Ex Parte Jacques et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 10, 2017

13084795 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 10, 2017)

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.
13/084,795 04/12/2011 ROBERT LIONEL JACQUES P015002-PTUS-RRM 1786
74175 7590
Harness Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (GM)
P.O. Box 828
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
EXAMINER
LATHERS, KEVIN ANTHONY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/12/2017 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):
gm-inbox@hdp.com
troymailroom @hdp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT LIONEL JACQUES and ALAN EDGAR BOWLER
Appeal 2015-008094
Application 13/084,795
Technology Center 3700
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, BRADLEY B. BAYAT, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
The Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Barkeij (US 2,199,276, iss. Apr. 30, 1940) and Takii
(US 5,048,471, iss. Sept. 17, 1991). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed Jan. 5, 2015), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sept. 3,
2015), and Specification (“Spec.,” filed Apr. 12, 2011), and to the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Aug. 14, 2015) and Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed Aug. 6, 2014).
2 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is GM Global
Technology Operations LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-008094
Application 13/084,795
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants’ invention “relates to engine intake manifold
arrangements.” Spec. 11.
Claims 1,10, and 18 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the
elements at issue italicized:
1. An intake manifold assembly comprising:
a first plenum having an inlet at a first end;
a second plenum having an inlet at a first end and adjacent
to the first plenum and located on a first lateral side of the first
plenum at first and second longitudinal ends of the intake
manifold assembly and located on a second lateral side of the
first plenum opposite the first lateral side at a medial region of
the intake manifold assembly longitudinally between the first
and second longitudinal ends, the first and the second plenums
each including a second longitudinal end in communication with
one another;
a first set of runners extending from the first plenum at a
location between the first end and a second end of the first
plenum; and
a second set of runners extending from the second plenum
at a location between the first end and a second end of the second
plenum.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).
ANALYSIS
Each of the independent claims 1,10, and 18 requires that the first and
second plenums have an inlet at their respective first ends and that the
plenums each have second longitudinal ends in communication with one
another. We agree with the Appellants that the Examiner has not adequately
2
Appeal 2015-008094
Application 13/084,795
explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Bakeij with
Takii to teach these limitations. See Appeal Br. 13, Reply Br. 9—13.
The Examiner finds that Barkeij discloses all of the elements of
claim 1 except for the limitations of the first and second plenums having an
inlet at their respective first ends and the first and second plenums having
second longitudinal ends in communication with one another. Final Act. 3.
The Examiner relies on Takii for disclosing these elements and finds that
one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Barkeij’s plenums with Takii’s
structural teachings “because it would further improve the performance of
the engine while maintaining a low manifold profile, increasing
compactness, and while maintaining high performance,” and because
“rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.” Id.
at 3^4. The Examiner further finds that one of ordinary skill would combine
the art “as it would have been a modernization of the intake manifold of
Barkeij achieving the improvements that Takii suggested while still
maintaining the design characteristics of Barkeij to achieve its original goal
of having an efficient intake manifold connecting sides of the engine to the
plenum opposite them.” Ans. 11.
Barkeij discloses an intake manifold for an internal V-8 or straight
eight cylinder combustion engine. Barkeij, Title, page 1, col. 2,11. 1^4.
A crankshaft connected to two gas distributing manifolding structures effects
the firing order in the sets of cylinders. See id. at page 1, col. 1,1. 51—col, 2,
1. 4, page 2, col. 1,11. 1—27. In both a straight engine and a V-8 engine, two
manifolds, each with a primary zone and branches, are placed on opposite
sides of the engine, and the inlet valves are placed in two planes parallel to
each other, providing an advantage of having two manifolds constructed of
3
Appeal 2015-008094
Application 13/084,795
exactly the same form that can replace one another. See id., page 1, col. 2,
11. 20-25, page 2, col. 2,11. 43—56.
Takii discloses an intake system for an internal combustion engine
whereby intake valves are supported in the cylinder head and served by
common intake ports. See Takii, col. 2,11. 16—19, 56—65. “The staggering
of cylinder bores permits the intake passages of the cylinder heads. This
permits the use of the simple induction system which nevertheless provides a
high power output.” Id. at col. 2,11. 66-col. 3,1. 2. Air is delivered to the
plenum chambers by an intake pipe, and a further interconnecting manifold
extends between the plenum chambers to improve performance. See id.sA
col. 4,11. 11-28.
The Examiner has not adequately explained, and we do not
understand, why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified
Barkeij’s engine with inlets in the center and no connection between the
plenums, so as to have the inlets at one end and communication between the
plenums at the other end. We do not comprehend how one of ordinary skill
in the art would understand how Barkeij’s engine with plenums with inlets
in the center, that transport gas, and that do not communicate with one
another, modified by Takii’s engine with plenums with inlets at one ends,
that transport air, and that are interconnected by a manifold, would improve
the performance of the engine, maintain a low profile and high performance,
and increase compactness and engine efficiency. See Final Act. 4. Takii
does disclose that those are the objectives of its overall system (Takii, col. 1,
11. 41—49), but the Examiner does not adequately explain how, or that, these
objectives are achieved by having the inlet of Barkeij’s inlet moved from the
center to one end and/or by providing communication between Barkeij’s
4
Appeal 2015-008094
Application 13/084,795
plenums. In other words, it is not clear that it is the changing of the location
of the inlets and/or the providing of communication that achieves the
improvements in the performance and efficiency of Takii’s engine; it is
further not clear how those modifications would improve the performance
and efficiency of Barkeij’s engine. Thus, the Examiner has not provided
articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support a legal
conclusion of obviousness. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007).
Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in
the rejection of independent claims 1,10, and 18, and dependent claims 2—9,
11—17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Therefore, we do not sustain
the rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
5