Yachiyo Industry Co., Ltd. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 8, 2020

2020000104 (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 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.
14/225,980 03/26/2014 Kazunari Nakaya ISO-37939 9596
40854 7590 05/08/2020
RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP
38210 GLENN AVENUE
WILLOUGHBY, OH 44094-7808
EXAMINER
PRICE, CRAIG JAMES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/08/2020 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):
40854@rankinhill.com
spaw@rankinhill.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KAZUNARI NAKAYA, TOSHINORI SEKI, and
KENICHIRO KANEKO

Appeal 2020-000104
Application 14/225,980
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, 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 1–4, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Yachiyo
Industry Co., Ltd.” and “Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000104
Application 14/225,980

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates to a fuel tank valve.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Apparatus claim 1 is the sole independent claim, is illustrative of the claims
on appeal, and is reproduced below.
1. A fuel tank valve comprising:
a housing that is arranged in a fuel tank, is formed by a
wall part in a cylindrical shape and a bottom part covering a
lower end of the wall part, and includes a single hollow part;
a single communication port that is arranged on an upper
end of the housing and communicates with an outside of the fuel
tank; and
a float valve body that is installed in the housing and
moves upward when fuel in the housing increases to close the
communication port,
wherein the wall part of the housing has an opening part
through which the fuel flows in and out and of which an upper
surface is set as a full setting point, and a projecting part that is
formed to separate upward from the opening part by a
predetermined distance, and projects outwardly from the wall
part, a lower surface of the projecting part being substantially
perpendicular to the wall part,
the fuel flows in the housing due to differential pressure
between an inside of the housing and an inside of the fuel tank
so that the float valve body moves upward to close the
communication port, and
in a case where a peak of a fluctuating fuel level outside
the housing contacts the lower surface of the projecting part, the
float valve body closes the communication port, and in a case
where the peak of the fluctuating fuel level outside the housing
is below the lower surface of the projecting part, the float valve
body is positioned to maintain the communication port in an open
state.
Appeal 2020-000104
Application 14/225,980

3
EVIDENCE
Name Reference Date
Takaki et al. (“Takaki”) US 5,313,978 May 24, 1994
Miyoshi et al. (“Miyoshi”) US 2004/0238033 A1 Dec. 2, 2004
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Takaki.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Miyoshi.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1–4 as anticipated by Takaki
Independent claim 1, and hence dependent claims 2–4, include the
limitation, “fuel flows in the housing due to differential pressure between an
inside of the housing and an inside of the fuel tank.” The Examiner finds
this limitation disclosed via Figure 14 of Takaki. See Final Act. 6
(referencing Takaki 8:43–54); see also Ans. 11. Appellant disagrees,
contending that Takaki “does not describe maintaining a pressure differential
between the” inside and outside of the valve because Takaki maintains “a
pressure equilibrium” between the two. Appeal Br. 18. Of particular
interest is Appellant’s identification of “vent hole 35 which is unlabeled on
the left side of the valve casing 30.” Appeal Br. 18 (emphasis added).
Because this left vent 35 is not submerged in Figure 14 of Takaki (as is right
vent 35), this left vent 35 remains open and still able to vent between the
inside and outside of the valve. This appears to preclude any pressure
differential occurring “between an inside of the housing and an inside of the
Appeal 2020-000104
Application 14/225,980

4
fuel tank” as recited. Thus, as per Appellant, the inside of Takaki’s valve “is
not restricted from communicating” with its outside environment, and
instead, remains in equilibrium therewith. Appeal Br. 18.
The Examiner states, “the [O]ffice is relying on Figure 14, in which
the vehicle is tilted causing the fuel level to interact with the right hole
opening.” Ans. 11 (emphasis added); see also id. at 10, 12. The Examiner
is silent as to the left vent depicted therein which is also tilted but remains
above the fuel level (unlike the “right hole opening” which is tilted and
submerged below the fuel level). Focusing solely on the right vent, the
Examiner states that because of its submergence, “the level of pressure in the
housing must be less than the level of the pressure from the fuel which
forces the fuel to enter into the housing.” Ans. 12. However, the Examiner
does not address the pressure equilibrium attained by the still viable left
vent, or how such venting precludes a pressure differential between the
inside and outside of the valve’s housing.
The Examiner offers further clarification stating, “the level of the
pressure from the canister to the housing is lower than the pressure of the
fuel moving through the tank.” Ans. 12. In effect, the Examiner is relying
on the canister’s pressure (located outside the tank) as causing the recited
pressure differential, but nowhere does the Examiner provide support for the
presumption that the pressure in the canister differs from that in the tank. In
fact, a review of Takaki discloses that whatever pressure may exist in the
canister which is conveyed into the valve via return passage 32, the
receiving portion 47 of passage 32 contains “[a]n escape hole 60
communicating with the valve casing 30 [which] is formed . . . on a lower
part of the fuel receiving portion 47.” Takaki 7: 6–17; see also Fig. 10.
Appeal 2020-000104
Application 14/225,980

5
Thus, any pressure within the canister which may be conveyed to the valve
casing 30 is vented via hole 60 which, in turn, is vented to the tank via
vents 35. In other words, due to such open flow channels, the Examiner
does not make clear that a pressure differential exists between Takaki’s
valve interior and Takaki’s tank. See also Appeal Br. 19. Consequently, the
Examiner does not make clear how Takaki teaches the limitation, “fuel
flows in the housing due to differential pressure between an inside of the
housing and an inside of the fuel tank.”
We likewise disagree with the Examiner’s assessment that a
“difference [in] pressure permits the liquid within the tank to enter into the
openings in the housing.” Ans. 12. This is because, in Takaki, it is not a
pressure difference between the inside and outside of the valve that drives
fuel flow. Instead, in Takaki, there is a pressure equilibrium (not a pressure
difference) between the inside and outside of the valve. See also Appeal
Br. 19. In short, the Examiner does not explain where such a recited
“differential pressure” exists in Takaki.
We further note that claim 1 recites “a full setting point” and “a peak
of a fluctuating fuel level,” both of which are associated with specific
locations on Appellant’s valve. The former is associated (as per claim 1)
with “an upper surface” of a housing opening, and the latter is associated
with “the lower surface of the projecting part.” Understanding that Takaki
displays various fuel levels, (see Takaki Figures 1, 6, 7, 14), Takaki does not
associate any particular fuel level to any particular location on Takaki’s
valve. The Examiner, on the other hand, states, “an upper surface of 35 is
set as a full setting point, since Figure 14, places the right hole 35 into the
level of the fluid.” Ans. 11; see also id. at 12. However, this setting by the
Appeal 2020-000104
Application 14/225,980

6
Examiner appears to be arbitrary since the left hole 35 is elevated and is not
submerged into the fluid and is at an entirely different elevation. See Takaki
Fig. 14. Thus, while we agree that various fuel levels are shown and
illustrated in Takaki, it is not made clear that any particular fuel level therein
is associated with any particular valve structure as recited. See also Appeal
Br. 20.
In view of the foregoing, we are instructed by our reviewing court that
“[a]n examiner’s belief, however, must be tethered to or grounded in some
rationale so as to establish a prima facie case of anticipation.” In re Chudik,
674 F. App’x 1011, 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “It is axiomatic that anticipation
of a claim under § 102 can be found only if the prior art reference discloses
every element of the claim.” In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir.
1986). In short, “[a] claim is anticipated only if each and every element as
set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a
single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal.,
814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
In summation, and for the reasons expressed above, we are not
persuaded the Examiner has established by a preponderance of the evidence
that Takaki anticipates claim 1, or its dependent claims 2–4. Accordingly,
we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4 as being anticipated by
Takaki.
The rejection of claims 1 and 3 as unpatentable over Miyoshi
The Examiner also finds that Miyoshi discloses the “differential
pressure” limitation discussed above. See Final Act. 9. In this instance, the
Examiner states that such pressure differential “inherently” occurs “because
Appeal 2020-000104
Application 14/225,980

7
the outlet port permits a lower pressure to be within the housing.” Final
Act. 9. Appellant disagrees on this point. See Appeal Br. 26–27.
Miyoshi discloses a fluid level FL2 which is understood as the
maximum level achievable in Miyoshi because Paragraph 42 states that
further feeding of fuel into the tank “completely shuts off . . . when the fuel
level rises to a preset second fluid level FL2.” Miyoshi ¶ 42. A review of
Figure 1 of Miyoshi shows that this FL2 level coincides with the top of
opening 61a as recited. See also Ans. 14 (“when FL2 level is reached the
upper surface of 61a has been reached by the fuel level”).
On this latter point, it is well understood that “patent drawings do not
define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to
show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.”
Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956
(Fed. Cir. 2000); see also Appeal Br. 22–25. However, we have also been
instructed by our reviewing court that “we did not mean that things patent
drawings show clearly are to be disregarded.” In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069,
1072 (CCPA 1972). In the present matter, “precise proportions” are not
being ascertained. Instead, a spatial relationship between the disclosed fuel
level FL2 and the disclosed opening 61a is being assessed. This is because
we have been informed that drawings must be evaluated for what they
reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CCPA 1979). Furthermore, we have been
instructed that “if a drawing clearly suggests to one skilled in the art the way
in which the result sought is accomplished by a later applicant, it is
immaterial whether the prior patentee’s showing was accidental or
intentional.” In re Wagner, 63 F.2d 987, 988 (CCPA 1933) (internal
Appeal 2020-000104
Application 14/225,980

