
destruction-free deformation of the filler pipe in case of an accident and
which avoids thereby the danger of a fuel spill during such an accident.” Id.
2:54–58. Similar to the statements from Fiedler quoted above, Appellant’s
Specification states, “[t]he diameter of the fuel filler pipe 36 from its inlet
end at the fuel filler port 34 to its outlet end at the fuel tank inlet pipe 38 is
relatively constant with the exception of an area of reduced cross-section
which defines a crumple area or a trigger point 42 which is located on a bend
of the fuel filler pipe 36.” Spec. ¶ 18. Thus, corrugation 5 of Fiedler
functions in the same way as the “trigger point” in Appellant’s Specification
functions. Regarding the structure of the trigger point, claim 6 recites that it
includes a “crimp.” The Detailed Description in Appellant’s Specification
does not use the word “crimp.” Based on Appellant’s Figures, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would understand this term to mean a “crease” or
“bend” in the wall of fuel pipe 2. See Figs. 3, 3a, 5. As is evident from
Figure 1 of Fiedler, corrugation 5 includes a crease or bend in the wall of the
pipe. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that corrugation 5 of Fiedler
qualifies as a trigger point as recited in claim 6. As for the particular shape
of the trigger point required by claim 6, the Examiner addresses this
limitation by relying on the teachings of Jeltsch (Final Act. 3; Ans. 2), and
Appellant does not contest that Jeltsch discloses this shape, nor does
Appellant contest the Examiner’s reasoning for implementing it in the
device of Fiedler (Br. 5–6). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims
6–9 and 14–17 as unpatentable over Fiedler, Jeltsch, and Oberheide.

Rejection II—Oberheide and Fiedler (Claim 14)
The Examiner finds that Oberheide discloses most of the limitations
recited in claim 14, including a trigger point, but relies on Fiedler to teach
Appeal 2018-004642
Application 13/411,136
7
that the trigger point is located at a bend in the fuel filler pipe body. Final
Act. 5 (citing Oberheide, Figs. 2–4). The Examiner reasons that placement
of the trigger point at this location would have “the predictable result of
providing flexibility in terms of installation and size to offer greater
manipulation and installation application.” Id.
Appellant asserts that neither of Oberheide and Fiedler discloses a
“single bend” in a fuel filler pipe. Br. 7. Appellant also argues “Figures 2–4
[of Oberheide] illustrate the corrugated pipe, but not the crimp which
produces the trigger point as disclosed in claim 14.”4 Id.
Appellant’s first argument is unavailing because claim 14 does not
recite a “single bend” in the fuel pipe.5 Claims App. 4. Thus, Appellant’s
contention that the cited prior art fails to disclose this feature is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 14.
As for whether convolutions 50 of Oberheide qualify as a “trigger
point” with a “crimp” as recited in claim 14, we note that convolutions 50
are designed to increase flexibility. “The convolutions 50 increase the
flexibility of the filler pipe 28, which is important for installation and crash
integrity.” Oberheide 2:30–32. This flexibility improves safety during a
crash. “During a crash, the convolutions 50 allows the filler pipe 28 to flex,
performing in the same manner as the elastomeric jumper hose 20 of the
prior art fuel filler system 10.” Id. 2:36–39. Convolutions 50 are formed by
bending a wall of filler pipe 28. “The convolutions 50 are integrally formed

4 Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s reasoning for making the
proposed modification to the pipe of Oberheide. Br. 7.
5 As was the case for Appellant’s argument against Rejection I, this
argument appears to be based on an amendment to the claims that was
refused entry by the Examiner.
Appeal 2018-004642
Application 13/411,136
8
in the filler pipe 28 using known methods, including hydroforming.” Id.
2:21–23. Accordingly, the Examiner’s finding that convolutions 50 of
Oberheide qualify as a trigger point comprising a crimp as recited in claim
14 is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. We sustain the
rejection of claim 17 as unpatentable over Oberheide and Fiedler.

Rejection III—DeRosa, Fiedler, and Jeltsch (Claim 17)
The Examiner relies on DeRosa to teach a trigger point having a wall
of lesser thickness than other parts of the wall of the fuel filler pipe and
relies on Fiedler to teach “a body [3] with a trigger point [5] includ[ing] a
crimp formed in the body and at the bend [fig 1-2].” Final Act. 6–7. The
Examiner relies on Jeltsch to teach a crimp having straight bridge. Id. at 7.
Appellant’s argument in support of the patentability of claim 17 is
reproduced below:
The Final Office Action opines that DeRosa discloses the
crimp and trigger point (as discussed above). Appellants submit
that the Final Office Action has failed to establish a prima face
case of obviousness because none of the cited references teaches
or suggests “a fuel filler pipe that includes a single bend having
a peak having a peak defined by a straight bridge portion and that
is connected to said fuel filler supply port, said fuel filler pipe
having a body with a trigger point comprising a crimp formed in
the body and at the bend”.
Br. 8. Thus, in the same vein as discussed above regarding Rejections I and
II, Appellant’s two arguments are that the prior art (including all of the cited
references) does not disclose a “single bend” in the fuel filler pipe and the
prior art does not disclose a trigger point including crimp.6 Id. No further

6 Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s reasoning for making the
proposed modification to DeRosa. Br. 8–9.
Appeal 2018-004642
Application 13/411,136
9
explanation is provided. See id. at 8–9. Claim 17 does not require a pipe
with only a “single bend,” and we agree with the Examiner that the
corrugations disclosed by Fiedler qualify as a trigger point with a crimp.7
Accordingly, Appellant’s two arguments do not apprise us of Examiner
error. We sustain the rejection of claim 17 as unpatentable over DeRosa,
Fiedler, and Jeltsch.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
6–9, 14–17 103(a) Fiedler,
Jelsch/Oberheide
6–9, 14–17
14 103(a) Oberheide, Fiedler 14
17 103(a) DeRosa, Fiedler,
Jeltsch
17
Overall
Outcome
6–9, 14–17

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

7 Appellant does not contest whether the Examiner’s proposed combination
of teachings of DeRosa, Fiedler, and Jeltsch would include a “single trigger
point,” a “single crimp,” or a “single straight bridge.” Br. 8–9.