ALLGAIER WERKE GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 22, 2022

2021005288 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2022)

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. 15/084,215 03/29/2016 Michael Wolf WEI0077.US 4509 41863 7590 03/22/2022 TAYLOR IP, P.C. P.O. Box 560 142. S Main Street Avilla, IN 46710 EXAMINER SWIATOCHA, GREGORY D. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3799 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2022 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): mbrady@taylorip.com patent@taylorip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL WOLF, OTTMAR LEHR, DIETER WAIDMANN, PETER KÖNIG, and KLAUS LEINMÜLLER Appeal 2021-005288 Application 15/084,215 Technology Center 3700 Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-3, 5, and 6.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies ALLGAIER WERKE, GMBH as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claim 4 is cancelled. Appeal 2021-005288 Application 15/084,215 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosure is directed to a method and system for processing metal workpieces, such as steel pot-shaped components. See Spec. ¶¶ 2-4. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A device for forming a sheet-metal blank, comprising: a press frame including a pressing table, vertical columns, a cross head, and a ram; a tool top part including an inner die and an outer die, the inner die having a base-forming face, the outer die having a wall- forming face and a clamping face for gripping a peripheral surface of an emerging workpiece; a tool base part including a punch and an annular sheet metal holder, the punch including a base-forming face and a wall-forming face; the annular sheet metal holder surrounding the punch and including a support face; and at least one drive configured to move the inner die, the outer die and the sheet metal holder, the at least one drive being operable to displace the inner die and the outer die at different speeds in a drawing direction, the at least one drive including: a plurality of bolts arranged vertically slideable in a pressing direction in at least one of the pressing table and the ram and which directly contact at least one of the tool top part and the tool base part; a plurality of pneumatic or hydraulic servo cushions acting upon the plurality of bolts in the pressing direction, wherein each servo cushion of the plurality of pneumatic or hydraulic servo cushions is individually assigned to at least one bolt of the plurality of bolts; and a servo unit including a servo pump driven by a servomotor and loading the plurality of pneumatic or hydraulic servo cushions. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-005288 Application 15/084,215 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Franek US 4,007,621 Feb. 15, 1977 Kirii US 5,457,980 Oct. 17, 1995 McClung US 6,014,883 Jan. 18, 2000 Hori US 2008/0098789 May 1, 2008 Menzel3,4 WO 2012/123583 Sept. 20, 2012 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Menzel, Kirii, and Hori.5 II. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Menzel, Kirii, Hori, McClung, and Franek. OPINION Rejection I (Menzel, Kirii, and Hori) Appellant argues for the patentability of the claims subject to the first ground of rejection, i.e., claims 1-3 and 5, as a group. Appeal Br. 11-19. We select claim 1 as representative of the group, and claims 2-5 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). 3 Although the first named inventor on this Application is Martin Schmeink, the Examiner refers to this reference by the surname of the second named inventor, Thomas Menzel. See Final Act. 3-9. For clarity, we adopt the Examiner’s nomenclature. 4 The Examiner states, “the citations from Menzel come from corresponding document U.S. 9,216,448.” Final Act. 3. For consistency, our citations to Menzel are also to U.S. 9,216,448 B2, which claims priority to WO 2012/123583. 5 The heading for this rejection erroneously includes cancelled claim 4. See Final Act. 3. Appeal 2021-005288 Application 15/084,215 4 The Examiner finds that Menzel discloses many of the elements recited in claim 1, including a pressing table, a ram, and a drive having “a plurality of bolts arranged vertically slideable in a pressing direction in at least one of the pressing table and the ram and which directly contact at least one of the tool top part and the tool base part ([c]onnecting rods & [p]ressure rods: Fig. 2, #29, 46).” Final Act. 3-4. However, the Examiner finds Menzel does not disclose a plurality of pneumatic or hydraulic servo cushions acting upon the plurality of bolts in the pressing direction, along with other details recited in the penultimate paragraph of claim 1. See id. at 4. The Examiner relies on Kirii to remedy this deficiency. Id. (citing Kirii, Figs. 12, 25). