Ex Parte Fuqua et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2018

13858943 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/858,943
116845 7590
Terrance A. Meador
Achates Power, Inc.
FILING DATE
04/08/2013
09/24/2018
4060 Sorrento Valley Boulevard
San Diego, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kevin B. Fuqua
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.
ACHP3010US 9524
EXAMINER
AMICK, JACOB M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2018 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 KEVIN B. FUQUA and FABIEN G. REDON
Appeal 2017-011311
Application 13/858,943 1
Technology Center 3700
Before: MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appellants identify Achates Power, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-011311
Application 13/858,943
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. An opposed-piston, internal combustion engine
compnsmg:
one or more cylinders, each cylinder including exhaust
and intake ports near respective outer ends of the cylinder,
wherein the cylinders are juxtaposed and oriented with exhaust
and intake ports mutually aligned;
a pair of crankshafts rotatably mounted near respective
exhaust and intake ends of the cylinders;
a pair of pistons disposed in each cylinder for opening
and closing the ports of the cylinder by opposed sliding
movement in the bore of the cylinder;
all of the pistons opening and closing the exhaust ports
being coupled by connecting rods to the crankshaft mounted
near the exhaust ends of the cylinders, and all of the pistons
opening and closing the intake ports being coupled by
connecting rods to the crankshaft mounted near the intake ends
of the cylinders;
a gear train coupling the crankshafts to an output drive;
and,
a crank phasing mechanism operatively coupled to a
crankshaft and to the gear train for changing a crank angle of
the crankshaft.
REJECTION
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(2) as anticipated
by Cleeves (US 2012/0085302 Al, pub. Apr. 12, 2012).
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis.
2
Appeal 2017-011311
Application 13/858,943
ANALYSIS
The Appellants contend that independent claim 1 stands rejected
erroneously, because the Cleeves reference does not disclose the claimed
"pair of pistons disposed in each cylinder for opening and closing the ports
of the cylinder by opposed sliding movement in the bore of the cylinder."
See Appeal Br. 7-11.
The evaluation of the Appellants' argument turns on the construction
of this identified limitation of claim 1 and whether Cleeves satisfies the
limitation.
"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 Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d
831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). As the Federal Circuit has explained:
The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is not
whether the specification proscribes or precludes some broad
reading of the claim term adopted by the examiner. And it is
not simply an interpretation that is not inconsistent with the
specification. It is an interpretation that corresponds with what
and how the inventor describes his invention in the
specification, i.e., an interpretation that is "consistent with the
specification." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997) ( citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also
In re Suitco Surface, 603 F.3d 1255, 1259---60 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
In re Smith Int'!, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
3
Appeal 2017-011311
Application 13/858,943
The Appellants' Specification explains the relationship of "pistons"
and the opening and closing of the intake and exhaust "ports" in an
"opposed-piston engine" as follows:
The reciprocal movements of the pistons control the operations
of the ports. In this regard, each port is located at a fixed
position where it is opened and closed by a respective piston at
predetermined times during each cycle of engine operation.
Those pistons that control exhaust port operation are termed
"exhaust pistons" and those that control intake port operation
are called "intake pistons".
Spec. ,r 3. The Specification further describes a configuration, wherein, "as
the pistons move away from top center (TC) positions after combustion,
both ports (intake and exhaust) are closed by their respective pistons." Id.
The Specification addresses the problem of "control[ling] port
phasing" -i.e., the timing of opening and closing the intake and exhaust
ports - stating that "[t]he objective is to secure the benefits realized by
adapting port operation to varying engine operating conditions without
sacrificing the simplifications achieved with opposed-piston constructions."
Id. ,r 9. In contrast to what the Specification regards as the advantageous
simplicity of opposed-piston engine ports being opened and closed by
respective pistons, the Specification criticizes the complication involved in
using additional mechanisms to operate the motion of sleeves, within the
cylinders, such that these sleeves (rather than the pistons) open and close the
ports:
Some opposed-piston engine designs do not utilize the
pistons for port control. Instead, these engines are equipped
with reciprocating sleeves that slide axially along the cylinder
sidewall to open and close ports. Such arrangements are termed
4
Appeal 2017-011311
Application 13/858,943
"sleeve valves" and port timing depends upon control of sleeve
valve position and movement. Port phasing in sleeve valve
engines presents very complicated control challenges that have
to provide for timing the movements of crankshafts, pistons,
and valve sleeves. Moreover, an important advantage of
opposed-piston engines is the relative simplicity of engine
construction: an opposed-piston engine dispenses with cylinder
heads and many moving parts associated with valves and valve
train mechanisms of single-piston engines. Much of this
simplification is surrendered by the sleeve valve constructions.
Id. ,I 8.
The Appellants contend that, rather than the claimed operation of
pistons opening and closing the ports, Cleeves employs a sleeve-valve
system for doing so (see Appeal Br. 11 (citing Cleeves ,r 39))-the very
design that the Specification criticizes (see Spec. ,r 8). Notably, Cleeves
describes camshaft mechanisms that actuate the sleeve valves, such that they
periodically unblock and block the ports (thereby opening and closing the
ports). See Cleeves ,r,r 39--42. In addition to describing its sleeve valves as
distinct components, Cleeves also discloses sleeve valves moving relative to
the pistons. See id. ,r 28 ("The exhaust sleeve valve remains open, or at least
near open, while the pistons return toward each other and decrease the
internal volume of the combustion chamber to drive the exhaust out of the
combustion chamber via a corresponding exhaust port.")
Reading claim 1 in view of the Appellants' Specification, the
language reciting "pistons disposed in each cylinder for opening and closing
the ports of the cylinder by opposed sliding movement in the bore of the
cylinder" should not be understood to include Cleeves' embodiment having
sleeve valves (rather than pistons) that open and close the ports- a
5
Appeal 2017-011311
Application 13/858,943
configuration that the Specification explicitly criticizes and distinguishes
from the Appellants' invention.
The same analysis applies to similar limitations in the other
independent claims ( claims 6 and 11) in this Appeal. Accordingly, in view
of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 6,
and 11, and their dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2).
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
REVERSED
6