Ex Parte Fernández et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2018

14441325 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/441,325 05/07/2015 Pedro Fernandez
26294 7590 09/19/2018
TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P.
1300EASTNINTH STREET, SUITE 1700
CLEVELAND, OH 44114
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.
JPA-024409 US PCT 5270
EXAMINER
VORTMAN, ANATOLY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2835
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2018 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):
rkline@tarolli.com
docketing@tarolli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PEDRO FERNANDEZ, JURGEN FREYTAG,
SASCHA SCHULTE, AKIHIKO SHIMIZU,
and HARTUNG WILSTERMANN
Appeal2017-009713
Application 14/441,325
Technology Center 2835
Before GEORGE C. BEST, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Office
Action rejecting claims 6 and 7, which are all of the pending claims.
Claims 1-5 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
1 In our Opinion, we refer to the Specification filed May 7, 2015 ("Spec.");
the Final Office Action mailed October 12, 2016 ("Final Act."); the
Advisory Action mailed February 10, 2017 ("Adv. Act."); the Appeal Brief
filed March 13, 2017 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed May 11,
2017 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed July 6, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellant is the applicant, Pacific Engineering Corp. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-009713
Application 14/441,325
We AFFIRM.
The invention relates to melting fuses constituting an overcurrent
protective device that interrupts the electric circuit by melting a fusible
conductor. Spec. ,r 2. Claim 6, reproduced below from the Claim Appendix
of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A melting fuse, especially for a motor vehicle that has a
high-voltage circuit, said fuse comprising an electrically
insulating housing inside of which there is a fusible conductor
that connects two contacts with each other, characterized in that,
between two longitudinal areas that are adjacent to each other,
the fusible conductor has a rotation point around which the
longitudinal areas can be rotated in case of a thermo-mechanical
expansion, whereby the fusible conductor is surrounded in the
insulating housing by an arc suppressing means and whereby the
fusible conductor is movable inside the arc suppressing means
that surrounds it.
REFERENCE
The Examiner relies on US 4,020,441, issued April 26, 1977 to
Jacobs, Jr. ("Jacobs").
REJECTION
The Examiner maintains and Appellant seeks review of the rejection
of claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Jacobs. Final Act. 3; App.
Br. 3---6.
OPINION
Appellant does not argue the claims separately. We select claim 6 as
representative of the claims. Claim 7 will stand or fall with claim 6. 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
2
Appeal2017-009713
Application 14/441,325
Jacobs concerns fuses for elevated circuit voltages comprising an
undulated fusible element embedded in a granular arc-quenching filler inside
a casmg. Jacobs col. 1, 11. 6-8 and 46-50. Fig. 1 of Jacobs is reproduced
below:
Fig. 1 illustrates a longitudinal section of a fuse
embodying Jacobs's invention. A pair of terminal
elements 2 is arranged at the ends of casing 1, which
is filled with a granular arc-quenching filler 4, which
is preferably quartz sand. Id. col. 2, 11. 5-11. The
undulating fusible element 5 is conductively
connected at 6 and 7 to terminal elements 2. Id. col.
2, 11. 14--15. Fusible element 5 includes a plurality of
spaced aligned perforations 8 which are aligned along
an axis coextensive with the longitudinal axis of
casing 1. Id. col. 2, 11. 18-21. A straight rod 9, which
is free to elongate when heated, extends through
perforations 8 in fusible element 5. Id. col. 2, 11. 29-
34. Perforations 8 in fusible element 5 are circular
and have a predetermined diameter which is larger
than the circular cross-section of cylindrical rod 9. Id. col. 2, 11. 37--41. The
difference in diameters facilitates independent movement of fusible element
5 and rod 9 when changing their configuration and length due to changes in
temperature resultring from changes of ambient temperature and changes of
the load current that the fuse is carrying. Id. col. 2, 11. 45-51.
The Examiner finds that Jacobs teaches all elements of claim 6. Final
Act. 3. The Examiner specifically finds that Jacobs teaches the fusible
3
Appeal2017-009713
Application 14/441,325
element is not limited in movement in case of expansion in response to
temperature changes. Ans. 3 (citing Jacobs col. 2, 11. 37-51). The Examiner
finds that changing the length of the fusible element will inherently result in
changing the crossing angle at which the longitudinal areas cross the rod. Id.
The Examiner finds that:
the ends of fusible conductor/element (5) are immovably
coupled to the respective contacts (2), the elongation of
individual flat portions/longitudinal areas (5, 5') of the fusible
conductor ( 5) upon thermal expansion thereof would inherently
result in relative compression of the individual undulated V-
shaped sections as depicted by the dotted lines. This in tum
would result in the unavoidable change of the angle at which said
longitudinal areas (5, 5') meet (i.e. of the 'apex angle'). The
change of said 'apex angle' would inherently result in change of
the crossing angle at which the longitudinal areas//portions (5,
5') cross said rod (9), which is tantamount to the rotation of said
longitudinal areas (5, 5') in relation to said rod (9, 9') (i.e. around
the rotational points (8, 8').
Id. at 3--4.
The Examiner provides the following schematic representation of the
fuse mechanical structure in further explanation of the findings:
'\
,,
4
Appeal2017-009713
Application 14/441,325
Ans. 5. The schematic shows a series of connected, undulating segments
(longitudinal areas) of matching lengths strung along a line at the center of
each segment. If those segments elongate with no change in the length of
the central line, the angle between adjacent segments (apex angle), as a
matter of geometry, must narrow. A segment must also, as a matter of
geometry, rotate about a point (rotation point) on the centerline. This is
neither speculative nor a result that must happen some, but not all, of the
time.
Appellant argues that Jacobs does not have a rotational movement
consistent with the fusible conductor of claim 6, which, according to
Appellant, responds to changes in temperature or load current like "spring
elements that are bent uniformly and are free of kinks." App. Br. 3--4.
Appellant's argument is not persuasive of reversible error by the
Examiner. The Examiner provides a reasonable explanation for why Jacobs
discloses the elements of claim 6, including a detailed explanation of how
Jacobs teaches a fusible conductor has a rotation point around which the
longitudinal areas can be rotated in case of a thermo-mechanical expansion
( claim 6). See supra. Appellant provides no adequate reason for us to doubt
the Examiner's rationale. "[L ]imitations are not to be read into the claims
from the specification." In re Van Gu ens, 9 8 8 F .2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir.
1993). Appellant's contention that Jacobs does not teach a spring-like
element fails to overcome the anticipation rejection because claim 6
nowhere requires such spring-like element.
Appellant also argues that the record does not contain adequate factual
evidence to support the Examiner's finding that "the elongation of the
individual flat portions/longitudinal areas (5, 5') of the fusible conductor (5)
5
Appeal2017-009713
Application 14/441,325
upon thermal expansion thereof would inherently result in relative
compression of the individual undulated V-shaped sections" and "the
unavoidable change of the angle at which said longitudinal areas (5, 5') meet
... [which] would inherently result in change of the crossing angle at which
the longitudinal areas/portions (5, 5') cross said rod (9, 9')." Reply Br. 2
(quoting Ans. 3--4) (emphasis added by Appellant). However, the
Examiner's analysis of Jacobs' disclosure provides adequate technical
reasoning to support the finding that the allegedly inherent characteristic
necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art. Ex parte Levy,
17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990). The elongation and
rotation (change in the crossing angel) are necessarily present in Jacobs. See
In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("A reference
may anticipate inherently if a claim limitation that is not expressly disclosed
'is necessarily present, or inherent, in the single anticipating reference."')
(citing Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1336-
37 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Mathematical certainty means the rotation must, not
only may, occur. See In re Olerich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981) ("The
mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is
not sufficient.").
The Examiner did not err in finding claim 6 anticipated by Jacobs.
For the reasons given above, claim 7 is likewise anticipated by the
references.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 6 and 7 is affirmed.
6
Appeal2017-009713
Application 14/441,325
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7