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Kirii’s hydraulic cylinders 30 correspond to hydraulic servo cushions as recited in claim 1. Id. Appellant argues “Kirii . . . establishes that its balancing [hydraulic] cylinders 30 are components of the single cushioning apparatus 150.” Appeal Br. 11. According to Appellant, “Kirii . . . teach that it is the cylinder 32, not the balancing [hydraulic] cylinders 30, which move the pins 22 via acting upon the common cushion plate 26.” Id. at 12 (citing Kirii 14:46-51). Appellant argues The balancing cylinders 30 are collectively held at the same predetermined pressure, via a common manifold 46, so that the balancing cylinders 30 are maintained in their neutral positions in order to maintain the positions of the pins 22 in a fixed manner relative to the balancing cylinders 30 during a pressing action of the blank 40. Id. (emphasis added). Therefore, Appellant asserts, “the balancing cylinders 30 of Kirii . . . do not move the pins 22 upwardly or downwardly in the pressing direction.” Appeal Br. 13. Appeal 2021-005288 Application 15/084,215 5 Additionally, Appellant asserts: that the balancing cylinders 30 maintain the pins 22 at a fixed position relative thereto (Col. 14, 11. 46-51 and Col. 15, 11. 30- 38). The assertion that the balancing cylinders 30 act upon the pins 22, as a drive for upwardly or downwardly moving the pins 22, defeats the essential purpose of the balancing cylinders 30 for maintaining a uniform position of the pins 22. Appeal Br. 14 (citing Kirii 14:46-51, 15:30-38). Appellant asserts that, in contrast, in the apparatus recited in claim 1, “the servo cushions 4 actively move the bolts 7 upwards and downwards in a vertical direction, i.e., parallel to the pressing direction.” Id. at 13 (emphasis added). In response, the Examiner states “Appellant has not claimed that the servo cushion moves the bolts upwards or downwards in a vertical direction.” Ans. 11. Specifically, the Examiner determines, claim 1 merely requires the ability of the recited bolts to move (slide) vertically, not that the servo cushions “actively move” the bolts vertically as asserted by Appellant. See id.; Appeal Br. 13. The Examiner finds Kirii discloses that, during a pressing action, pins 22 of Kirii move vertically due to collision of the upper die 18 with the pressure member 28. See Ans. 9-12 (citing Kirii 3:15-20). The Examiner finds Kirii discloses hydraulic cylinders 30 attached to the force generating means 42 via the platen 26 act on pins 22, allowing pins 22 to be vertically slidable in the pressing direction. Ans. 11. Thus, according to the Examiner, pins 22 and hydraulic cylinders 30 of Kirii meet the requirements in claim 1 for a plurality of bolts and a plurality of servo cushions, respectively. Id. Appeal 2021-005288 Application 15/084,215 6 We agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of claim 1 as requiring the ability of the plurality of bolts to move vertically, but that the servo cushions do not actively move the individual bolts from one position to another. In other words, the servo cushions are merely required to provide a load on the bolts, and in response to additional input force generated elsewhere in the claimed device, the bolts slide vertically. In this regard, Appellant’s Specification states, “[t]hree servo cushions 4 can be seen. Each servo cushion 4 acts upon two bolts 7. Each servo cushion 4 is loaded by a servo pump 5, which is driven by a servomotor 6.” Spec. ¶ 36 (emphasis added). Further, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s findings that pins 22 of Kirii move vertically, hydraulic cylinders 30 provide a load on pins 22 while allowing pins 22 to slide vertically (and, therefore, act upon pins 22), and each of the hydraulic balancing cylinders 30 is individually assigned to at least one bolt. Specifically, Figure 12 of Kirii depicts each of pins 22 individually attached to a respective hydraulic cylinder 30, which applies a force to each pin 22. Kirii states: the pneumatic cylinder 32, air tank 34, air pressure source 36 and pressure regulator 38 constitute force generating means 42 for generating the blank-holding force to be applied to the pressure ring 28 through the platen 26, hydraulic cylinders 30 and cushion pins 