Fredrik Lindström et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 24, 2020

2020001235 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2020)

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.
14/110,604 10/08/2013 Fredrik Lindström 738004/09543/P2695US00 1075
148434 7590 09/24/2020
Burr Forman McNair
Husqvarna
Bank of America Plaza
101 South Tryon Street, Suite 2610
Charlotte, NC 28280
EXAMINER
LAGUARDA, GONZALO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2020 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):
mcnairip@mcnair.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte FREDRIK LINDSTRÖM, PÄR MARTINSSON,
MAGNUS OTTOSSON, and RIKARD RYDBERG

Appeal 2020-001235
Application 14/110,604
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5 and 7–21. Claim 6 is canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 The term “Appellant” is used herein to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Husqvarna AB as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-001235
Application 14/110,604

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to a fuel valve and a fuel supply system
and method including a fuel valve and a carburetor. Claim 1 is illustrative,
and is reproduced below:
1. A fuel valve for controlling delivery of fuel to a main air
passage of a carburetor of an internal two stroke combustion
engine, the fuel valve comprising:

- an inlet port for receiving fuel from a fuel regulator of the
carburetor,

- a fuel outlet port for connecting to at least one nozzle in the air
passage leading into the engine,

- a fuel cavity disposed within a valve body of the fuel valve and
between the inlet port and the outlet port of the fuel valve,

- a plunger movable within a chamber of the fuel cavity along a
longitudinal axis of the chamber between two states, a first state
permitting flow of fuel from the inlet port of the fuel valve
through the fuel cavity to the outlet port of the fuel valve, and a
second state at least principally blocking such flow, and

- a pump port in communication with the fuel cavity of the fuel
valve, wherein said pump port is directly connected to a
manually operated pump via a fuel line, the manually operated
pump connected between the fuel valve and a fuel tank on the
fuel line to draw the fuel from the inlet port of the fuel valve
through the fuel cavity of the fuel valve and return the fuel to the
fuel tank thereby extracting air present and wetting interior
surfaces of the fuel cavity of the fuel valve with fuel.

Appeal 2020-001235
Application 14/110,604

3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects:
(i) claims 1–3, 5, 9–14, and 17–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Pattullo (US 2006/0219225 A1, published Oct. 5, 2006);
(ii) claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Larsson (WO 2009/116902 A1, published Sep. 24, 2009)
and Pattullo;
(iii) claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Pattullo in view of Sasaki (US 6,123,322, issued Sep. 26, 2000); and
(iv) claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Pattullo in view of Vonderau (US 4,903,655, issued Feb. 27, 1990).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–3, 5, 9–14, and 17–21--Anticipation by Pattullo
Appellant’s arguments are principally directed to limitations
appearing in independent claim 1, and Appellant notes that independent
claims 11, 17, and 19 include similar limitations, to which the same
arguments apply. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant does not separately argue the
patentability of claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12–14, 18, 20, and 21. We thus regard
all claims subject to this rejection as being argued as a group, and we take
claim 1 to be representative of the group. Claims 2, 3, 5, 9–14, and 17–21
stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Pattullo discloses a fuel valve having all of
the claimed elements, including inlet port 38 for receiving fuel from fuel
regulator 34; fuel outlet port 48 for connecting to nozzle 50 in an air passage
leading to a carburetor, a fuel cavity in the form of a passage in the area to
Appeal 2020-001235
Application 14/110,604

4
which reference numeral 36 points, beginning at valve plunger 42 and
extending to fuel outlet port 48; plunger 42; pump port 56 in communication
with the fuel cavity and directly connected to manually-operated pump 16
via a fuel line; and the pump being positioned between the fuel valve and
fuel tank 14. Non-Final Act. 3–4. An Examiner-annotated version of a
portion of Figure 1 of Pattullo appears below, the figure having been further
modified by us for clarity, by retracing a gray outline provided by the
Examiner in orange.

Depicted above is a portion of Figure 1 of Pattullo, which is a schematic
view of a carburetor. Pattullo ¶ 9. The drawing figure, as annotated by the
Examiner, appears at page 5 of the Answer, and is modified by us for clarity.
Appeal 2020-001235
Application 14/110,604

