Ex Parte Tsuchiya et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 14, 2012

10494568 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 14, 2012)

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.
10/494,568 10/27/2004 Hideki Tsuchiya GOT 185NP 1799
23995 7590 06/14/2012
RABIN & Berdo, PC
1101 14TH STREET, NW
SUITE 500
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
BASTIANELLI, JOHN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte HIDEKI TSUCHIYA and YOSHIHARU MIYA
____________________

Appeal 2010-002809
Application 10/494,568
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-002809
Application 10/494,568
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Hideki Tsuchiya and Yoshiharu Miya (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3. The
Examiner withdrew claim 4 from consideration. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM, but designate our affirmance a NEW GROUND OF
REJECTION.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. An electromagnetic proportional flow rate control valve,
comprising:
a valve body;
a valve member;
a movable core fixed to the valve member and guided so
as to slide freely within the valve body;
a spring configured to drive the valve member in a valve
opening direction; and
a solenoid coil configured to directly drive the movable
core, and hence drive the valve member, in a valve closing
direction in accordance with an increase in a driving current of
the solenoid coil against a spring force of the spring, wherein
a solenoid driving force itself is set such that an amount
of change in a displacement of the valve member in the valve
closing direction is reduced with respect to a unit change in the
driving current in a region where a stroke of the valve member
is short, and
a cavity portion for magnetic field regulation, having an
annular shape, is formed in an inner circumferential surface of
the valve body, an inner diameter of the cavity portion is larger
than an inner diameter of the inner circumferential surface of
the valve body, which provides a magnetic circuit around the
movable core, and the cavity portion is formed in a position
extending to an inner circumferential step portion in the inner
Appeal 2010-002809
Application 10/494,568
3
circumferential surface with which the movable core makes
contact at a valve stroke end.
Evidence
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Cornea US 6,315,268 B1 Nov. 13, 2001
Chang US 2003/0051688 A1 Mar. 20, 2003
Boehm DE 100 23 621 A1 Nov. 15, 20011
Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Boehm and Chang.
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Boehm, Chang, and Cornea.
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cornea, Boehm, and Chang.
ISSUES
The issues raised in this appeal are:
(1) Does Boehm’s valve have a cavity portion for magnetic field
regulation formed in an inner circumferential surface of the valve
body which provides a magnetic circuit around the movable core, has
an inner diameter that is larger than an inner diameter of the inner
circumferential surface of the valve body, and is formed in a position
extending to an inner circumferential step portion in the inner
circumferential surface with which the movable core makes contact at

1 We derive our understanding of this reference from the English language
translation produced by the McElroy Translation Company, dated August
2009, entered into the electronic file wrapper with a date of October 5, 2009.
App
App
(2)
the c
eal 2010-0
lication 10
a valve s
20-21.
Would i
(modifie
Ans. 5-6
amount
closing d
driving c
short,” a
FIN
Boehm’
avity and
02809
/494,568
troke end,
t have been
d in view
)) so that “
of change
irection is
urrent in a
s called fo
DINGS O
s figure 1 i
step portio
as called
obvious
of Boehm
a solenoid
in a displa
reduced w
region w
r in claim
F FACT P
s reproduc
ns, and a r
4
for in claim
to modify
to have a c
driving f
cement of
ith respec
here a stro
1? App. B
ERTINEN
ed below,
ing on the
1? App
either Boe
avity port
orce itself
the valve
t to a unit
ke of the v
r. 9-10, 1
T TO TH
with anno
step porti
. Br. 10-11
hm or Cor
ion as clai
is set such
member in
change in
alve mem
4, 19.
E ISSUES
tations to
on.

, 15-16,
nea
med (see
that an
the valve
the
ber is

identify

Appeal 2010-002809
Application 10/494,568
5
Boehm’s figure 1 shows a vertical cross section of an embodiment of
a fuel injection unit. Boehm Transl. 4.
Boehm discloses a valve comprising a valve body (housing 20, which
passes into flange-like broadening 21), a valve member (valve piston 23 and
armature bolt 14), a movable core (armature 13) fixed to the valve member
and guided so as to slide freely within the valve body, a spring 25 configured
to drive the valve member in a valve opening direction (upward), a solenoid
coil (magnetic coil 12) configured to directly drive the movable core, and
hence the valve member, in a closing direction in accordance with increasing
current of the solenoid coil against the spring force, and a cavity portion
having an annular shape formed in the inner circumferential surface of the
valve body and having a diameter that is larger than the inner diameter of the
inner circumferential surface of the valve body (housing 20) immediately
below the cavity portion. Boehm Transl. 5; fig. 1. Boehm’s cavity portion
extends upwardly to a circumferential step portion having a ring thereon,
much like the ring 4 in Appellants’ valve (Spec. 9, fig. 2). In the closed
valve position shown on the left side of Boehm’s figure 1, the movable core
(armature 13) makes contact with the circumferential step through the ring,
in the same manner that Appellants’ movable core (plunger 6) “is brought
into contact with an inner circumferential step portion 3 of the valve body 1
. . . through a ring 4” (Spec. 9).
Chang discloses incorporating a nonlinear mechanical transformer in a
valve for reducing the holding current and driving current and achieving a
soft landing of the valve. Abstr.; paras. [0050] – [0052]. Chang’s objective
is to reduce or remove the large jerk at both ends of the stroke. Para. [0048].
One embodiment of Chang’s nonlinear mechanical transformer 210
comprises a rotary cam 230, rollers 240, and turret 250 to impart substantial
Appeal 2010-002809
Application 10/494,568
6
flexibility to the stiffness or inertia for vertical motion of the valve 270.
Para. [0050]; fig. 6. Chang also uses springs providing approximately zero
force to the valve when the valve is approximately at the midpoint position,
such that the springs perform the majority of the work involved in moving
the valve, thus reducing the holding and driving current required by the
motor. Para. [0050]. Chang also discloses that instead of a nonlinear
mechanical transformer, nonlinear springs having nonlinear force-deflection
curves, such as those shown in figures 14 and 16, can be used. Paras. [0055]
– [0056].
DISCUSSION
Appellants argue claims 1 and 3 together as a group for all three
rejections. Thus, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we select
independent claim 1 as representative, and dependent claim 3 stands or falls
therewith.
Consistent with Appellants’ underlying Specification, which describes
the movable core (plunger 6) as being “brought into contact with an inner
circumferential step portion 3 of the valve body 1 . . . through a ring 4”
(Spec. 9), we construe the language “an inner circumferential step portion in
the inner circumferential surface with which the movable core makes contact
at a valve stroke end” in claim 1 as encompassing a circumferential step
portion with which the movable core makes contact, either directly or
indirectly through a ring or similar structure disposed on the step portion, at
a valve stroke end. In other words, claim 1 does not require direct contact of
the movable core with the circumferential step at a valve stroke end.
As shown in our findings above, Boehm discloses a cavity as called
for in claim 1. Specifically, the cavity has an inner diameter greater than
that of the valve body immediately below the cavity and extends to the
Appeal 2010-002809
Application 10/494,568
7
circumferential step portion of the valve body. Further, Boehm’s movable
core (armature 13) contacts the step through a ring at a valve stroke end.
Additionally, Boehm’s cavity is disposed in a substantially identical
configuration with the solenoid coil (magnetic coil 12) and movable core
(armature 13) as is the cavity 1a in Appellants’ valve. More specifically, in
both Appellants’ valve and Boehm’s valve, the cavity is disposed radially
internally of and in axially overlapping relationship with the solenoid coil
and extends to the circumferential step which is contacted by the movable
core at a valve stroke end, through a ring. Given this configuration, the
Examiner’s finding that Boehm’s cavity is part of the magnetic circuit
around the movable core (like Appellants’ substantially identically situated
cavity), and thus regulates the magnetic field, is reasonable. See Ans. 3, 7.
While the Examiner has not made a finding that Boehm’s cavity is
configured to regulate the magnetic circuit and field, and hence the solenoid
driving force, “such that an amount of change in a displacement of the valve
member in the valve closing direction is reduced with respect to a unit
change in the driving current in a region where a stroke of the valve member
is short,” claim 1 does not require that the claimed cavity perform such a
function.
Boehm is silent as to the relationship between the driving force or
valve displacement and the current supplied to the solenoid (magnetic coil
12).
Chang recognizes that the infinite jerk at the end of a valve stroke is
problematic, and solves this problem by (1) using balanced springs acting in
opposing directions to provide approximately zero force to the valve when
the valve is approximately at the midpoint position, such that the springs
perform the majority of the work involved in moving the valve, thus
Appeal 2010-002809
Application 10/494,568
8
reducing the holding and driving current required by the motor, and (2)
providing a nonlinear compliance element, such as nonlinear springs, to vary
the stiffness of the valve motion system, thereby rendering nonlinear the
driving force-displacement curve.
To employ the techniques taught by Chang in Boehm’s valve, to alter
the driving force-displacement curve and balance spring forces, in order to
provide a soft landing of the valve and to reduce the holding and driving
current to the solenoid coil (magnetic coil 13), would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art. “[If] a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Appellants argue that Chang “does not disclose that the ‘driving force
itself is set’ to [obtain] this soft valve landing.” App. Br. 9. We do not
agree with Appellants. While Chang’s technique may not alter the solenoid
driving force versus solenoid current curve, so as to reduce the amount of
change of the solenoid driving force with respect to a unit change in the
driving current in a region where a stroke of the valve member is short,
claim 1 does not require that. Rather, claim 1 merely requires that the
solenoid driving force be set “such that an amount of change in a
displacement of the valve member in the valve closing direction is reduced
with respect to a unit change in the driving current in a region where a stroke
of the valve member is short” (emphasis added). Chang does this by altering
the driving force versus displacement curve, rather than by altering the
driving force versus current curve.

Appeal 2010-002809
Application 10/494,568
9
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Boehm’s valve has a cavity portion for magnetic field regulation
formed in an inner circumferential surface of the valve body which
provides a magnetic circuit around the movable core, has an inner
diameter that is larger than an inner diameter of the inner
circumferential surface of the valve body, and is formed in a position
extending to an inner circumferential step portion in the inner
circumferential surface with which the movable core makes contact at
a valve stroke end, as called for in claim 1.
(2) It have been obvious to modify either Boehm or Cornea (modified in
view of Boehm to have a cavity portion as claimed) so that “a
solenoid driving force itself is set such that an amount of change in a
displacement of the valve member in the valve closing direction is
reduced with respect to a unit change in the driving current in a region
where a stroke of the valve member is short,” as called for in claim 1.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm all of the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1 and 3. However, because our findings and rationale supporting our
decision to affirm elaborate substantially on those articulated by the
Examiner, we designate our affirmance as new grounds of rejection to
provide Appellants with an opportunity to respond thereto.
FINALITY OF DECISION
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellants, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
Appeal 2010-002809
Application 10/494,568
10
the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding
will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . .
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

hh