22. This force generating means 42 cooperates with the hydraulic cylinders 30, cushion platen 26 and cushion pins 22 to provide a mechanical portion of a cushioning apparatus 44 for applying the blank-holding force to the pressure ring 28. Kirii 14:42-51 (bolding omitted, italicization added). Thus, hydraulic cylinders and cushion pins transmit a portion of the load used to hold the blank workpiece in position. Further, as explained by the Examiner, Kirii Appeal 2021-005288 Application 15/084,215 7 determines an average length of stroke for its cylinders 30 to allow for later displacement downward during collision of the upper die during the device’s pressing action. See Ans. 10-11 (citing Kirii 3:15-20). This average length of stroke accommodates pins of different lengths and any inclination of the cushion platen relative to the horizontal plane. See Kirii 3:15-20. Accordingly, Kirii discloses that pins 22 move during the pressing operation. As for Appellant’s argument that Kirii uses common manifold 46 to pressurize hydraulic cylinders 30 (Appeal Br. 12), the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 does not require individual control of each of the servo cushions (which correspond to hydraulic cylinders 30). Rather, claim 1 requires the servo cushions to be individually assigned to at least one bolt of the plurality of bolts. Such individual assignment is disclosed in Figure 12 of Kirii where each pin 22 is supported by only one hydraulic cylinder 30. Appellant next asserts cushioning apparatus 150 of Kirii . . . including the force generating means 42, plate 26, and balancing cylinders 30, does not globally control the individual components of the press. Instead, the cushioning apparatus 150 is controlled by its own control unit 158, via the pump 58 and the fluid passage 50. Appeal Br. 14 (citing Kirii 21:3-16). Thus, according to Appellant, cushioning apparatus 150 of Kirii (which includes hydraulic cylinders 30) functions independently of the other components of Kirii’s press. Id. Appellant argues that, in contrast, “the present invention has at least one drive, including the servo cushions 4, that controls or otherwise regulates the movement of the inner die 10, the outer die 11, the sheet metal holder 9, and the bolts 7 in coordination with each other (¶ [0037]).” Id. Appeal 2021-005288 Application 15/084,215 8 Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of Examiner error because the rejection of claim 1 relies on a modified version of the apparatus of Menzel, not Kirii, to disclose the drive recited in claim 1. See Ans. 12; Final Act. 3-4. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument on this point does not address the rejection as presented by the Examiner.6 Appellant next asserts that claim 1 requires a plurality of bolts which directly contact at least one of the tool top part and the tool base part, and Kirii fails to disclose this limitation. See Appeal Br. 15-16. Specifically, Appellant contends that pins 22 of Kirii are connected to pressure ring 28 by an unlabled intervening structure, and, therefore, pins 22 are indirectly connected to ring 28. According to Appellant, “[the] direct-connection configuration has the advantage over Kirii . . . in that the at least one drive directly acts upon the respective tool part, i.e., without interposing functional parts,” and “the forming process can be carried out with greater precision because of the direct transmission of the forming force from the at least one drive to the workpiece.” Id. at 16. Appellant provides an annotated version of Figure 12 of Kirii to identify the unlabled structure at issue. Id. at 16. We reproduce a portion Figure 12 of Kirii, with annotations similar to those made by Appellant in the Appeal Brief, below.7 6 Neither the Examiner nor Appellant specifically address whether claim 1 precludes an arrangement in which the cushioning apparatus is controlled by its own control unit. See generally Answer; Appeal Brief. Accordingly, we need not reach this question. 7 We provide a newly annotated Figure because the reproduction of Figure 12 of Kirii provided by Appellant is of lower resolution than the original Figure provided in Kirii. See Appeal Br. 16; Kirii, Fig. 12. Appeal 2021-005288 Application 15/084,215 9 The annotated version of Figure 12 of Kirii produced above is a cross- sectional view of Kirii’s press including pressure ring 28, pins 22, and hydraulic cylinders 30 along with arrows pinpointing the structure Appellant asserts results in an indirect connection between pins 22 and pressure ring 28. See Kirii 12:1-4. Appellant argues that the portions identified by the four arrows near pressure ring 28 in the annotated version of Kirii’s Figure 12 are not parts of pins 22, and, therefore, pins 22 do not directly contact the tool base part (pressure ring 28) as claimed. See Appeal Br. 16-17. Appellant further asserts that Kirii discloses “a direct connection between the cushion pins 22 and the pressure ring 28 would be detrimental to a uniform distribution of the blank-holding force.” Id. (citing Kirii 13:67-14:9). Appeal 2021-005288 Application 15/084,215 10 In response, the Examiner finds, “based on the hatch marks in Figs. 12 and 25 of Kirii, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the pins and enlarged heads are the same structure.” Ans. 12. Regarding Appellant’s assertion that Kirii as teaches that a direct connection of pins 22 with pressure ring 28 would be detrimental (see Appeal Br. 16-17; Kirii 13:67- 14:9), the Examiner finds the portion of Kirii’s disclosure cited by Appellant supports the Examiner’s finding of direct contact between pins 22 and pressure ring 28. We disagree with Appellant. First, Appellant’s Specification implicitly defines the term “directly,” stating “[t]he drives directly act upon the respective tool part, i.e. without interposing functional parts. Parts serving exclusively for transmitting the forces, such as the bolts, for example, can be used here. Nevertheless, an indirect action is possible as well.” Spec. ¶ 15. Thus, a direct connection, in light of Appellant’s Specification, allows for parts exclusively used for transmitting forces. Accordingly, even if the structure identified by Appellant in the annotated version of Figure 12 of Kirii is distinct from pins 22, this structure would appear to be intended to transmit forces in a manner similar to a bolt, and pins 22 would still “directly contact” pressure ring 28. In any event, regardless of Appellant’s implied definition of the word “directly,” a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that pins 22 are in direct contact with pressure ring 28 because (i) Figure 12 of Kirii includes no separate label for the structure identified by Appellant as separating pins 22 from pressure ring 28, (ii) Kirii’s Specification does not describe this structure, and (iii) the Examiner’s finding that this structure is merely an enlarged head of each pin corresponds to the hatching convention Appeal 2021-005288 Application 15/084,215 11 used in this Figure. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments regarding direct contact between pins 22 and pressure ring 28 are unavailing. Appellant next argues that “the mechanisms that regulate the clamping force acting on the workpiece as disclosed in Menzel . . . and Kirii . . . are in direct contrast with one another.” Appeal Br. 18. According to Appellant, “the skilled artisan would not have combined the drive system 18, 25, 30, 43 of Menzel[,] which uses an electric motor 31 to regulate the clamping force, with the hydraulic balancing cylinders 30 of Kirii[,] which are designed to independently set the clamping force.” Id. This argument does not identify Examiner error because it does not address the Examiner’s findings of fact regarding Menzel and Kirii or the reasoning the Examiner sets forth for the proposed modification, namely, that replacing the cushion drive of Menzel with the cushions of Kirii would establish uniform distribution of the force that holds the workpiece. See Final Act. 5 (citing Kirii 4:32-34). Appellant does not assert that this benefit would not result from the Examiner’s proposed modification to Menzel. Furthermore, Appellant provides no cogent explanation as to why the fact that the regulation mechanisms in Menzel and Kirii are different has any effect on the Examiner’s proposed modification. We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments in support of the patentability of claim 1, but find the Examiner has the better position. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 2-5 fall with claim 1. Appeal 2021-005288 Application 15/084,215 12 Rejection II (Menzel, Kirii, Hori, McClung, and Franek) Appellant does not make arguments for the patentability of claim 6 aside from those discussed above regarding claim 1. See Appeal Br. 11-19. Accordingly, for the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of 6. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3, 5 103 Menzel, Kirii, Hori 1-3, 5 6 103 Menzel, Kirii, Hori, McClung, Franek 6 Overall Outcome 1-3, 5, 6 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED