Ex Parte KAHLER et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2018

14084383 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
14/084,383
65363 7590
Todd A. VAUGHN
Jordan IP Law, LLC
FILING DATE
11/19/2013
06/22/2018
12501 Prosperity Drive, Suite 401
Silver Spring, MD 20904
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bernd KAHLER
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.
0541-1016 8888
EXAMINER
SCHNEIDER, CRAIG M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2018 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):
tvaughn@jordaniplaw.com
admin2@jordaniplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BERND KAHLER, and
WOLFGANG VOGLMEIER
Appeal2017-008402
Application 14/084,383
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1---6, 8-12, and 14--20. Final Act. 1
(Office Action Summary). Claims 7 and 13 are canceled. Br. 15 (Claims
Appendix). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Magna Steyr Fuel Systems GESMBH as the real party
in interest. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-008402
Application 14/084,383
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter "relate[ s] to a tank system for a motor
vehicle." Spec. ,r 2. Claims 1, 15, and 16 are independent. Claim 15 is
illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below.
15. A tank system for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a tank;
a surge container arranged in the tank with a return storage
region which is formed as a separate portion of the surge
container;
a reservoir arranged in the tank, the reservoir having a
reservoir valve arranged in the surge container, and configured
to fluidically connected the surge container to the reservoir;
an extraction unit having a return line configured to open
into the return storage region, the extraction unit being fluidically
connected to the reservoir and configured to extract a fluid from
the reservoir via an engine feed line and supply the fluid to a
drive unit of the motor vehicle;
a first supply line which fluidically connects the reservoir
to the tank at a first connection point; and
a second supply line which fluidically connects the
reservoir to the tank at a second connection point;
wherein the reservoir valve is operable between a normal
operating mode in which the reservoir is in an open state and
surrounded by the fluid in the tank, and a residual quantity mode
in which the reservoir is in a closed state, not surrounded by the
fuel in the tank, and open exclusively at the engine feed line and
the at least one supply line.
REFERENCES
Shoop US 5,020,566
Suzuki US 5,050,567
Siekmann US 5,363,827
Takaki et al. US 5,447,175
Channing US 2002/0170616 Al
Krogull et al. US 2004/0244844 Al
Murabayashi et al. US 2011/0290793 Al
2
June 4, 1991
Sept. 24, 1991
Nov. 15, 1994
Sept. 5, 1995
Nov. 21, 2002
Dec. 9, 2004
Dec. 1, 2011
Appeal2017-008402
Application 14/084,383
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Siekmann, Suzuki, and Takaki. 2
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Siekmann, Suzuki, Takaki, and Murabayashi.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Siekmann, Suzuki, Takaki, and Channing.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Siekmann, Suzuki, Takaki, and Krogull.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Siekmann, Suzuki, Takaki, and Shoop.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Siekmann, Suzuki, Takaki, Shoop, and Krogull.
ANALYSIS
Appellants only address the Examiner's rejections of claims 9, 11, 12,
and 15. Br. 6-12. We address the Examiner's rejections of these claims
below. Because Appellants do not present arguments regarding the
Examiner's other rejections of claims 1---6, 8, 10, 14 and 16-20, we
summarily sustain the Examiner's rejections of these claims (none of which
depend from any of claims 9, 11, 12, or 15).
2 The Examiner also lists cancelled claim 13. Final Act. 3.
3
Appeal2017-008402
Application 14/084,383
The rejection of claims 9 and 15
as unpatentable over Siekmann, Suzuki, Takaki, and Murabayashi
Appellants argue the rejection of claims 9 and 15 together. Br. 6-10.
We select independent claim 15 for review, with claim 9 standing or falling
therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
System claim 15 recites a tank, a reservoir in the tank, and first and
second supply lines each of which "fluidically connect[] the reservoir to the
tank at a [first or second] connection point." The Examiner relies on
Siekmann for disclosing a tank and a reservoir (Final Act. 7) and on
Murabayashi for teaching the limitation of first and second supply lines
connected as recited (Final Act. 9; Ans. 16). 3 Appellants dispute
Murabayashi's teaching of these supply lines because "[n]either reservoir
16, 18, [of Murabayashi] is individually connected to the tank at separate
supply lines." Br. 8-9. Instead, as per Appellants, "[t]he use of a single
siphon tube 34 results in the Murabayashi design requiring a single supply
line for the main tank (first reservoir) 16 and the sub-tank (second reservoir)
18." Br. 9. Hence, "the advantages that lend themselves to the claimed
invention are clearly not amenable to the Murabayashi design" and, as a
consequence, the cited references do not teach, disclose, or reasonably
suggest the recited limitations. Br. 9.
A review of Figure 1 of Murabayashi (illustrated below) discloses
suction tube 40 extending from one port of three-way joint 36 and leading to
tank 20. Siphon tube 34 (actually two such tubes) are depicted in this figure
as supplying fuel to the remaining two ports of this three-way joint 36. Each
3 Suzuki and Takaki are relied for other limitations not at issue here. Final
Act. 8-9.
4
Appeal2017-008402
Application 14/084,383
tube has an end (34a and 34b) where a fuel intake ( 42a and 42b) is located,
and each tube also extends into each of the separated reservoirs (16 and 18).
The fuel supplied via both tubes 34 exits three-way joint 36 through tube 40.
See also Murabayashi ,r,r 35, 36, 42.
Figure 1 of Murabayashi is a schematic view of the fuel tank depicting
reservoirs 16, 18, siphon tube ends 34a, 34b, fuel introducing members 42a,
42b, three-way joint 36, and suction tube 40.
The Examiner disputes Appellants' understanding of Murabayashi
stating, "Figure 1 [ of Murabayashi] discloses the first and second supply
lines as constituting two distinct supply lines, 34a and 34b." Ans. 16. The
Examiner further states, "[t]he presence of the three-way joint 36, which
fluidically connects lines 34a and 34b with suction tube 40, supports this
interpretation." Ans. 16. The Examiner also notes the "two remote
connection points (42a and 42b )" stating that Murabayashi's drawings
"clearly support the Examiner's position that a first supply line which
fluidically connects [] the reservoir to the tank at a first connection point,
5
Appeal2017-008402
Application 14/084,383
and a second supply line which fluidically connects the reservoir to the tank
at a second connection point, is present." Ans. 17.
As stated above, claim 15 recites first and second supply lines, each of
"which fluidically connect[] the reservoir to the tank at [ a first or second]
connection point," and Appellants do not convincingly explain how
Murabayashi fails to disclose this limitation. In particular, Appellants'
assertion that each reservoir must be "individually connected to the tank at
separate supply lines" (Br. 8-9) is not a proper claim interpretation. This is
because, as above, the claims simply recite first and second supply lines,
each of which "fluidically connects the reservoir to the tank" and do not
require the supply lines themselves to actually be "individually connected to
the tank" as asserted. Appellants are not persuasive that Murabayashi fails
to disclose a pair of tubes that separately connect each of the reservoirs to
the tank. Instead, Appellants' appear to focus only on "single siphon tube
34" (Br. 8), and do not acknowledge that this tube 34 actually consists of
two separate tubes, each having separate ends 34a, 34b located in separate
reservoirs 16, 18 and attached to separate fuel intake members 42a, 42b. See
above figure.
Appellants also address Murabayashi's "dual reservoir system" (Br.
10), but the Examiner did not rely exclusively on Murabayashi for teaching a
reservoir system (Final Act. 9). Instead, the Examiner stated that it would
have been obvious "to have incorporated into the tank system of Siekmann
in view of Suzuki and Takaki, the first and second supply lines of
Murabayashi, in order to extract the fuel from the tank if the tank was
displaced at an angle." Final Act. 9; see also Ans. 17 (referencing
6
Appeal2017-008402
Application 14/084,383
Murabayashi ,r 54 which states that there may be "a case when the vehicle is
tilted on a slope or the like").
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9 and 15 as being obvious over
Siekmann, Suzuki, Takaki, and Murabayashi. We sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 9 and 15.
The rejection of claims 11 and 12
as unpatentable over Siekmann, Suzuki, Takaki, and Channing
We select claim 11 for review, with claim 12 standing or falling with
claim 11. Claim 11, which indirectly depends from claim 1, includes the
additional limitation "wherein the reservoir has a safety valve configured to
prevent an occurrence of a vacuum in the reservoir beyond a predefined
maximum vacuum." The Examiner relies on Channing for disclosing a
safety valve configured as recited. Final Act. 10. Appellants' acknowledge
Channing's vacuum-relief valve but contend that Channing "is completely
silent and lacks any recognition for the prevention of an occurrence of a
vacuum in the reservoir beyond a predefined maximum vacuum." Br. 11.
The Examiner, however, explains, "[i]t is an inherent feature of
vacuum valves that they prevent the occurrence of a vacuum in a space
beyond a predefined maximum vacuum" and that "[a] vacuum valve will
only actuate once the vacuum pressure within a space exceeds a predefined
maximum vacuum" as claimed. Ans. 18. The Examiner admits "that
Channing does not disclose a specific numerical value or rating for the
7
Appeal2017-008402
Application 14/084,383
vacuum valves" but, nevertheless, "the nature and function of the valves
read on" Appellants' claim language. Ans. 18.
Appellants do not reply to this rationale expressed by the Examiner, or
otherwise attempt to explain how the Examiner's reasoning might be
mistaken. In other words, Appellants do not explain how the Examiner
erred in stating that the nature and function of vacuum valves teach a tipping
point where the valve will remain closed with respect to pressure values on
one side thereof but will open with respect to pressure values on the other
side thereof. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
relying on Channing for teaching the recited additional limitation. We
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 11 and 12.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6, 8-12, and 14--20 are
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended as set forth in 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a)( 1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8