Ex Parte Pechtold et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 11, 2014

11341546 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2014)

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. 11/341,546 01/27/2006 Rainer Pechtold GP-306942 2311 65798 7590 04/11/2014 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 42690 WOODWARD AVENUE SUITE 300 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304 EXAMINER CHAUDRY, ATIF H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3753 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/11/2014 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 RAINER PECHTOLD and RALPH T. J. HOBMEYR ____________________ Appeal 2011-009118 Application 11/341,546 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-009118 Application 11/341,546 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6, 9, 10, 19-21, 23, 26, and 271. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The Claimed Subject Matter Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A coolant reservoir assembly comprising: a coolant reservoir for storing a cooling fluid and including a gas region therein, said coolant reservoir including a fill port in fluid communication with the inside of the coolant reservoir; and a multi-functional unit mounted to the coolant reservoir and covering the fill port, said unit including a vent line and a fill line, said unit further including a first vent valve in fluid communication with the fill port and the vent line, said first vent valve automatically venting the gas region if the pressure of the gas region exceeds a first predetermined pressure, said unit further including a second vent valve in fluid communication with the vent line and the fill port, said second vent valve automatically venting the gas region if the pressure in the gas region exceeds a second predetermined pressure, said unit further including a check valve in fluid communication with the vent line and the fill port, said check valve allowing air to enter the coolant reservoir if the pressure within the gas region is below ambient pressure, said unit further including a fill valve, said fill valve selectively connecting the fill line to the fill port after the gas region is vented, said unit further including an integrated body containing the vent line, the fill 1 The Examiner withdrew claims 5, 7, 8, 11-18, 22, 24, and 25 from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected species. Non-Fin. Rej. (mailed Mar. 9, 2010). Appeal 2011-009118 Application 11/341,546 3 line, the first vent valve, the second vent valve, the check valve, the fill valve, and a plurality of fluid passageways. Evidence The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Cherrington Taylor Igarashi Shields McMullin Smith US 3,073,333 US 4,437,492 US 4,483,461 US 4,502,516 US 4,584,164 US 5,050,690 Jan. 15, 1963 Mar. 20, 1984 Nov. 20, 1984 Mar. 5, 1985 Apr. 22, 1986 Sep. 24, 1991 Crepeau Guyer US 2004/0080186 A1 US 2005/0161521 A1 Apr. 29, 2004 Jul. 28, 2005 Rejections Claims 19 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cherrington and Shields. Claims 20, 21, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cherrington, McMullin, and Shields. Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cherrington, McMullin, Shields, and Taylor. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cherrington, McMullin, Shields, and Smith. Claims 19 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crepeau, Cherrington, and Shields. Claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 20, 21, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crepeau, McMullin, Cherrington, and Shields. Appeal 2011-009118 Application 11/341,546 4 Claims 6 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crepeau, McMullin, Cherrington, Shields, and Taylor. Claims 4 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crepeau, McMullin, Cherrington, Shields, and Smith. Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crepeau, McMullin, Cherrington, Shields, and Igarashi. Claims 19 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guyer, Cherrington, and Shields. Claims 1, 9, 10, 20, 21, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guyer, McMullin, Cherrington, and Shields. Claims 6 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guyer, McMullin, Cherrington, Shields, and Taylor. Claims 4 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guyer, McMullin, Cherrington, Shields, and Smith. Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guyer, McMullin, Cherrington, Shields, and Igarashi. OPINION All of the Examiner’s rejections rest in relevant part on the Examiner’s finding that Cherrington discloses a multi-functional unit comprising a vent line, a fill line, and a vent valve and a check valve in fluid communication with the fill port and the vent line, as called for in claims 1 and 19. The Examiner finds that Cherrington discloses “a multi-functional unit CP mounted to the reservoir and covering the fill port . . . comprising: a fill line 1; a fill valve 2 . . . a vent valve in fluid communication with the fill Appeal 2011-009118 Application 11/341,546 5 port and a vent line . . . a check valve (vacuum valve) in fluid communication with the vent line and the fill port . . . .” Ans. 4; see also id. at 8-9, 10-11, 15, 16-17. Paragraphs [0025]-[0026] and [0031]-[0034] of Appellants’ Specification clearly disclose a single vent line 56, 118 housed within the multi-functional unit 10, 100, that is in fluid communication with the first vent valve 72, the second vent valve 76, and the check valve 66. See also Figs. 1 and 3. Cherrington discloses a tight-fill system for tank truck loading and discharging comprised of a cover plate CP having a filling spout S with a connecting line 1 and a loading valve 2, a vent valve assembly 18, a gauge 19, a whistle unit 20, and a filter unit 22. Cherrington, Figs. 1, 2. Cherrington’s vent assembly 18 vents air or gas from the tank as it is filled; gauge 19 gives a visual level reading when the tank reaches the completely full position; whistle vent assembly 20 gives an audible signal when the product is flowing into the tank; and air filter assembly 22 filters all air entering into the compartment to remove solid contaminants. Col. 2, l. 69 to col. 3, l. 5; col. 3, ll. 12-14, 44-48. Appellants argue, inter alia, that “Cherrington fails to disclose a vent valve in fluid communication with the fill port and the vent line, or a check valve in fluid communication with the vent line and the fill port” and that “[t]here is no other fluid communication of these devices with a vent line.” App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 2. The Examiner responds that “[a]ll the accessories contained in the integrated body have fluid passageways. All the fluidic components are in Appeal 2011-009118 Application 11/341,546 6 fluid communication with one another through the interior of the tank.” Ans. 20. The Examiner has not specifically identified the structure in Cherrington that constitutes the vent line called for in claims 1 and 19. The Examiner’s discussion of Cherrington at pages 4-5, 8-9, 10-11, 15, 16-17, and 20 of the Answer alleges that Cherrington discloses a vent valve and a check valve in fluid communication with a fill port and a vent line, but does not indicate where such a vent line, common to both valves, is found in Cherrington. Thus, the Examiner fails to establish a prima facie case that the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 19 and their dependent claims would have been obvious. For the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-4, 6, 9, 10, 19-21, 23, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6, 9, 10, 19-21, 23, 26, and 27 is reversed. REVERSED hh