8
citations omitted). Thus, in accordance with the above guidance, we
understand Miyoshi discloses fluid level FL2 as coinciding with the top of
opening 61a (whether “accidental or intentional” as per Wagner above), such
that the top of opening 61a is the peak fuel level reached before further
filling is stopped. See Miyoshi ¶ 42, Fig. 1; see also Ans. 14, 15.
As a consequence, any filling occurring prior to shut-off leaves
opening 61a still operable for venting in the manner recited. Upon the full
submergence of opening 61a (i.e., upon reaching FL2), further fuel filling
ceases. See Miyoshi ¶ 42. Hence, it is not clear how, under such
circumstances, it can be said that a pressure differential exists between the
inside and outside of the valve when, instead, the pressures identified would
be in equilibrium. The Examiner does not explain how Miyoshi’s fuel level
exceeds that of FL2 so as to cause any such pressure differential between the
inside and outside of the valve to occur. The Examiner states, “fuel will not
flow into an area unless the pressure of the fuel is greater than the area of
which it is flowing into.” Ans. 16. As accurate as this statement may be, the
limitation in question addresses a difference in pressure between “an inside
of the housing and an inside of the fuel tank,” and there is no indication in
Miyoshi that there is a pressure difference between these two areas as
recited.
Consequently, based on Miyoshi’s disclosure regarding the level at
which further filling ceases (see Miyoshi ¶ 42), we are not in agreement with
the Examiner that Miyoshi teaches or suggests to one skilled in the art the
limitation that “fuel flows in the housing due to differential pressure between
an inside of the housing and an inside of the fuel tank.” Instead, Miyoshi’s
fuel flows between the inside and outside of the valve due to pressure
Appeal 2020-000104
Application 14/225,980

9
equilibrium between the two, and thus their respective levels are understood
to lie within the same plane.
Claim 1 further recites “a projecting part that is formed to separate
upward from the opening part by a predetermined distance.” The relevant
language here being the projecting part being “formed . . . separate” and that
it is located “upward from the opening part.” Claim 1 also recites “a case
where a peak of a fluctuating fuel level outside the housing contacts the
lower surface of the projecting part.” Here, the Examiner correlates the
recited projecting part to Miyoshi’s “wall thickness, immediately to the right
of numeral 33a” in Figure 1. Final Act. 9. Miyoshi’s “projecting part” is
understood to be the notch or overhang just above the top of opening 61a
because it is both located “upward from the opening part” 61a and is
“formed . . . separate” from opening 61a, in accordance with claim 1.
However, the Examiner acknowledges that Miyoshi is silent as to the
“case where a peak of a fluctuating fuel level outside the housing contacts
the lower surface of the projecting part” as recited. Final Act. 10. To
alleviate this deficiency, the Examiner proposes modifying Miyoshi’s
projecting part “to be extended slightly downward to line up with the level
FL2.” Final Act. 10; see also Ans. 14 (where the Examiner annotates
Figure 1 of Miyoshi stating “Lower surface is modified down to FL2 level”).
The Examiner’s reason for such downward relocation is because “[a] change
in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in
the art” and also to “strengthen the wall section of the housing to provide
more support for holding the inner valving assembly.” Final Act. 10; see
also Ans. 16–17. By such extension, the Examiner finds that “when the fuel
Appeal 2020-000104
Application 14/225,980

10
level is at FL2, the fuel would contact this lower surface of the overhang.”
Ans. 17.
However, by re-positioning the lower surface of Miyoshi’s projecting
part/overhang to now align with fuel level FL2 (as suggested by the
Examiner), this lower surface would now also be in alignment with and form
the top boundary of opening 61a. In doing so, the Examiner has eliminated
any possibility of this projecting part/overhang being both “formed . . .
separate” from opening 61a (since it now helps define opening 61a) and also
located “upward from the opening part” 61a as recited. Stated differently,
by extending Miyoshi’s projecting part/overhang downwardly as suggested,
the lower surface of this projecting part/overhang is now flush with and
defines the top of opening 61a. Hence, the “formed . . . separate” and
“upward from” limitations of Miyoshi’s projecting part previously relied
upon are now eliminated.
To the extent that the Examiner may be proposing to make opening
part 61a smaller in a vertical direction in order to result in the lower surface
of the projecting part lining up with fuel level FL2, while still keeping the
projecting part formed separate and upward from opening part 61a, the
Examiner has not articulated adequately a rationale that would support such
a modification. With respect to the Examiner’s reliance on legal precedent
relating to a change in size, the Examiner has not provided an explanation as
to why any change in size will not have an effect on functionality. With
respect to the articulated rationale of strengthening the wall section of the
housing, such a rationale does not adequately explain why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have made the specific change necessary to arrive at
the claimed invention without engaging in impermissible hindsight. In
Appeal 2020-000104
Application 14/225,980

11
summation, by adopting the Examiner’s proposed extension (i.e., “to be
extended slightly downward to line up with the level FL2” (Final Act. 10);
see also Ans. 14, 17), the Examiner has now precluded Miyoshi from also
teaching the limitation, “a projecting part that is formed to separate upward
from the opening part by a predetermined distance.” Thus, we are not
persuaded the Examiner has provided “articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). We do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3 as being obvious over Miyoshi.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4 102(b) Takaki 1–4
1, 3 103(a) Miyoshi 1, 3
Overall
Outcome
1–4

REVERSED