Ex Parte Hayman

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 16, 2017

12950269 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2017)

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. 12/950,269 11/19/2010 ALAN W. HAYMAN P013223-PTUS-DPH 7414 74175 7590 Harness Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (GM) P.O. Box 828 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303 EXAMINER AMICK, JACOB M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3747 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/20/2017 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): gm-inbox@hdp.com troymailroom @hdp. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALAN W. HAYMAN Appeal 2014-009743 Application 12/950,269 Technology Center 3700 Before DANIEL S. SONG, JAMES P. CALVE, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 4, 6—8, 16—18, and 20. Appeal Br. 2. Claims 1—3, 5, 9-15, and 19 are cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2014-009743 Application 12/950,269 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 6 and 16 are independent. Claim 6 is reproduced below. 6. A cylinder head comprising: a first intake and exhaust port arrangement defined in a cylinder head structure that provides air flow to a first combustion chamber and transports exhaust gas flow from the first combustion chamber, the first intake and exhaust port arrangement including only a single exhaust port in direct communication with the first combustion chamber; a second intake and exhaust port arrangement defined in the cylinder head structure that provides air flow to a second combustion chamber and transports exhaust gas flow from the second combustion chamber, the second intake and exhaust port arrangement including two exhaust ports each in direct communication with the second combustion chamber so as to extend directly from a wall of the second combustion chamber; and a third intake and exhaust port arrangement defined by the cylinder head structure that provides air flow to a third combustion chamber and transports exhaust gas flow from the third combustion chamber, the third intake and exhaust port arrangement including a only single exhaust port in direct communication with the third combustion chamber, the two exhaust ports of the second intake and exhaust port arrangement being permanently connected to intake ports of the first and third intake and exhaust port arrangements to deliver all of the exhaust gasses from the second combustion chamber to the first and third combustion chambers and the single exhaust port of the first and third intake and exhaust port arrangements being exhausted to the environment without delivery to any of the combustion chambers. REJECTIONS Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Britsch (US 4,506,633, iss. Mar. 26, 1985). Claims 4, 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Britsch and Hayman (6,505,592 Bl, iss. Jan. 14, 2003). 2 Appeal 2014-009743 Application 12/950,269 Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Britsch and Roberts, Jr. (US 2006/0112940 Al, pub. June 1, 2006). ANALYSIS Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 as anticipated by Britsch Resolution of this appeal turns on whether Britsch discloses “two exhaust ports [each] in direct communication with the second combustion chamber so as to extend directly from a wall of the second combustion chamber,” as recited in independent claims 6 and 16. For the first and third combustion chambers (cylinder 1 and cylinder 4, respectively), the Examiner correctly finds that Britsch discloses a single exhaust port (outlet 41 or outlet 44) in direct communication with the first and third combustion chambers in the embodiment of Figure 3, as claimed. Final Act. 3—5 (citing Britsch, Fig. 3). Figure 3 is reproduced below. FIG. 3 Figure 3 is a schematic of an internal combustion engine embodiment. 3 Appeal 2014-009743 Application 12/950,269 Britsch also discloses a second combustion chamber (cylinder 2) with a single exhaust port (outlet 42) with the same configuration as the first and third combustion chambers of cylinders 1 and 4. The Examiner changes tack for the second combustion chamber and finds that Britsch discloses two exhaust ports as passages 24, 26 that “are considered to be in direct fluidic communication with said combustion chamber, regardless of intermediate chamber 23” and “are attached to the second combustion chamber and form fluid pathways therefrom [so that] they are considered to ‘extend directly from’ the wall of the second combustion chamber.” Final Act. 4. We agree with Appellant that passages 24, 26 do not correspond to the claimed exhaust ports of the second combustion chamber because they are not “in direct communication with the second combustion chamber so as to extend directly from a wall of the second combustion chamber,” as claimed. Appeal Br. 8—10; Reply Br. 4—7. Passages 24, 26 are connected indirectly to the second combustion chamber via passage 46, accumulation container 23, and reversing valve 49. Britsch, 4:17—32, Fig. 3. The Examiner recognizes that accumulation container 23 is an “intermediate chamber.” Final Act. 4. Appellant’s Specification discloses that “when an element is referred to as being ‘directly on,’ ‘directly engaged to,’ ‘directly connected to’ or ‘directly coupled to’ another element or layer, there may be no intervening elements or layers present.” Spec. 113. Thus, the Examiner’s finding that passages 24, 26 are exhaust outlets that “extend directly from a wall of the second combustion chamber” and are “in direct communication” therewith is an unreasonably broad interpretation of the terms “direct” and “directly” in light of Appellant’s Specification and is inconsistent therewith. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 16 or dependent claims 7 and 17. 4 Appeal 2014-009743 Application 12/950,269 Claims 4, 8, and 18 as unpatentable over Britsch and Hayman Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance on Hayman to teach features of dependent claims 4, 8, and 18 does not cure the deficiencies of Britsch as to independent claims 6 and 16 from which these claims depend. Appeal Br. 11. We agree. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 4, 8, and 18. Claim 20 as unpatentable over Britsch and Roberts, Jr. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance on Roberts, Jr. to teach features of dependent claim 20 does not cure the deficiencies of Britsch as to independent claim 16 from which claim 20 depends. Appeal Br. 11. We agree. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 20. DECISION We reverse the rejections of claims 4, 6—8, 16—18, and 20. REVERSED 5