Ex Parte Schnedt

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 12, 2019

14371037 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/371,037 07/08/2014
10800 7590 02/12/2019
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Johannes Schnedt
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.
2178-1092 4927
EXAMINER
KESSLER, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/12/2019 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 JOHANNES SCHNEDT
Appeal2018-001707 1
Application 14/371,0372
Technology Center 3700
Before KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, BRADLEY B. BAY AT, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1
and 3-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our Decision references the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Sept. 15,
2017), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Dec. 5, 2017), the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Oct. 31, 2017), and the Final Office Action ("Final
Act.," mailed Apr. 19, 2017).
2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Robert Bosch GmbH.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-001707
Application 14/371,037
BACKGROUND
According to Appellant, "[ t ]he invention relates to a device for
injecting fuel into the combustion chamber of an internal combustion
engine." Spec. 1, 11. 4---6.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal and recites:
1. A device for injecting fuel into the combustion chamber
of an internal combustion engine, comprising:
at least one injector including:
an injector body including an accumulator tube, a
holding body, and an injection nozzle, the holding body
having a first end connected to the accumulator tube, the
accumulator tube defining a high-pressure accumulator
chamber integrated into the injector body, and the
injection nozzle defining a nozzle chamber and having a
nozzle needle surrounded by the nozzle chamber and
configured to be guided in an axially movable manner;
a high-pressure bore defined at least partially in the
holding body and connecting the high-pressure
accumulator chamber and the nozzle chamber;
a feed bore defined at least partially in the holding
body and configured to feed high-pressure fuel to the
high-pressure accumulator chamber; and
a lance connection positioned laterally on the
holding body of the injector body,
wherein the feed bore is formed separately from
the high-pressure bore, and connects the lance connection
directly to a portion of the high-pressure accumulator
chamber defined in the accumulator tube.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App'x).
2
Appeal2018-001707
Application 14/371,037
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 3-9 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Applicant Admitted Prior Art ("AAP A") 3 in view of
Heintz. 4
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues, inter alia, that "[t]he Examiner has not provided a
clear articulation of the reasons for obviousness." Appeal Br. 7 ( emphasis
omitted). As discussed below, we agree.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that AAP A teaches a
device as claimed, including a feed bore, except that AAP A does not teach
the specific configuration of the feed bore required by the claim. Final Act.
3--4. In particular, the Examiner acknowledges that "AAP A fails to disclose
wherein the feed bore is formed separately from the high-pressure bore, and
connects the lance connection directly to a portion of a high-pressure
accumulator chamber." Id. at 4. The Examiner then relies on Heintz as
teaching a feed bore formed separately from a high-pressure bore and
connected directly to a high pressure accumulator. Id. The Examiner
concludes:
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in
the art, at the time of the invention, to modify the teaching of
AAP A by Heintz as to provide a feed bore that is formed
separately from the high-pressure bore, and connects a
connection element directly to the high pressure accumulator as
to allow for an energy storing fuel accumulator which is in
selected communication with the injector nozzle needle as
disclosed in [col.I, 11. 60--63] as to isolate the fuel feed flow
3 See Spec. Fig. 1 (Prior Art).
4 Heintz, US 3,187,733, iss. June 8, 1965.
3
Appeal2018-001707
Application 14/371,037
Id.
from the outflow of the accumulator such that a desired fuel
pressure is maintained both upstream and downstream [from]
the accumulator in order to enable better accuracy of the
pressure being supplied to both the injector, and in the upstream
feed system upstream, which is used [for] feeding other
injectors.
"[R ]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also KSR
Int'! v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007). We determine that the
Examiner's reasoning is not sufficient to support the conclusion that the
combination would have been obvious for two reasons. First, we find that
the relied-upon portion of Heintz (i.e., col. 1, 11. 60-63), does not appear to
provide support for the Examiner's reasoning. There, Heintz discloses:
It is a further object of this invention to provide a
plurality of fuel injectors, each having an energy storing fuel
accumulator for collecting engine fuel under high pressure and
being in selected communication with an injector nozzle and an
associated engine controlled rotary distributor valve receiving
fluid under pressure and providing periodic hydraulic pressure
for operation of a respective injector nozzle valve with
attendant discharge of fuel from an accumulator into an engine
cylinder.
Heintz, col. 1, 11. 60-68. But the Examiner does not explain how this
disclosure relates to any advantage of the placement of Heintz's rail line 26 5
over the placement of the feed bore in AAP A. Further, we agree with
5 The Examiner identifies rail line 26 as the feed bore in Heintz. See Final
Act. 4.
4
Appeal2018-001707
Application 14/371,037
Appellant that the "selected communication" disclosed seems to refer to the
control provided by the rotary distributor valve and does not appear to be a
result of the configuration of the of the rail line in connection with the
accumulator. See Appeal Br. 7.
Second, without further explanation, we fail to see how Heintz teaches
"that a desired fuel pressure is maintained both upstream and downstream
the accumulator in order to enable better accuracy of the pressure being
supplied to both the injector, and in the upstream feed system upstream,
which is used feeding other injectors" based on the configuration of the rail
line. Final Act. 4. The Examiner also does not explain adequately how the
configuration in AAP A fails to achieve this result such that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify AAP A. We
acknowledge the Examiner's extended explanation regarding this reasoning
in the Answer. See Ans. 9-10. However, the Examiner does not provide
sufficient evidence or explanation to support the intimation that there is an
undesirable pressure difference present in AAP A, such that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify AAP A as proposed.
Appellant persuades us with technical reasoning, in contrast to the
Examiner's unsubstantiated statements, that the actual pressure difference
with respect to a difference in position or height of the rail line/feed bore is
likely to be negligible. See Reply Br. 3.
Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
We also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3-9 for the same
reasons.
5
Appeal2018-001707
Application 14/371,037
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1 and 3-9.
REVERSED
6