5
Appellant argues that the fuel valve of Pattullo that corresponds to its
claimed fuel valve is solely element 42, and that certain of the elements in
Pattullo relied on by the Examiner as being components of a fuel valve,
namely fuel cavity 36 and fuel outlet port 48, are components of carburetor
12, and not components of a fuel valve. Appeal Br. 6–7; Reply Br. 2–3.
Appellant argues, in this regard, that Pattullo does not disclose, in
connection with valve element 42, an inlet port, a fuel outlet port, a fuel
cavity, and a plunger. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant asserts that the rejection is
based on an arbitrary labeling of components in Pattullo in order to read on
the claimed features present in claim 1. Reply Br. 3.
The Examiner maintains that valve element 42 is not the only part of
the Pattullo device that corresponds to the claimed fuel valve, and that the
elements contended by Appellant to be part of carburetor 12 are part of what
the Examiner regards as being components of the fuel valve, as evidenced in
the annotated version of Figure 1 of Pattullo reproduced above. Ans. 4–5.
The Examiner explains that parts of a valve and parts of a carburetor in a
fuel supply system of the type disclosed in Pattullo depend on one another to
operate correctly, and are often incorporated into each other’s systems, and,
as such, “although the identified parts are part of a carburetor, these
components comprise the fuel valve as shown in the annotated Figure 1.”
Id. at 3–4.
The Examiner has the better position here, as evidenced by
Appellant’s own Specification, which states that its invention “further relates
to a carburetor having an integral fuel valve or a fuel valve that connects to
the exterior of the carburetor.” Spec., p. 1, ll. 31–32. Appellant’s Figure 2,
although schematic in form, illustrates fuel valve 60 as a black box residing
Appeal 2020-001235
Application 14/110,604

6
within carburetor 20, with duct 31 connecting fuel valve 60 to fuel metering
chamber 28. See Spec., p. 8, l. 29; p. 9, l. 5. As such, we do not find error in
the Examiner’s reliance on portions of Pattullo’s system that might be
regarded as being parts of a carburetor system as also being ports and
cavities forming components of its fuel valve 42.2 Indeed, Pattullo
illustrates, by sectional lining, that the components relied on by the
Examiner as constituting elements of the valve are part of a structure that is
separate from, and positioned below, the structure containing air-fuel mixing
portion 22 of the carburetor, and can be regarded as being separate from the
carburetor in that sense.
Appellant additionally argues that “Pattullo only discloses an
electronically operated pump,” and therefore does not teach the limitation
requiring the pump port of the fuel valve to be directly connected to a
manually operated pump. Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis added). Appellant relies
on, in support of this argument, a passage in paragraph 29 of Pattullo stating
that “[t]he automatic purging pump 16 eliminates the need for a user to
search for and manually operate a purge pump.” Id. Pattullo does not,
however, disclose that its purge pump is electronically operated. As
explained by the Examiner, pump 16 in Pattullo is incorporated into pull
cord mechanism 11, which is manually operated, and that Pattullo’s
disclosure of “automatic” operation is in reference to the pump being
actuated by operation of the pull cord, which is operated in order to start the
engine. Ans. 6. In other words, the manual operation of the pull cord to

2 We further note that, from a practical standpoint, the plunger element 42 in
Pattullo cannot, in and of itself, function as a valve to open and close a fuel
path, in that the plunger must interact with a valve seat of some form, and
have a flow path into and out of the valve (i.e., via inlet and outlet ports).
Appeal 2020-001235
Application 14/110,604

7
start the engine, also “automatically” operates the pump. Appellant’s
argument fails to apprise us of Examiner error in this regard.
Appellant further argues that pump 16 in Pattullo is not connected
between the fuel valve and fuel tank 14, because Pattullo discloses that fuel
inlet valve 42 is interposed between pump chamber 30 and metering
chamber 36. Appeal Br. 8, citing Pattullo ¶ 15. Appellant then argues that
Figure 1 of Pattullo illustrates that metering chamber 36 is directly
connected to pump 16, and therefore pump 16 is connected between the
metering chamber and fuel tank, and not between the fuel valve and fuel
tank. Id.
The argument does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection, for two reasons. First, the Examiner’s rejection identifies the
region designated generally by reference numeral 36 to be the fuel cavity of
Pattullo’s valve, even though Pattullo refers to that region as a metering
chamber. As discussed above, Appellant’s argument that metering chamber
16 is part of the carburetor and not properly considered to be part of a fuel
valve is not persuasive. Therefore, even if, as Appellant asserts, pump 16 is
connected between the metering chamber and the fuel tank, since the
metering chamber is regarded as being part of the fuel valve, the pump is
connected between the fuel valve and fuel tank, as claimed. Further, the
Examiner finds that element 56 of Pattullo corresponds to the claimed pump
port of the fuel valve, which finding Appellant does not specifically contest.
Figure 1 evidences that this port, whose path leads in a different direction
from plunger 42 than the path to the region of the metering chamber,
connects to pump 16, which in turn connects to fuel tank 14, and thus the
Appeal 2020-001235
Application 14/110,604

