Ex Parte Burrows et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 29, 201813325433 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/325,433 12/14/2011 59582 7590 03/29/2018 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 2600 WEST BIG BEA VER ROAD SUITE 300 TROY, MI 48084-3312 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR John Antony Burrows 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. IG-419451710240-5911 5501 EXAMINER CAMPBELL, JOSHUA A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3747 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2018 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 JOHN ANTONY BURROWS, JAMES D. L YKOWSKI, and KEITH HAMPTON Appeal 2016-001283 Application 13/325,433 Technology Center 3700 Before LISA M. GUIJT, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1, 3-7, and 9-25. Claims 2 and 8 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Federal-Mogul Ignition Company. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2016-001283 Application 13/325,433 ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Appellants' invention "relates generally to a corona igniter, method of forming a corona igniter, and a corona ignition system including a corona igniter." Appeal Br. 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A corona igniter for providing a corona discharge, compnsmg: a central electrode formed of an electrically conductive material for receiving a high radio frequency voltage and emitting a radio frequency electric field to ionize a fuel-air mixture and provide a corona discharge, said central electrode extending along an electrode center axis from an electrode terminal end receiving the high radio frequency voltage to an electrode firing end emitting the radio frequency electric field, an insulator formed of an electrically insulating material disposed around said central electrode and extending longitudinally from an insulator upper end past said electrode terminal end to an insulator nose end, said insulator including an insulator inner surface facing said central electrode and an insulator outer surface facing away from said central electrode and presenting an insulator width extending from said insulator inner surface to said insulator outer surface and perpendicular to said electrode center axis, a shell formed of an electrically conductive metal material disposed around said insulator and extending longitudinally from a shell upper end to a shell lower end, said shell presenting a shell inner surface facing said insulator outer surface, an internal seal spacing said shell inner surface from said insulator outer surface and presenting a shell gap between said shell inner surface and said insulator outer surface, said shell gap having a volume extending continuously from said internal seal to said shell lower end and a shell gap width extending perpendicular to said electrode center axis, said shell gap width at said shell lower end being less than said insulator width adjacent said shell lower end, 2 Appeal2016-001283 Application 13/325,433 a filler material providing a hermetic seal continuously across said shell gap from said insulator outer surface to said shell inner surface at said shell lower end and filling at least 50% of said volume of said shell gap between said internal seal and said shell lower end for preventing corona discharge in said shell gap, and said filler material having a voltage varying across said shell gap by not greater than 5 % of a total voltage drop from said central electrode to said shell when a current of energy at a frequency of 0.5 to 5.0 megahertz flows through said central electrode. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 11, 15, and 23 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Matsubara (US 6,225,752 Bl; May 1, 2001), Ward (WO 88/04729; June 30, 1988), Kasarjian (US 1,958,580; May 15, 1934), Preen (US 6,883,507 B2; Apr. 26, 2005), and Cleeves (US 7,098,581 B2; Aug. 29, 2006). Claims 3, 4, and 16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Matsubara, Ward, Kasarjian, and Shibata (US 6,111,345; Aug. 29, 2000). Claims 6, 7, 9, and 10 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Matsubara, Ward, Kasarjian, Shibata, and Shimasaki (US 5,363,046; Nov. 8, 1994). Claims 5 and 14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Matsubara, Ward, Kasarjian, and Hino (US 2007/0002515 Al; Jan. 4, 2007). Claim 12 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Matsubara, Ward, Kasarjian, and Nagasawa (US 2007/0114901 Al; May 24, 2007). 3 Appeal2016-001283 Application 13/325,433 Claim 13 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Matsubara, Kasarjian, Hino, Downs (US 2006/0103284 Al; May 18, 2006), and Kagadei (US 2003/0165617 Al; Sept. 4, 2003). Claim 17 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Preen, Matsubara, Ward, Kasarjian, and Cleeves. Claims 18, 20, and 24 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view ofNakamura (US 2009/0227168 Al; Sept. 10, 2009), Rabezzana (US 1,862,981; June 14, 1932), Kasarjian, and Cleeves. Claim 21 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Matsubara, Kasarjian, and Cleeves. Claim 19 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Nakamura, Rabezzana, and Shibata. Claim 22 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Nakamura, Van Reatherford (US 5,435,278; July 25, 1995), Matsubara, Kasarjian, and Rabezzana. Claim 25 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Matsubara, Ward, Kasarjian, and Rabezzana. ANALYSIS According to Appellants, "[i]ndependent claims 1 and 21 are drawn to a corona igniter, independent claims 18 and 22 are drawn to a method of forming a corona igniter, and independent claim 17 is drawn to a corona ignition system." Appeal Br. 2. Based on the preamble of each claim and limitations directed to a central electrode receiving high radio frequency 4 Appeal2016-001283 Application 13/325,433 voltage, emitting a radio frequency field, and having a voltage drop from the central electrode to a shell, Appellants argue the claims distinguish spark plugs as taught in the prior art. See Appeal Br. 10-14 (addressing independent claim 1 ), 1 7-21 (addressing independent claim 17), 21-22 (addressing independent claim 18), 23-25 (addressing independent claim 21), 26-27 (addressing independent claim 22); Reply Br. 2-3. Specifically, addressing claim 1, Appellants argue "[ t ]he energy provided to the spark plug electrodes of the references cited is at a much lower level than the energy provided to a corona igniter." Reply Br. 2-3; accord Appeal Br. 10 (arguing Matsubara and Ward both teach a spark plug for providing a spark discharge, not "a corona igniter for providing a corona discharge"). Further, Appellants argue the spark plugs taught by Matsubara and Ward do not emit a radio frequency electric field to ionize a fuel-air mixture and provide a corona discharge. Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 2. Contrary to Appellants' arguments, Matsubara teaches a spark plug having a central electrode, and Matsubara states "[ w ]hen high voltage is applied between the electrodes of a spark plug, corona discharge occurs prior to the spark discharge." Matsubara 8: 1-3. Further, as cited by the Examiner, Preen explains that a corona discharge occurs when an electrode is charged to a high radio frequency voltage potential to create a strong radio frequency field that in tum causes a portion of the fuel-air mixture in a combustion chamber to ionize. See Final Act. 3 (citing Matsubara 8: 1-3; Preen 4:20-36). Without substantively rebutting those findings, Appellants additionally argue a person of ordinary skill would recognize differences between spark ignition and corona ignition. See Appeal Br. 10-11 (arguing 5 Appeal2016-001283 Application 13/325,433 that corona discharge in spark ignition is "very brief'), 13-14 (arguing that spark plugs do not risk internal discharge in air gaps like corona igniters); Reply Br. 2-3 (arguing that spark ignition has "much lower" energy levels than corona igniters ). Appellants acknowledge, though, that corona discharge occurs in spark-ignition systems, and Appellants' arguments regarding what a person of ordinary skill would understand are not supported by evidence of record and do not substantively rebut the Examiner's findings. Appellants additionally argue "Kasarjian also fails to disclose a corona igniter, and fails to disclose any type of igniter including a filler material providing a hermetic seal continuously across a shell gap at a shell lower end for preventing corona discharge in the shell gap" as claimed. Appeal Br. 11; accord Reply Br. 3--4. According to Appellants, "[a ]lthough Kasarjian discloses filling air gaps located in other areas of a spark plug, Kasarjian does not suggest any problem associated with leaving the remaining air gaps open, for example the air gaps at a lower end of the shell or insulator." Reply Br. 3; accord Appeal Br. 12-13. As cited by the Examiner, Kasarjian teaches that "the most serious difficulty encountered in plug operation is the direct result of parasitic discharges, due, primarily, to the presence of air pockets in the inner plug structure" and "when high tension current is impressed upon metallic parts separated by an air gap, there occurs a silent discharge or corona discharge." Final Act. 5---6 (quoting Kasarjian 1 :6-38). Kasarjian also teaches using filler material to fill an air gap, explaining that "by eliminating these air pockets, the silent or corona discharge within the plug structure is entirely eliminated." Final Act. 6 (quoting Kasarjian 1:91-99); accord Ans. 35-36. 6 Appeal2016-001283 Application 13/325,433 Based on such teachings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to include filler material and hermetically seal air gaps as suggested by Kasarjian with Matsubara's teachings to provide the advantages described by Kasarjian, such as preventing corona discharge (Ans. 35-36), and Appellants' arguments regarding the specific locations of filler material in Kasarjian do not substantively rebut the Examiner's findings regarding the combined teachings of the prior art. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F .2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references."). Similarly, although Appellants acknowledge that Kasarjian "teaches advantages of filling air gaps," Appellants argue "Kasarjian does not suggest that filling the air gap located at the shell lower end would achieve the same advantages, or any other advantages." Appeal Br. 13. Further, Appellants contend the claimed invention "provides numerous advantages which are new and unexpected" and "provides a more robust ignition," again purporting to distinguish corona ignition from spark plugs of the prior art. Appeal Br. 13-14; see Reply Br. 3-5. The alleged advantages are not claim limitations, however, and Appellants' arguments regarding the alleged advantages are unsupported by evidence and do not substantively rebut the Examiner's findings. Accordingly, having considered the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 in light of each of Appellants' arguments and the evidence of record, we disagree with Appellants and agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusions. For the rejections of each of claims 3-7 and 9-25, Appellants 7 Appeal2016-001283 Application 13/325,433 rely on arguments that are substantively the same as those advanced for claim 1. Appellants additionally argue [r]egarding claim 22, ... Reatherford's mere teaching that crevices in spark plugs can escape a flame front created by introducing a spark into a fuel filled combustion chamber does not make it obvious to hermetically seal an electrode gap, or that the electrode gap should be sealed specifically at the insulator nose end. Reply Br. 5; accord Appeal Br. 27. Such arguments amount to a mere denial and do not substantively rebut the Examiner's findings and conclusions. For the same reasons discussed above, we disagree with Appellants and agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusions regarding claims 3-7 and 9-25. We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions as our own and sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3- 7, and 9-25. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-7, and 9-25. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation