Ex Parte Burrows et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2018

13325433 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2018)

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