Ex Parte KAWAGUCHI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2016

12139214 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/139,214 06/13/2008 65565 7590 08/24/2016 SUGHRUE-265550 2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. NW WASHINGTON, DC 20037-3213 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Y asunori KAW A GU CHI 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. Ql08598 1956 EXAMINER ROGERS, DAVID A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2856 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/24/2016 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): SUGHRUE265550@SUGHRUE.COM PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM USPTO@sughrue.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte Y ASUNORI KAWAGUCHI and TOSHIO OIKE Appeal2014-007485 Application 12/13 9 ,214 Technology Center 2800 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JAMES R. HUGHES, and MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the Examiner to twice reject claims 1 and 6-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An Oral Hearing was held on July 15, 2016. We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A liquid level detecting apparatus for detecting a liquid level of a fuel, the apparatus comprising: Appeal2014-007485 Application 12/13 9 ,214 a resistance plate which includes an insulating plate and a resistor mounted on the insulating plate, the resistor having a plurality of conductive segments; a sliding body including an arm holder, a constituent member connected to the arm holder, at least one contact disposed on the constituent member for contacting on the conductive segments, the at least one contact sliding over the conductive segments in accordance with a change of the liquid level of the fuel, the constituent member including a first contact holding portion, a second contact holding portion, and a proximal end portion; a float which is displaced in accordance with the change of the liquid level of the fuel; and a float arm which interconnects the arm holder of the sliding body and the float, and moves the sliding body in accordance with a displacement of the float; wherein at least a surface of the constituent member of the sliding body is comprised of a material having a corrosion resistance to the fuel, and at least a surface of the float arm is comprised of the material same as the material of the surface of the constituent member so that the surface of the float arm and the surface of the constituent member have substantially the same oxidation-reduction potential to prevent the occurrence of an electrochemical reaction there between, wherein the constituent member of the sliding body and at least the surface of the float arm are comprised of stainless steel to form an oxide film by causing chromium (CR) contained in the stainless steel to react with oxygen (02) contained in the fuel, thereby suppressing a sulfurization of the stainless steel due to a sulfide component contained in the fuel, wherein the at least one contact of the sliding body is made of gold or gold alloy, or a surface of the at least one contact is plated with gold or gold alloy, and wherein the proximal end portion is insert-molded into the arm holder and interconnects the first contact holding portion and the second contact holding portion such that the first contact holding portion and the second contact holding portion are electrically connected together via the proximal end portion. 2 Appeal2014-007485 Application 12/13 9 ,214 REFERENCES AND REJECTION The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Forgue US 2006/0219004 Al Crary et al. US 2006/0266112 Al Miyagawa et al. US 2007 /0085532 Al Oct. 5, 2006 Nov. 30, 2006 Apr. 19, 2007 Kirk, CONDUCTIVITY OF GASOLINE-ETHANOL-WATER MIXTURES, published in Fuel, Vol. 62, Dec. 1983. Hill, THE IMPORTANCE OF CHEMICAL TREATMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE WELDING OF STAINLESS STEEL AND ALUMINUM, presented to The Philippine Welding Society, Oct. 1997. Claims 1 and 6-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Forgue, Crary, Miyagawa, Kirk, and Hill. Non-Final Act. 3-7. ANALYSIS Appellants contend "[ c ]laim 1 recites, inter alia, three essential components: the constituent member (26), float arm (11 ), and contact (27, 28)" and "specifies a material relationship among these members." App. Br. 6. Appellants dispute the applied combination of references teaches or suggests the material relationship, namely, that "the constituent member of the sliding body and at least the surface of the float arm are comprised of stainless steel" and "the at least one contact of the sliding body is made of gold or gold alloy, or a surface of the at least one contact is plated with gold or gold alloy," as recited in claim 1. Appellants argue (i.) Miyagawa is "silent as to both a constituent member and a contact" and therefore, does not disclose the material 3 Appeal2014-007485 Application 12/13 9 ,214 relationship among the three components. Id. at 9. Appellants also argue (ii.) Kirk does not teach the material relationship because Kirk would lead the ordinarily skilled artisan to form all three components from stainless steel. Id. Lastly, Appellants argue (iii.) the combination of Kirk and Crary is improper because Kirk discourages the use of dissimilar metals and Crary teaches the use of dissimilar metals and the combination amounts to impermissible hindsight. Id. at 10-11. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions to the extent consistent with our analysis below. Arguments (i.) and (ii.) constitute individual attacks on the references, which are not persuasive to show non-obviousness. Ans. 2 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981)). Further, argument (i.) is not responsive to the Examiner's specific findings. The Examiner cites Miyagawa to teach the use of stainless steel in liquid-level detecting devices located within a fuel tank and cites Forgue as teaching the claimed "constituent member." Ans. 2-3. Appellants' arguments do not address the cited teachings of Forgue. See generally App. Br. 6-11. Contrary to argument (ii.), claim 1 does not preclude "the at least one contact of the sliding body" from also being made of stainless steel, like the floating arm and the constituent member. All claim 1 requires is that "the at least one contact of the sliding body is made of gold or a gold alloy, or a surface of the at least one contact is plated with gold or gold alloy." That is, claim 1 does not preclude the at least one contact of the sliding body from being made of stainless steel and being plated with gold or a gold alloy. Moreover, the Examiner acknowledges Kirk could suggest that all three 4 Appeal2014-007485 Application 12/13 9 ,214 claim elements are made of or include the same material and instead, cites Crary to teach contacts that are formed of a material different from that of the material forming the constituent member. Ans. 4. With regard to argument (iii.), the Examiner finds "Kirk teaches that dissimilar metals can be source of galvanic corrosion," and further finds "not all dissimilar metals exhibit gross or even significant galvanic corrosion." Id. The Examiner further finds using gold for the contacts (in combination with stainless steel elements) would not have created a galvanic corrosion issue. Id. at 5. The Examiner evidences the findings with a citation to Penn Engineering (Oct. 2005): Metals close to one another on the chart generally do not have a strong effect on one another, but the farther apart any two metals are separated, the stronger the corroding effect on the one higher in the list. Gold and stainless steel are quite close together as opposed to, for example, stainless steel and aluminum. There would be mm1mal, if any, galvanic corrosion between gold and stainless steel. See also the reference to La Clusienne-Clufix (dated 17 April 2012) where table on page 7 shows that gold and stainless steel do not exhibit significant galvanic corrosion. It is also stated in La Clusienne-Clufix: A few ways of fighting against this corrosion: choose metallic pairs in which the elements are as close as possible in the table opposite ... Ans. 4--5 (internal quotations omitted). Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to combine the teachings of Kirk and Crary. We concur with the Examiner's conclusion. The Supreme Court held that "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is 5 Appeal2014-007485 Application 12/13 9 ,214 likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). In fact, Appellants acknowledge that, "since the contact of the sliding body is made of gold, the ionization tendency of which is lower than that of stainless steel, the most critical part of the system (i.e., contact of the sliding body) is protected from corrosion." App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 5. Appellants do not present sufficient evidence that would persuade us corrosion protection would have been an unexpected result of combining stainless steel and gold members, particularly in light of the Examiner's finding that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that as "an inherent property of stainless steel, ... chromium forms a passivation layer in the presence of oxygen" (Non-Final Act. 6). In view of the above, we are not persuaded the Examiner improperly combined Kirk and Crary, nor are we persuaded the Examiner improperly relied on hindsight. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Forgue, Kirk, Crary, Miyagawa, and Hill teaches or suggests the disputed limitation, nor the limitations recited in dependent claims 6-10, which are not separately argued. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1and6-10. 6 Appeal2014-007485 Application 12/13 9 ,214 DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 6-10 is affirmed. 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