Appeal No. 2005-0880 4
Application No. 09/963,815
Valve 7a has conduit 9a connected thereto and to
storage canister 10a which is vented through the
atmospheric air inlet tube 12a. Canister 10a has a
purge line 1la connected thereto and adapted for
connection to the air (not shown) of the vehicle
engine. Tube 9a is also connected through conduit 13a
to the enlarged upper end 5a of the filler neck for
recirculating fuel vapor thereto. During filling, the
aspirating effects of the liquid fuel flow from the
nozzle creates a reduced pressure in the upper end of
the tube 5a and draws in air and vapor from 13a into
the filler tube 4a and the tank. The air drawn in
further increases fuel vaporization. Flow of fuel
vapor to the atmosphere through tube 13a can occur if
13a vapor flow is not significantly limited [pages 3
and 4].
The examiner’s determination (see page 2 in the final
rejection) that the admitted prior art teaches, or would have
suggested, a method responsive to all of the limitations in claim
1 except for those pertaining to the mechanical seal between the
nozzle and filler neck is reasonable on its face and has not been
disputed by the appellant. To overcome this deficiency in the
admitted prior art, the examiner turns to Allison.
Allison relates to “motor vehicle fuel filling systems and,
more particularly, to a fuel and vapor control system for
controlling the release of evaporative and running loss fuel
vapors into the atmosphere” (column 1, lines 7 through 11). The
control system 200 illustrated in Figures 7 and 8 comprises a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007