Ex Parte Budde et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2015

11722394 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111722,394 10/01/2008
23872 7590 12/21/2015
MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC
P.O. BOX 9227
SCARBOROUGH STATION
SCARBOROUGH, NY 10510-9227
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Frank Budde
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.
72612RCE2 9009
EXAMINER
KENNEDY, JOSHUA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2015 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 FRANK BUDDE, MARKUS THOELKING, OLAF
ABELS, and WERNER DUESING
Appeal 2013-006741 1
Application 11/722,394
Technology Center 3600
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Frank Budde et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14,
17, 18, and 21. 2 An oral hearing was held on December 1, 2015. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
2 Claims 1-9 and 11-21 are pending. Claims 4, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20
are withdrawn.
Appeal2013-006741
Application 11/722,394
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to a ball joint, for example, as used
in vehicles. Spec. 1 (Title). Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal
and is reproduced below.
1. A ball and socket joint comprising:
a ball and socket joint housing having a joint opening;
a ball pivot arranged in the ball and socket joint housing,
said ball pivot extending through the joint opening and having a
shaft;
a support ring arranged on the shaft of the ball pivot and
having a radially extending flange, a flange transition region
and an axial extension, said radially extending flange being
connected to said axial extension via said flange transition
region, said axial extension being in contact with said shaft; and
a sealing element arranged between the support ring and
an adjoining connection component, said sealing element
comprising a profile body, said profile body comprising at
least one sealing segment, said profile body being one or more
of arranged on said radially extending flange and arranged in
said flange transition region, whereby said profile body is
connected to said support ring, said sealing element being in
contact with at least the adjoining connection component in at
least one profiled section via said at least one sealing segment,
said radially extending flange comprising at least one
projection, said at least one projection increasing a sealing
action of said profile body.
Appeal Br. 32, Claims App.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Abels
Kyoichi
US 6,913,409 B2
JP 02-199317
July 5, 2005
Aug. 7, 19903
3 The Examiner provided an English translation of Kyoichi on February 28,
2013.
2
Appeal2013-006741
Application 11/722,394
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1-3,5,6,9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18,and21 arerejectedunder35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Abels and Kyoichi.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Kyoichi discloses many of the features
recited in claim 1, but does not disclose a "radially extending flange
comprising at least one projection located between said flange transition area
and one end of said profiled body defining a non-linear radially extending
flange contour, said at least one projection increasing a sealing action of said
profile body." Final Act. 3. However, the Examiner further finds that Abels
discloses, "a similar ball and socket joint having a support ring having a
bulge (13-15) defining a non-linear radially extending flange contour
reinforcing sealing of said profiled body which brings about an elasticity of
the support ring and guarantees optimal sealing function in this area of the
joint compared with prior art designs." Final Act. 3 (citing Abels, col. 3, 11.
65----67; col. 4, 11. 25-32) (emphasis added). The Examiner reasons, "[i]t
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to modify the support ring of Kyoichi to have a bulge
in the flange to guarantee optimal sealing function of the joint at such a
sensitive area." Final Act. 3--4.
Appellants argue that it would not have been obvious to provide a
projection in the radially extending flange because "Kyoichi teaches that the
surface of the U-shaped collar 13 that is in contact with the sealing member
3
Appeal2013-006741
Application 11/722,394
- - - - __ A . - - ..
2 7 must be ±lat.,,.. Appeal Br. 11. Appellants expound on this argument,
stating, "K yoichi teaches that it is critical for the U-shaped collar 13 [to]
remain flat without any projections since the flat surface of the U-shaped
collar 13 ensures that the sealing member 27 remains in complete contact
with the connecting rod 18 when the U-shaped collar 13 is compressed by
the connecting rod 18 (see Figures 3a, 3b and3c ofKyoichi)." Appeal Br.
12.
As noted by the Examiner (Ans. 14), Figures 3a-3c of Kyoichi
(discussed in Appellants' arguments) refer to the embodiment in the right-
hand side of Figure 1 ofKyoichi, and not the embodiment (left-hand side)
relied upon by the Examiner. 5 We address Appellants' arguments to the
extent they apply to the components in Kyoichi cited by the Examiner.
Even assuming, arguendo, that Figures 3a-3c of Kyoichi are
informative about the shape of the sealing member 127 (from the left-hand
side of Kyoichi), Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. Appellants do
not direct our attention to any persuasive objective evidence supporting a
conclusion that ring 113 (or 13) must be flat. As for Appellants' assertion,
"the U-shaped collar 13 ensures that the sealing member 27 remains in
complete contact with the connecting rod 18 when the U-shaped collar 13 is
4 We note that the Examiner refers to "support ring (113)" as a component
including a radially extending flange. See generally Final Act. 2-16; Ans.
3-20; see also the left-hand side of Fig. 1 of Kyoichi. Appellants refer to the
right-hand side of Figure 1 of Kyoichi, where a different support ring
identified with reference numeral 13 is provided. See generally, Appeal Br.
11-30; Reply Br. 1-6.
5 We note that reference numbers used to describe the embodiment on the
left-hand side of Figure 1 of Kyoichi are three digits in length, and reference
numbers used to describe the embodiment on the right-hand side of Figure 1
are only one or two digits in length.
4
Appeal2013-006741
Application 11/722,394
compressed by the connecting rod 18" (Appeal Br. 12), Appellants do not
persuasively explain why this would not occur in the Examiner's proposed
modification to Kyoichi. Nor do Appellants cogently explain why the
above-noted contact is "critical." Although at least two of Figures 3a-3c of
Kyoichi may show "complete" contact between seal 27 and connecting rod
18 along the entire length of seal 27, these figures, by themselves, do not
show that such contact along the entire length is critical.
Appellants next argue "[t]he radial shoulder 11 [in Abels] is normally
in such a close contact with the surface of a motor vehicle component 12 in
the installed state that the shape of the wave peaks 13 and 15 as well as the
wave valley 14 comes close to a straight contact surface (see Column 4,
lines 32-36 of Abels)." Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 3. Appellants
contend that a person of skill in the art would not have been directed to "the
teachings of Abels since the essentially straight contact surface of the thrust
ring 9 of Abels is no different from the already straight contact surface of the
flange 115 ofKyoichi." Reply Br. 3.
The Examiner states "nearly straight is not equivalent to straight," and
the Examiner finds Abels does not disclose that the ring in Abels is straight
or planar, even in an installed state. Ans. 16.
We agree with the Examiner on this issue. Abels states that, in the
installed state, "the shape of the wave peaks 13 and 15 as well as the wave
valley 14 comes close to a straight contact surface." Abels, col. 4, 11. 34--35
(italics added). Appellants do not direct our attention to any persuasive
evidence that thrust ring 9 is without a wave/projection, i.e., straight, as this
ring is used in Abels.
5
Appeal2013-006741
Application 11/722,394
Appellants further argue "[t]he references as a whole do not provide
any suggestion of using the teachings of Abels to modify the seal structure
of Kyoichi. Abels only discloses a thrust ring 9 that is in direct contact with
a motor vehicle component." Appeal Br. 12-13; see also Reply Br. 2. In
Appellants' view, "Abels does not provide any disclosure as to how the
thrust ring 9 would be used to increase the sealing action of the sealing
member 27 of Kyoichi since Abels only discloses that the thrust ring 9 is in
direct contact with a motor vehicle component 12." Appeal Br. 13; see also
Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner replies that Abels teaches that having the projection on
the ring provides elasticity to thrust ring 9 and guarantees optimal sealing
function compared with prior art designs. Ans. 15-16 (citing Abels, col. 4,
11. 28-32).
We are not persuaded that the Examiner has failed to provide an
adequate rationale for combining Kyoichi and Abels as proposed. Abels
states:
In FIG. 3, the wave peaks 13and15 have different
heights in relation to a common plane, the second wave peak 15
having a somewhat greater height than the first wave peak
13. As a result, it was possible to bring about an elasticity of
the thrust ring 9 and especially its radial shoulder 11, which
guarantees optimal sealing function in this area of the joint
when the joint ball is installed in the motor vehicle component
12.
Abels, col. 4, 11. 25-32 (italics added). Thus, as the Examiner noted, Abels
teaches that the wave in thrust ring 9 provides elasticity and optimal sealing
function. As for Appellants' arguments that the sealing action in Abels is
based on direct contact between thrust ring 9 and vehicle component 12,
Appellants do not provide any persuasive evidence supporting a conclusion
6
Appeal2013-006741
Application 11/722,394
that, when provided in combination with Kyoichi, as proposed by the
Examiner, the wave shape taught by Abels would not similarly enhance the
sealing function in Kyoichi. In other words, Appellants do not persuasively
explain why the presence in Kyoichi of sealing element 127 between the
ring 113 and connecting rod 118 would negate the benefits of also providing
the wave shape taught by Abels, as proposed by the Examiner.
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments for claim 1, but are
not persuaded that the Examiner's decision to reject claim 1 as unpatentable
over Kyoichi and Abels is in error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Kyoichi and Abels.
Claim 2
Appellants argue that Kyoichi and Abels "only disclose a U-shaped
collar and a thrust ring, respectively, that have flat contact surfaces." Appeal
Br. 14. Appellants contend that there is no teaching or suggestion in either
Kyoichi or Abels as to providing the features recited in claim 2.
We do not agree with Appellants on this issue. As discussed above
with respect to claim 1, Appellants do not direct our attention to any
persuasive evidence that thrust ring 9 is without a wave/projection as this
ring is used in Abels. Rather, Abels states that wave peaks 13 and 15
provide elasticity to thrust ring 9 and, in the installed state, wave peaks 13
and 15 and wave valley 14 come close to straight. See Abels, col. 4, 11. 25-
35. Thus, contrary to Appellants' assertion, the Examiner's reason for
modifying Kyoichi as proposed has rational underpinnings, found in the
teachings of Abels, and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2.
7
Appeal2013-006741
Application 11/722,394
Claim 3
Appellants argue, "Kyoichi and Abels fail to provide any teaching or
suggestion as to a radially extending flange having at least one projection
wherein the radially extending flange comprises a nonlinear radially
extending flange contour as claimed. Kyoichi and Abels disclose support
ring structures that have a straight contact surface." Appeal Br. 14--15.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive inasmuch as the Examiner
relies on Abels to teach the claimed contour, and provides an adequate
rationale for modifying Kyoichi to include this contour based on the
teachings of Abels regarding increased elasticity and optimal sealing. See
Final Act. 3--4.
Claim 5
Dependent claim 5 recites, in part,
wherein said profile body is connected to said radially
extending flange and/ or to said flange connection area of said
support ring by vulcanization, bonding or another adhesfve
connection, said sealing element being in contact with at least
one portion of said flange transition area, one side of said
radially extending flange being in contact with a sealing
element contact surface of said sealing element and another side
of said radially extending flange being in contact with an outer
sealing bellows contact surface of said sealing bellows.
Appeal Br. 33, Claims App. (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that Kyoichi discloses many of the features
required by claim 5, but "Kyoichi does not explicitly disclose said profiled
body being connected to said radially extending flange and/or to said flange
connection area of said support ring by vulcanization, bonding or another
adhesive connection." Final Act. 5 (emphasis added). The Examiner
determines, "the selection of any of the conventionally known and available
8
Appeal2013-006741
Application 11/722,394
fixation/attachment techniques would have been an obvious matter of
engineering design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art in consideration
of strength, durability etc." Final Act. 5.
Appellants argue, "a reference must provide some teaching or
suggestion as to the features claimed. No such teaching or suggestion can
be found in either Kyoichi and [sic.] Abels as to an adhesive connection that
connects a profile body to one or more of a radially extending flange and a
flange connection area. " 6 Appeal Br. 15 (emphasis added).
Citing KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the
Examiner replies that Appellants are applying an incorrect legal standard for
a rejection based on obviousness. Ans. 17.
We agree with the Examiner on this point. KSR states, "[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S.
398, 416 (2007). The obviousness analysis "need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the challenged claim's specific subject matter, for a
court can consider the inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill
in the art would employ." Id. at 401. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
Appellants' argument that the Examiner was required to find, in the cited
references, a teaching or suggestion of "an adhesive connection that
connects a profile body to one or more of a radially extending flange and a
flange connection area" (Appeal Br. 15), inasmuch as Appellants' contention
applies too rigid a form of the standard for determining obviousness.
6 Although not relied upon, the English translation of Kyoichi states, "said
seal member 27 may be arranged on the end face 17 of flange 15 opposite to
the spherical head side, but it may also be fastened to the ring collar 13 by a
method of prebaking, etc." Kyoichi, English translation, 9, 11. 11-14.
9
Appeal2013-006741
Application 11/722,394
Appellants also argue that Kyoichi does not teach "one side of a
radially extending flange that is in contact with a sealing element and
another side of a radially extending flange that is in contact with a sealing
bellows." Appeal Br. 16. In support of this argument, Appellants state,
"Kyoichi only discloses a U-shaped [support ring] 13 having a radially
extending flange portion that is contact with a sealing bellows and a head
section 28 that is in contact with a seal member 27." Appeal Br. 16.
We do not agree with Appellants' argument inasmuch as Appellants
discuss support ring 13 (right-hand side of Figure 1 of Kyoichi), whereas the
rejection of claim 5 relies on support ring 113 (left-hand side of Figure 1 of
Kyoichi). See Final Act. 2--4. Support ring 113 of Kyoichi does not have
the U-shape discussed by Appellants. Fig. 1. Thus, this portion of
Appellants' argument does not address the Examiner's rejection of claim 5.
Next, Appellants argue that neither Kyoichi nor Abels teaches a
sealing element contact swface in contact with a radially extending flange
and having a non-linear contour. Final Act. 16. Appellants also argue
neither Kyoichi nor Abels discloses a contact surface of a sealing bellows
that engages a radially extending flange and having a nonlinear outer surface
contour as claimed.
We do not agree with Appellants' above-noted arguments. The
Examiner finds that the support ring and bellows of Abels provide the
above-noted non-linear surfaces. Final Act. 5---6. It is clear from Figures 1,
3, and 4 of Abels that the Examiner's finding in this regard is correct.
Claim 6
Appellants argue against the Examiner's proposed combination of
Kyoichi and Abels based on the teaching in Abels of direct contact between
10
Appeal2013-006741
Application 11/722,394
ring 9 and an opposing vehicle component. Appeal Br. 17-18. We
addressed this argument above with respect to the rejection of claim 1 and,
therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 6 for the same reasons.
Claim 9
The Examiner finds that Kyoichi "does not disclose wherein said
profiled body consists of one or more of an elastomer, a thermoplastic
elastomer (TPE), a hard foam and a PU foam," but states, "[t]he selection of
a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design
consideration within the skill of the art." Final Act. 6 (citing In re Leshin,
277 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1960)). However, the Examiner also states, in the
Answer, "Kyoichi discloses a ball and socket joint wherein said profiled
body consists of one or more of an elastomer (Fig 1 shows the profiled body
made of rubber (i.e. an elastomer)), a thermoplastic elastomer (TPE), a hard
foam and a PU foam." Ans. 19.
Appellants argue, "[n]either Kyoichi nor Abels provides any teaching
or suggestion as to a profile body consisting of one or more of an elastomer,
a TPE, a hard foam and a PU foam as claimed," and therefore, the Examiner
did not establish a prima facie case of obviousness. 7 Appeal Br. 18.
We do not agree with Appellants' argument inasmuch as they do not
address the Examiner's reasoning based on the selection of a known material
based upon its suitability for an intended use. Additionally, Appellants do
not specifically address the Examiner's finding that Figure 1 of Kyoichi
discloses the profiled body made of an elastomer.
7 Although not relied upon in the rejection of claim 9, the English translation
of Kyoichi states, "a sealing member 27 made of a synthetic resin or a
rubbery elastomer is provided between said ring collar 13 and a connecting
rod 18." Kyoichi, English translation, 3, 11. 18-20.
11
Appeal2013-006741
Application 11/722,394
Claim 11
The Examiner finds that Kyoichi discloses many of the features
recited in independent claim 11, but does not disclose "said radially
extending flange comprising a bulge located between said transition area and
one end of said profiled body defining a non-linear sealing segment contact
surface, said at least one projection increasing a sealing action of said profile
body." Final Act. 8 (emphasis added). The Examiner relies on Abels to
teach "a similar ball and socket joint having a support ring having a bulge
(13-15) defining a non-linear sealing segment contact surface of said
profiled body which brings about an elasticity of the support ring and
guarantees optimal sealing function in this area of the joint compared with
prior art designs."' Final Act. 8 (citing Abels, col. 3, 11. 65----67; col. 4, 11. 25-
32). The Examiner reasons that "[i]t would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the
support ring of Kyoichi to have a bulge in the flange to [sic.] guarantees
optimal sealing function of the joint at such a sensitive area." Final Act. 8.
Appellants argue that there is to teaching or suggestion in Kyoichi to
provide a bulge in the support ring 113 and note that the radially extending
component of the support ring in Kyoichi is linear in shape. Appeal Br. 19.
In this regard, we note that the Examiner does not rely on Kyoichi for the
shape of the support ring and instead relies on Abels to teach this feature.
Final Act. 8. Accordingly, Appellants' arguments on this point are
unpersuasive.
Appellants next assert, "[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would
not be directed toward the teachings of Abels," and thrust ring 9 of Abels is
12
Appeal2013-006741
Application 11/722,394
in direct contact (without an intervening sealing element) with motor vehicle
component 12. Appeal Br. 19--20.
First, both Kyoichi and Abels are in the field of ball joints (see
Kyoichi, Fig. 1; Abels, Abstract), as is the subject matter of claim 11. Thus,
we are unpersuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art "would not be
directed toward the teachings of Abels." Further, Appellants do not
persuasively show that the Examiner's rationale for modifying the support
ring 113 of Kyoichi is inadequate. The portions of columns 3 and 4 of Abels
cited by the Examiner discuss the benefits of the wave shape in thrust ring 9
and support the Examiner's rationale to modify the support ring of Kyoichi
to result in the arrangement recited in claim 11. As discussed above with
respect to the rejection of claim 1, Appellants do not persuasively explain
why the benefits provided by the wave shape taught by Abels would not also
be provided by the Examiner's proposed modification to Kyoichi.
Appellants also assert that the wave shape of thrust ring 9 in Abels
"comes close to a straight contact surface ... which is no different from the
straight contact surface of the flat component of the ring collar of Kyoichi."
Appeal Br. 20. Therefore, according to Appellants, there is no teaching or
suggestion that the shape of thrust ring 9 of Abels would increase the sealing
ability of the arrangement with the flat support ring surface that already
exists in Kyoichi.
We addressed Appellants' arguments regarding the alleged
straightness of thrust ring 9 of Abels during our discussion of claim 1, and
we are not apprised of Examiner error. Appellants do not direct our
attention to any persuasive evidence that thrust ring 9 of Abels is without a
wave/projection, i.e., flat.
13
Appeal2013-006741
Application 11/722,394
Appellants contend, "Kyoichi and Abels fail to teach or suggest one
side of a radially extending flange that comprises a non-linear sealing
segment contact surface that is in contact with a sealing segment as
claimed." Appeal Br. 21. We disagree because Abels discloses a wave
shape in thrust ring 9, and, in the Examiner's proposed modification to
Kyoichi, the flange ofKyoichi would include a non-linear (wave shape)
sealing segment contact surface as claimed. Accordingly, as none of
Appellants' arguments for the patentability of claim 11 are persuasive, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 11.
Claim 12
Appellants make arguments regarding the alleged failure ofU-shaped
collar 13 of Kyoichi to provide a flange with one side in contact with a
sealing element and the other side in contact with a sealing bellows, similar
to the arguments made for the patentability of claim 5. Appeal Br. 22. We
remain unpersuaded on this point. Appellants' arguments do not address the
Examiner's rejection inasmuch as the Examiner relies on the left-hand side
of Figure 1 ofKyoichi, which includes ring collar 113. Final Act. 7.
Appellants also argue that neither Kyoichi nor Abels discloses (i) a
bellows with a non-linear surface in contact with a support ring, or (ii) the
profiled body is fixed on said support ring by vulcanization, bonding or
another adhesive connection. Appeal Br. 22. We addressed these arguments
above in our discussion of the rejection of claim 5, and we remain
unapprised of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 12 as unpatentable over Kyoichi and Abels.
14
Appeal2013-006741
Application 11/722,394
Claim 14
Appellants make arguments relating to thrust ring 9 and direct contact
with connecting rod 18. For the reasons discussed above regarding the
rejection of claims 1 and 11, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
arguments. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 14 as
unpatentable over Kyoichi and Abels.
Claim 17
Appellants' arguments for claim 1 7 are similar to those made for
claim 9. Appeal Br. 24; see also Appeal Br. 18. We sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 17 as unpatentable over Kyoichi and Abels for the reasons
discussed above regarding the rejection of claim 9.
Claim 18
Appellants contend that the wave shape in thrust ring 9 "comes close
to a straight contact surface," lacks a non-linear contour in an installed state,
"[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would not be directed toward the
teachings of Kyoichi" Appeal Br. 25-27. We addressed these arguments
above and remain unpersuaded of Examiner error on these points.
Appellants further argue that Kyoichi and Abels both fail to disclose,
"a sealing element having a first sealing segment side that is in contact with
one side of a radially extending flange and at least a portion of a support ring
transition area of a support ring as claimed." Appeal Br. 27. Appellants go
on to specifically discuss the structure depicted in Figures 3a-3c of Kyoichi.
Appeal Br. 27. However, the Examiner relies on the left-hand side of Figure
1 of Kyoichi, including support ring 113, which is not depicted in Figures
3a-3c of Kyoichi. Final Act. 10-13. Appellants do not explain how the
above-noted arguments related to the "transition region" apply to the
15
Appeal2013-006741
Application 11/722,394
components on the left-hand side of Figure 1 in Kyoichi. Specifically,
Appellants do not explain persuasively why the sealing element 127 in
Figure 1 of Kyoichi is not in contact with "one side of a radially extending
flange and at least a portion of a support ring transition area of a support
ring."
Appellants next argue that Kyoichi and Abels do not teach "one side
of a radially extending flange that is in contact with a sealing element and
another side of a radially extending flange that is in contact with a sealing
bellows." Appeal Br. 28. Appellants further argue that Kyoichi and Abels
do not teach a profile body connected to a radially extending flange and/ or to
a flange connection area of a support ring via an adhesive connection.
Appeal Br. 28. We addressed these arguments above and remain
unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 18 as unpatentable over Kyoichi and Abels.
Claim 21
Appellants argue that the portions of the sealing bellows in Kyoichi
and Abels contacting the support ring are straight and do not include a non-
linear contour as recited in claim 21. Appeal Br. 29. Appellants further
contend, "Kyoichi and Abels do not teach or suggest a profile body of a
sealing element that consists of one or more of an elastomer, a thermoplastic
elastomer (TPE), a hard foam and a PU foam." Appeal Br. 30.
We addressed these arguments above and remain unpersuaded of
Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim
21 as unpatentable over Kyoichi and Abels.
16
Appeal2013-006741
Application 11/722,394
Although we have considered all of Appellants' arguments, we are not
persuaded of Examiner error in the decision to reject claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 11,
12, 14, 17, 18, and 21.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 11,
12, 14, 17, 18, and21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
Ssc
17