Ex Parte Sanches Provase et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 4, 2018

14381456 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/381,456 08/27/2014 I van Sanches Pro vase
52203 7590 10/09/2018
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC.
ONE CONTINENT AL DRIVE
LEGAL DEPARTMENT? INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
AUBURN HILLS, MI 48326-1581
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.
2012P02302WOUS 6841
EXAMINER
VILAKAZI, SIZO BINDA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/09/2018 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):
PatentsAH @continental-corporation.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IV AN SANCHES PROV ASE, MARCOS OLIVEIRA,
and ALEXANDRE REZENDE
Appeal2017-010888
Application 14/3 81,456
Technology Center 3700
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1---6, 8-11, and 13.2 We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 "Continental Brasil Industria Automotiva Ltda. Of Brazil is the real party
in interest of the present application." (Appeal Br. 2.)
2 Claims 7, 12, and 14 have been cancelled. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Appeal2017-010888
Application 14/381,456
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants' invention relates to "an internal combustion engine,"
which "bums gasoline, ethanol or a mixture of fuels, composed or not of a
preponderant fraction of ethanol." (Spec. 1, 11. 5-10.)
Independent Claims on Appeal
1. A cold start-up system of a flex-fuel internal
combustion engine, the engine comprising:
at least one injector nozzle to inject a fuel within at least
one cylinder of the engine having a cylinder wall,
wherein the fuel is pre-injected within the cylinder to
form a fuel film adhered to the cylinder wall before activation
of a starter motor.
4. A flex-fuel internal combustion engine cold start-up
method for use with a flex-fuel internal combustion engine that
can run on fuel comprising gasoline, ethanol, or a mixture
thereof, the method comprising:
prior to the activation of a starter motor, the fuel is pre-
injected within at least one cylinder of the engine to form a fuel
film adhered to a cylinder wall of the at least one cylinder.
8. A cold start-up system of an internal combustion
engine for an engine burning a fuel composed of gasoline,
ethanol or a mixture thereof, composed or not of a preponderant
fraction of ethanol, comprising at least one injector nozzle to
inject the fuel within at least one cylinder of the engine,
wherein the fuel is pre-injected within the cylinder to ensure the
formation of a fuel film adhered to a cylinder wall of the
cylinder before the activation of a starter motor.
N agashima
Bidner
Pursifull
Birch
Evidence
US 2011/0276239 Al
US 2010/02364518 Al
US 2010/0192879 Al
us 5,343,848
2
Nov. 10, 2011
Sept. 23, 2010
Aug. 5,2010
Sept. 6, 1994
Appeal2017-010888
Application 14/381,456
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Pursifull. (Final Action 2.)
The Examiner rejects claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9--11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Pursifull and Birch. (Final Action 3.)
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites a system involving "a flex-fuel internal
combustion engine," independent claim 4 recites a method involving "a flex-
fuel internal combustion engine," and independent claim 8 recites a system
involving "an engine burning a fuel composed of gasoline, ethanol or a
mixture thereof." (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Independent Claim 1
The Examiner determines that Pursifull discloses the flex-fuel internal
combustion engine recited in independent claim 1. (See Final Action 2.)
Pursifull discloses an internal combustion engine in which "[a] liquid fuel,
such as gasoline or ethanol," is delivered to the combustion chamber via "a
fuel delivery system" that includes "a fuel tank, a fuel pump, and a fuel rail."
(Pursifull ,r,r 18, 25.) Pursifull also discloses "a gaseous mixture," that
includes "hydrogen gas," which is injected "during an engine start." (Id.
,r,r 13, 18.)
According to the Examiner, Pursifull "discloses a multi fuel system
that runs on a mix of hydrogen and either gas or ethanol." (Answer 6.) The
Examiner's position, as we understand it, is that Pursifull's engine can be
considered "a flex-fuel internal combustion engine" by virtue of its use of
3
Appeal2017-010888
Application 14/381,456
hydrogen gas in conjunction with a liquid fuel (i.e., either gasoline or
ethanol) during an engine start.
The Appellants argue that Pursifull does not disclose, in an
anticipatory manner, the flex-fuel internal combustion engine required by
independent claim 1. (See Appeal Br. 10.) More particularly, the
Appellants assert that "the engine in Pursifull is not a 'flex-fuel engine'"
when this claim term is construed in light of the Specification. (Id.) We are
persuaded by the Appellants' position.
The Specification describes "multi-fuel vehicles, better known as flex-
fuel vehicles." (Spec. 1, 11. 30-31.) These "multi-fuel" or "flex-fuel"
vehicles "bum ethanol, gasoline or a mixture of these fuels in any
proportion." (Id. at 1, 1. 32.) And, while burning ethanol, gasoline, or a
mixture thereof, these "multi-fuel" or "flex-fuel vehicles" maintain
"satisfactory levels of performance, drivability and emission of pollutants."
(Id. at 2, 11. 1-2.)3
Thus, the Specification describes a flex-fuel vehicle as a vehicle that
will drive satisfactory regardless of whether its fuel tank is filled with
1) ethanol, 2) gasoline, or 3) mixtures thereof, because its flex-fuel engine is
constructed to bum all three of these fuel options.
As indicated above, the Examiner finds that Pursifull' s engine uses
hydrogen gas in conjunction with liquid fuel during an engine start. (See
3 The Specification discusses that "[h ]istorically, gasoline has always been
the fuel used by the vast majority of internal combustion Otto-cycle
engines." (Spec. 1, 11. 20-21.) However, "the shortage and rising of oil
prices" caused Brazil "to vary its energy matrix and start producing ethanol
on a large scale to move automobiles," and "[i]n the 80s, the cars driven by
ethanol have come to dominate the Brazilian market." (Id. at 1, 11. 26-30.)
4
Appeal2017-010888
Application 14/381,456
Answer 6.) However, this finding by the Examiner is insufficient to equate
Pursifull's engine to a "flex-fuel" engine when this term is construed in light
of the Specification. More particularly, this finding by the Examiner does
not establish adequately that Pursifull' s engine is constructed to bum all
three fuel options of 1) ethanol, 2) gasoline, and 3) mixtures thereof.
The Examiner maintains that "[t]he term 'flex fuel' varies in the art"
and cites to two "alternative definitions," from two prior art references
(Bidner and Nagashima), to prove this point. (Answer 6.) According to the
Examiner, these two alternative definitions demonstrate that the claim term
"'flex fuel' has been defined in a much broader way throughout the art."
(Id.) And, according to the Examiner, "Pursifull would be considered a 'flex
fuel' system based on both of the alternative definitions provided." (Id.)
The problem with the Examiner's approach is that it does not take into
account that the claim term at issue must be construed in a manner consistent
with the Specification, which may, or may not, be aligned with the lexigraphy
contained in the prior art. 4 Here, the Examiner does not address how or why
these alternative definitions are consistent with the Specification. As
discussed above, the Specification conveys that a "flex-flux" engine is an
engine that is constructed to bum ethanol, gasoline, and mixtures thereof.
And the Examiner fails to show sufficiently that Pursifull' s engine is
constructed to bum ethanol, gasoline, and mixtures thereof.
Consequently, the Examiner does not establish adequately that
Pursifull discloses, in an anticipatory manner, the system recited in
independent claim 1.
4 See In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
5
Appeal2017-010888
Application 14/381,456
Thus, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Pursifull.
Independent Claim 4
The Examiner determines that Pursifull discloses the flex-fuel internal
combustion engine required by independent claim 4. (See Final Action 3.)
As discussed above, in the context of the claims on appeal, a "flex-fuel"
engine is an engine that is constructed to bum ethanol, gasoline, and
mixtures thereof; and the Examiner fails to show sufficiently that Pursifull's
engine is constructed to do so.
Consequently, the Examiner does not establish adequately that
Pursifull discloses, in an anticipatory manner, the method recited in
independent claim 4.
Thus, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Pursifull.
Independent Claim 8
The Examiner determines that Pursifull discloses the internal
combustion engine as required by independent claim 8. (See Final
Action 3.) However, independent claim 8 requires "an engine burning a fuel
composed of gasoline, ethanol or a mixture thereof," (Appeal Br., Claims
App.), which we construe as an engine constructed to bum all three fuel
options of 1) ethanol, 2) gasoline, and 3) mixtures thereof. As indicated
above, according to the Examiner, Pursifull discloses a "multi fuel system
that runs on a mix of hydrogen and either gas or ethanol." (Answer 6,
emphasis added.) In other words, according to the Examiner, Pursifull
discloses an engine that is either constructed to bum gasoline or is instead
constructed to bum ethanol. (See Pursifull ff 18, 25, 27, and 36.)
6
Appeal2017-010888
Application 14/381,456
Consequently, the Examiner does not establish adequately that
Pursifull discloses, in an anticipatory manner, the system recited in
independent claim 8.
Thus, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Pursifull.
Dependent Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9-11, and 13
The Examiner determines that the systems and methods recited in the
dependent claims would have been obvious over Pursifull and Birch. (See
Final Action 3-5.) However, the Examiner's findings and reasoning in this
regard do not compensate for the above-discussed shortcomings in the
rejection of independent claims 1, 4, and 8.
Thus, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 5,
6, 9-11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pursifull and
Birch.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6, 8-11, and 13.
REVERSED
7