Ex Parte Lemke et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 13, 2018

12592030 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/592,030
116845 7590
Terrance A. Meador
Achates Power, Inc.
FILING DATE
11/18/2009
04/16/2018
4060 Sorrento Valley Boulevard
San Diego, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James U. Lemke
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.
ACHP1030US 4083
EXAMINER
KIM, JAMES JAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/16/2018 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 JAMES U. LEMKE and BRYANT A. WAGNER
Appeal2017-001614
Application 12/592,030 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 19--22. 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.
Appeal2017-001614
Application 12/592,030
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
19. A method for operating an opposed piston engine in
which a pair of pistons is disposed in opposition in the bore of a
cylinder, the cylinder including inlet and exhaust ports opening
through the bore, each piston including a crown with a front
face, a circumferential groove having a floor, and an annular
compression seal mounted in the groove, each compression seal
including an annular bearing surface and an annular inner
peripheral surface spaced from the floor of the groove in which
the compression seal is mounted, the method comprising:
operating the opposed-piston engine with a two-stroke
cycle;
cooling the cylinder and the crown of each piston to
maintain circularity of the interface between the bore and each
piston;
contacting the bore with the annular bearing surface of
each compression seal;
combusting a mixture of air and fuel in the bore, between
the front faces, as the pistons move through respective top dead
center (TDC) positions;
the annular bearing surface of each compression seal
contacting the bore, with no clearance between the annular
bearing surface and the bore, in response to a high level of
compression seal tension in the direction of the bore resulting
from combustion pressure acting against the inner peripheral
surface as the piston moves away from a TDC position;
reducing the compression seal tension resulting from
combustion pressure of each compression seal as the piston on
which it is mounted moves toward a BDC position;
the annular bearing surface of each compression seal
contacting the bore, with no clearance between the annular
bearing surface and the bore, in response to a residual low level
of compression seal tension in the direction of the bore as the
piston traverses a port.
2
Appeal2017-001614
Application 12/592,030
CITED REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Kawano et al.
(hereinafter "Kawano")
Paul et al.
(hereinafter "Paul")
us 4,848,212
us 5,042,441
Elsbett et al. US 5,065,707
(hereinafter "Elsbett '707")
Elsbett US 7,669,560 B2
(hereinafter "Elsbett '5 60")
REJECTION
July 18, 1989
Aug. 27, 1991
Nov. 19, 1991
Mar. 2, 2010
Claims 19--22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Paul, Kawano, Elsbett '707, and Elsbett '560.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 19 relates to a method for operating an opposed
piston engine, having a pair of pistons disposed in an opposing relationship
within a cylinder bore, with each piston defining a circumferential groove
and having a compression seal mounted in each of the grooves. In
operation, claim 19 requires "a high level of compression seal tension in the
direction of the bore resulting from combustion pressure acting against the
inner peripheral surface [of the annular compression seal] as the piston
moves away from a [top dead center] position," followed by "reducing the
compression seal tension" -i.e., the force of the compression seal's annular
bearing surface against the bore - "resulting from combustion pressure of
3
Appeal2017-001614
Application 12/592,030
each compression seal as the piston on which it is mounted moves toward a
[bottom dead center] position." Consequently, as set forth in claim 19, "the
annular bearing surface of each compression seal contact[ s] the bore, with
no clearance between the annular bearing surface and the bore, in response
to a residual low level of compression seal tension in the direction of the
bore as the piston traverses a port."
The Examiner's Answer (page 5) states that claim 19 's recited
features of "each compression seal contacting the bore ... in response to a
high level of compression seal tension in the direction of the bore resulting
from combustion pressure acting against the inner peripheral surface as the
piston moves away from a [top dead center] position," "reducing the
compression seal tension resulting from combustion pressure of each
compression seal as the piston on which it is mounted moves toward a
[bottom dead center] position," and "the annular bearing surface of each
compression seal contacting the bore ... in response to a residual low level
of compression seal tension in the direction of the bore as the piston
traverses a port," amount to no more than "language reciting what occurs
naturally in the combustion process." See also Final Action 3--4.
However, we agree with the Appellants' position that the rejection
does not adequately explain where these features might be disclosed in the
prior art. See Appeal Br. 7-8; see also Reply Br. 1-2. Although the
rejection appears to rely upon Kawano for the disclosure of the identified
recited features (see Final Action 3--4, Answer 4--5), the rejection does not
sufficiently identify which portion( s) of the reference might teach these
features.
4
Appeal2017-001614
Application 12/592,030
Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, we do not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 19 and claims 20-22, depending therefrom,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 19-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
5