Ex Parte Mason et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

13900315 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 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.
13/900,315 05/22/2013 Paul Mason 081276-9576-01 7477
34044 7590 10/02/2017
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch)
100 EAST WISCONSIN AVENUE
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
HOLBROOK, TEUTA BAJRAMOVIC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2017 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL MASON and HANS-PETER BRAUN
Appeal 2016-007933
Application 13/900,315
Technology Center 3700
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 3—19.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 in the
Answer. Ans. 7,11.
Appeal 2016-007933
Application 13/900,315
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claims are directed generally to “fuel supply systems.”
Spec. 12. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A fuel supply system comprising:
a fuel pump having a bottom inlet end configured to pick
up fuel and a top discharge end configured to discharge fuel at a
pressure higher than that of the inlet end;
a housing defining a pressure vessel in fluid
communication with the top discharge end of the fuel pump, the
fuel pump being secured with respect to the housing so that the
pressure vessel is laterally adjacent the fuel pump and the
pressure vessel and the fuel pump have overlapping heights;
exactly one check valve positioned between the top
discharge end of the fuel pump and the pressure vessel; and
a channel located within the housing alongside the
pressure vessel between the top discharge end of the fuel pump
and the check valve, the channel being configured to receive all
of the flow discharged from the fuel pump, the channel
terminating at a manifold providing a two-way diversion of the
flow of fuel between a first portion provided through the check
valve and into the pressure vessel, and a second portion provided
to a jet pump, wherein the channel extends along an outer
peripheral portion of the housing such that the check valve is
positioned at an inlet to the pressure vessel at a circumferentially-
distant location spaced apart from the discharge end of the fuel
pump in a direction about the outer peripheral portion of the
housing.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Braun US 7,765,990 B2 Aug. 3,2010
2
Appeal 2016-007933
Application 13/900,315
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 5—7, 10—14, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Braun. Ans. 2.
Claims 3, 4, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Braun. Ans. 7.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue inter alia that the Examiner has failed to show how
Braun teaches the claimed circumferential distance between the check valve
9 and the pump outlet fitting 7. Br. 7. As Appellants state:
[ajlthough it may not be possible to say with certainty from the
disclosure of Braun whether the check valve 9 and the pump
outlet fitting 7 are exactly aligned along a common radius
extending from the center of the filter housing 26, both
elements are shown along the same cut plane in the view of Fig.
3 in such a way that there is clearly no appreciable distance in
the circumferential direction separating the check valve 9 from
the pump outlet fitting 7.
From this explanation we can gather that the claim term “the check valve is
positioned at an inlet to the pressure vessel at a circumferentially-distant
location spaced apart from the discharge end of the fuel pump in a direction
about the outer peripheral portion of the housing” requires the two elements
to be positioned, for example, at differing points on a clock face. Appellants
essentially argue that Braun appears to show both the check valve and the
fitting at, for example three o’clock, whereas the claims require, as shown,
for example, in Appellants’ figure 2, outlet 52 at approximately one o’clock
with check valve 64 at approximately three o’clock.
3
Appeal 2016-007933
Application 13/900,315
We agree with the Appellants that this claimed feature is not found in
Braun. Curiously, the Examiner responds to this argument with an
explanation of the definition of the term “channel” as used in the claims.
Ans. 8. As Appellants’ argument has essentially nothing to do with the
definition of channel, we do not find this response persuasive.
Furthermore, the Examiner goes on to state, without any explanation,
that “a check valve (9) [is] positioned at a circumferentially-distant location
spaced apart from the pump outlet fitting in a direction about the outer
peripheral portion of the filter housing” while referencing Braun’s figure 3
and explaining that “the channel.. .is located along the periphery of the
housing.” Id. Again, Appellants’ argument does not pertain to the channel
and the Examiner’s response provides no explanation as to how Braun is
being interpreted so as to include the circumferential spacing as claimed.
Given that we agree with the Appellants that Braun appears to teach a
circumferentially aligned check valve/outlet combination rather than a
circumferentially spaced combination, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of either of independent claims 1 or 11. Likewise we do not
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3—7, 10, and 12—17.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 1, 3—7, and 10—17.
REVERSED
4