Ex Parte Liimatta et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 22, 2012

11307059 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 22, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GARY LIIMATTA, BRENT HALL, and MILAN DOCKERY
____________

Appeal 2010-002211
Application 11/307,059
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-002211
Application 11/307,059

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Soshino (US 7,040,283 B2, iss. May 9, 2006), Wylie (US
5,096,156, iss. Mar. 17, 1992) and Reppert (US 2,876,984, iss. Mar. 10,
1959).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Soshino, Wylie, Reppert, and Twito (US 6,708,949 B2, iss. Mar. 23, 2004).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Soshino, Wylie, Reppert, Twito1, and Stearns (US 5,979,872, iss. Nov. 9,
1999).

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 14 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reformatted and reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.

1 Since the Examiner rejects claim 12 “as applied to claim 11” and claim 11
is rejected as unpatentable over Soshino, Wylie, Reppert, and Twito, the
rejection of claim 12 is also understood to include Twito in the ground of
rejection. See Ans. 4.
Appeal 2010-002211
Application 11/307,059

3
1. A throttle valve for an internal combustion
engine, comprising:
a generally cylindrical valve housing having
an inside diameter; and
a throttle plate pivotally mounted within said
valve housing, with said throttle plate comprising:
a valve disc having an outer rim
shaped as a spherical segment, with said disc
having an outside diameter proximate the
inner diameter of said valve housing; and
a plurality of pivots extending through
apertures formed in said valve housing and
into contact with said disc.
Similarly, claim 14 recites “[a] throttle valve for an internal
combustion engine” including “a throttle plate . . . comprising: a disc having
an outer rim shaped as a spherical segment, with said disc having an outside
diameter proximate the inner diameter of said valve housing.”

OPINION
The Examiner finds that Soshino discloses “a throttle valve with a
valve disc located within cylindrical valve housing,” but lacks “a valve disc
having an outer rim shaped as a spherical segment, with said disc having an
outside diameter proximate the inner diameter of said valve housing,” as
recited in claim 1. See Ans. 3. The Examiner turns to Wylie’s disclosure of
“a valve disc (32) having an outer rim shaped as a spherical segment (80, 82)
(Col. 4, lines 30-39)” and Reppert’s disclosure of a “disc having an outside
diameter proximate the inner diameter of the valve housing is old and well
known in the art (Col. 3, lines 3-6)” to remedy the deficiency of Soshino
Appeal 2010-002211
Application 11/307,059

4
with regard to claim 1, as discussed above. Id. See also Reppert, col. 3, ll.
1-7 (disclosing that disc 2 has a spherical surface 2a) and Ans. 6.
According to the Examiner’s reasoning, the combined teachings of
Soshino and Wylie would have improved sealing effects. Ans. 3. As for the
combined teachings of Soshino, as modified by Wylie, and Reppert, the
Examiner determines:
Since the prior art references art from the same
field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by
Reppert would have been recognized in the
pertinent art of Soshino. Therefore, it would have
been obvious at the time the invention was made to
a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide
the device of Soshino[, as modified by Wylie,]
with the disc having an outside diameter proximate
the inner diameter of the valve housing as taught
by Reppert.
Ans. 3-4.
The Appellants point out that Reppert’s “disc 2 is less than the
diameter of the valve body's passage but greater than the diameter of a seal,
3, which is interposed between valve body 1 and disc 2, in order to achieve a
complete shutoff of flow through Reppert's valve,” and contend that such an
arrangement is “unsuitable” and “undesirable for an automotive throttle
valve” because such results in the throttle valve being stuck in a closed
position, i.e. “corking,” which the Appellants “inveigh against in their
Specification at Paragraph [0021], lines 5-7.” App. Br. 6.
The Examiner’s response that “since both [Wylie’s and Reppert’s]
valve disc have an outer rim as a spherical segment, ‘corking’ or ‘stuck’
situation can be avoided as the Appellants’ invention” (Ans. 6; see Spec.
para [0021], ll. 5-7) is merely part of a manner in which corking is avoided
Appeal 2010-002211
Application 11/307,059

5
as described by the Specification. The Specification also provides that
“[r]im 26 is shaped as a spherical segment having an outside diameter which
is slightly less than the inside diameter 18 of valve housing 14.” Spec. para
[0021], ll. 3-5. As such, we understand from the Specification that the
claimed invention avoids corking by having an outer rim with: first a
spherical segment; and second, an outer diameter slightly less than the inside
diameter of the valve housing. In this case, the Examiner’s combination of
references would result in corking because Reppert specifically teaches that
disc 2 and sealing ring 3 “firmly” press against one another. See also,
Reppert, figs. 2 and 4, col. 3, ll. 1-7, 48-62, and col. 4, ll. 1-3. As such, the
Examiner’s rejection lacks rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds [require] some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.”) (cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007)).
The Examiner alternatively finds that Wylie discloses the “valve disc
has a less diameter than the inner surface of the housing” and “an outer rim
as a spherical segment.” Ans. 6. However, this finding is inadequately
supported because the inner surface of housing (conduit) 10, at bead 20,
contacts the disc’s 30, 32 seal elements 80, 82. Wylie, fig. 3, col. 2, 7-15,
and col. 4, ll. 28-39; see also App. Br. 5. This being the case even if,
arguendo, sufficient reason were to exist to combine the teachings of
Soshino and Wylie in the manner proposed by the Examiner, the result
would not be the structure required by independent claims 1 and 14.
Appeal 2010-002211
Application 11/307,059

6
Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claim 1 as
unpatentable over Soshino, Wylie, and Reppert is not sustained. For similar
reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 14 likewise is not
sustained. Since the Examiner has not adequately supported a prima facie
case of obviousness for the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 14,
we do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2-10, 13, and 15-20,
which depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1 or claim 14. See In
re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The remaining rejections based on Soshino, Wylie, and Reppert in
combination with Twito, and Twito and Stearns suffer from the same
inadequacies as discussed above. As such, we cannot sustain the rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 11 as unpatentable over Soshino, Wylie,
Reppert, and Twito, and claim 12 as unpatentable over Soshino, Wylie,
Reppert, Twito, and Stearns.

DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1-20.

REVERSED

mls