8
pump is properly regarded as being between the fuel valve, via port 56, and
fuel tank, as claimed.
Relatedly, Appellant argues that pump 16 in Pattullo is not disclosed
as operating to draw fuel from the inlet port of the fuel valve through the
fuel cavity of the fuel valve and return the fuel to the fuel tank to extract air
present and wet interior surfaces of the fuel cavity of the fuel valve. Appeal
Br. 9. Appellant quotes a portion of paragraph 13 of Pattullo that discusses
pump 16 operating to purge fuel vapor and stale liquid fuel from the
carburetor via fuel passage 20, and pumping the same to the fuel tank as
evidencing that the pump does not draw fuel from the inlet port as claimed.
Id. at 8–9.
The argument does not apprise us of error in the rejection. The
Examiner points out that the very next sentence in paragraph 13, not
included in the portion quoted by Appellant, sets forth that, “[a]ccordingly,
the system 10 ensures that the carburetor 12 receives fresh, liquid fuel . . . by
automatically purging the upstream fuel passage 20 while the pull cord 18 is
being pulled, thereby providing a user with a quick and easy mechanism by
which to start the engine.” Pattullo ¶ 13; Ans. 6–7. The Examiner then
provides a cogent explanation as to how pump 16 creates a pressure
differential in metering chamber 36 that causes valve plunger 42 to open to
provide fresh, liquid fuel, as disclosed by Pattullo. Ans. 7–8. Appellant
does not include, in the Reply Brief, any argument that the Examiner’s
understanding of Pattullo is in error in this respect.
Appellant additionally argues that Pattullo does not disclose that its
fuel inlet valve has a plunger, nor a plunger that is movable within a
chamber in the fuel cavity along a longitudinal axis of the chamber. Appeal
Appeal 2020-001235
Application 14/110,604

9
Br. 10. Appellant then repeats the pertinent claim language, and asserts that
Pattullo does not disclose or suggest the same.
The Examiner replies that a plunger is generally considered to be “a
sliding reciprocating piece driven by or against fluid pressure,” and that
Appellant’s argument appears to be that Pattullo simply does not refer to
valve element 42 as a plunger. Ans. 9, citing an unspecified version of a
Merriam-Webster dictionary. The Examiner additionally finds that the axis
along which valve element 42 travels may be construed as the claimed
longitudinal axis. Id. Appellant does not take issue with these explanations
of the Examiner’s position, nor does Appellant provide an explanation as to
why valve element 42 would not be considered to be a plunger. Appellant’s
argument is analogous to those in In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (“we hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require
more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the
claim elements and naked assertion that the corresponding elements were
not found in the prior art”). Accordingly, Appellant has not apprised us of
error in the Examiner’s rejection.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not apprised of Examiner error, and
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by
Pattullo. Claims 2, 3, 5, 9–14, and 17–21 fall with claim 1.

Claims 1, 4, 7, and 8--Unpatentability over Larsson and Pattullo
Appellant traverses this rejection on the basis that Pattullo does not
teach a pump port that is directly connected to a manually operated pump,
relying on the same reason advanced with respect to the rejection of claim 1
based on Pattullo. Appeal Br. 11. In addition, Appellant argues that Pattullo
Appeal 2020-001235
Application 14/110,604

10
does not have the pump connected between the fuel valve and a fuel tank,
for the same reasons presented in traversing the rejection of claim 1 based on
Pattullo. Id.
For the reasons set forth in the analysis of the rejection of claim 1 as
being anticipated by Pattullo, we do not find these arguments persuasive that
the Examiner’s findings are in error. The rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 as
being unpatentable over Larsson and Pattullo is sustained.

Claim 15--Unpatentability over Pattullo and Sasaki
Appellant argues that Sasaki does not cure the alleged deficiencies in
Pattullo. Appeal Br. 12. In that we do not find Pattullo deficient as asserted
by Appellant, for the reasons presented above, this rejection is sustained.

Claim 16--Unpatentability over Pattullo and Vonderau
Appellant argues that Vonderau does not cure the alleged deficiencies
in Pattullo. Appeal Br. 12. In that we do not find Pattullo deficient as
asserted by Appellant, for the reasons presented above, this rejection is
sustained.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 9–14, and 17–21 as being anticipated
by Pattullo is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 as being unpatentable over
Larsson and Pattullo is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 15 as being unpatentable over Pattullo and
Sasaki is affirmed.
Appeal 2020-001235
Application 14/110,604

11
The rejection of claim 16 as being unpatentable over Pattullo and
Vonderau is affirmed.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 9–
14, 17–21
102(b) Pattullo 1–3, 5, 9–
14, 17–21

1, 4, 7, 8 103(a) Larsson, Pattullo 1, 4, 7, 8
15 103(a) Pattullo, Sasaki 15
16 103(a) Pattullo, Vonderau 16
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7–21

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED