Ex parte CHIU et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 13, 1998

08193982 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 13, 1998)

Application for patent filed February 8, 1994. 1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte RANDOLPH KWOK-KIN CHIU, KEITH A. PENNEY,
DONALD R. VAN UUM and WILLIAM T. PHILLIPS, Jr.
____________
Appeal No. 96-0770
Application No. 08/193,9821
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before URYNOWICZ, HAIRSTON and MARTIN, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 6. An Amendment After Final (paper number 6) was
submitted by appellants to cancel the withdrawn claims 7 through
20.
The disclosed invention relates to the shape of the firing
surfaces on noble metal firing tips affixed to the pair of
electrodes on a spark plug. The shape of the firing surfaces on
Appeal No. 96-0770
Application No. 08/193,982
2
each of the firing tips comprises at least three edges and at
least three corners which form a convex polygon.
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal, and it
reads as follows:
1. A spark plug for igniting a fuel mixture within a
combustion chamber of an internal combustion engine, the spark
plug comprising:
a pair of electrodes which define a spark gap across which
an electric spark is generated for igniting said fuel mixture;
and
a pair of firing tips affixed to said pair of electrodes
such that said firing tips are coaxially aligned, said pair of
firing tips being formed from a noble metal alloy, each of said
pair of firing tips having a firing surface with a shape
comprising at least three edges and at least three corners which
form a convex polygon and serve as potential arc initiation sites
for said electric spark across said spark gap;
whereby said at least three edges and said at least three
corners of said pair of firing tips serve to minimize the
sparking voltage for the spark plug.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Yamaguchi et al. (Yamaguchi) 4,700,103 Oct. 13, 1987
Claims 1 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Yamaguchi and common knowledge in the
art.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
Appeal No. 96-0770
Application No. 08/193,982
3
The examiner is of the opinion (Answer, page 3) that “[i]n
figures 20b, 20e, and 20g, the firing tip has a firing surface
which has specifically four edges and four corners (if figures
20b, 20e, and 20g were shown in the top cross-sectional views,
the firing tip shown in these figures would show a firing surface
of the firing tip which has four edges and four corners).”
Appellants argue (Brief, page 4) that “[t]he spark plug defined
by claim 1 . . . differs from the prior art in that the claims
require the firing surface of each firing tip to have a shape
comprising at least three edges and at least three corners which
form a convex polygon.” We agree with the examiner that the
various firing tips 10 on the ground electrode 8 in Figures 20b,
20e and 20g have “at least three edges and at least three
corners” which may “serve as potential arc initiation sites”
(claim 1). On the other hand, we agree with appellants that
Yamaguchi lacks such a specific shape for “each of said pair of
firing tips” (claim 1). Yamaguchi clearly indicates that the
firing tip on the center electrode is always cylindrical in shape
(column 7, lines 32 through 35, and claim 6). Thus, “each” of
the pair of firing tips in Yamaguchi does not comprise “at least
three edges and at least three corners” (claim 1).
Appeal No. 96-0770
Application No. 08/193,982
4
Christenson (U.S. patent 2,946,912) is discussed by the
examiner in the response to arguments (Answer, page 6), but it is
not listed in the prior art of record and in the grounds of
rejection (Answer, pages 2 and 3). “Where a reference is relied
on to support a rejection, whether or not in a ‘minor capacity,’
there would appear to be no excuse for not positively including
the reference in the statement of the rejection.” See In re
Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342, 166 USPQ 406, 407 (CCPA 1970).
In summary, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1
through 6 is reversed.
Appeal No. 96-0770
Application No. 08/193,982
5
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, Jr. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOHN C. MARTIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-0770
Application No. 08/193,982
6
Charles K. Veenstra
General Motors Corporation
Legal Staff
P.O. Box 33114
Detroit, MI 48232
KWH/jrg
JENINE GILLIS
Appeal No. 96-0770
Serial No. 08/193,982
Judge HAIRSTON
Judge URYNOWICZ
Judge MARTIN
Received: 08 Aug 98
Typed: 08 Aug 98
DECISION: REVERSED

Send Reference(s): Yes No
or Translation(s)
Panel Change: Yes No
3-Person Conf. Yes No
Heard: Yes No
Remanded: Yes No
Index Sheet-2901 Rejection(s): ___________
Acts 2: ____
Palm: ____
Mailed: Updated Monthly Disk: ____

Updated Monthly Report: ___