Ex Parte GedenkDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 29, 201511921932 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 11/921,932 12/11/2007 Volker Gedenk 205-069 3016 47988 7590 01/30/2015 WALTER OTTESEN PO BOX 4026 GAITHERSBURG, MD 20885-4026 EXAMINER WILLIAMS, THOMAS J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3657 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/30/2015 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 VOLKER GEDENK1 ____________________ Appeal 2012-011994 Application 11/921,932 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 2–7. Claim 1 is cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s Invention Appellant’s invention generally relates to a multilayered spring for rail vehicles, having an inner connecting part and an outer connecting part 1 The Appellant identifies ContiTech Luftfedersysteme GmbH as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2012-011994 Application 11/921,932 2 and having multiple spring layers which are located between the connecting parts. Spec. 1. The spring layers include alternately an elastomer layer and a sheet-metal layer and the elastomer layers are each vulcanized together with the connecting parts and the sheet-metal layers. Id. The multilayered spring has a support plate contoured in the shape of a cone arranged above the spring layers in the loading direction. Id. Claims on Appeal Claims 2–7 are the claims on appeal and claims 2 and 5 are independent. Below, we produce those portions of claims 2 and 5 pertinent to our decision with emphasis added. See App. Br. 20–22 (complete listing of claims). 2. (in pertinent part, emphasis added) said support plate corresponding to said elastomer layers to cause first said one layer to be supported against said support plate in response to said load and, with said load increasing, to cause said outer portion of said one layer and said remainder of said elastomer layers to become continuously and increasingly supported against said support plate. 5. (in pertinent part, emphasis added) said underside defining a conically-shaped surface and the thickness of said one elastomer layer and said conically- shaped surface being matched to one another in such a manner that, when said one elastomer layer experiences complete compression, said support plate comes to rest on the sheet- metal layer corresponding to said one elastomer layer with the remainder of said spring layers becoming increasingly involved in a further spring compression of said multilayered spring. Appeal 2012-011994 Application 11/921,932 3 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Bourgeot (US 5,271,678, iss. Dec. 21, 1993) and Schloss (US 2,830,780, iss. Apr. 15, 1958). Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Bourgeot, Schloss and Workman (US 2,117,264, iss. May 10, 1938). Issue on Appeal The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in determining Bourgeot and Schloss teach or suggest “elastomer layers to become continuously and increasingly supported against said support plate” (claim 2) as loading increases, as well as the similar requirement of claim 5. ANALYSIS In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The Examiner can satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellants. Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445. Appellant alleges the Examiner erred in finding Bourgeot and Schloss teach or suggest the claim limitations requiring either elastomer layers (claim 2) or the sheet-metal layer (claim 5) to engage the support plate when a compression load is applied. Specifically, Appellant contends there is no Appeal 2012-011994 Application 11/921,932 4 evidence that Bourgeot’s layers would engage the flange portion of internal armature (8) as the Examiner finds. App. Br. 11–12. See Ans. 5 (“the support plate (i.e. flange portion of part 8) will increasingly contact more elastomer layers as the load is increased”). Appellant also cites to evidence suggesting the spring layers of Bourgeot would not be capable of engaging the flange portion of the internal armature (8) because (i) a bore hole adjacent to the flange portion would prevent such contact (App. Br. 11), (ii) the layers are placed under permanent compression (id. 12), and (iii) Bourgeot is not a multilayer spring, but instead an elastic bearing with layers (7) subject primarily to shear (id.). Appellant further argues Schloss does not cure the deficiencies of Bourgeot because Schloss is a single layer design and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how to integrate the shock isolation mount of Schloss into the multilayer elastic bearing of Bourgeot, which is primarily focused on shear force absorption by the elastomeric layers. App. Br. 13–15. Based on the record before us, the Examiner’s finding that “the [Bourgeot] support plate (i.e. flange portion of part 8) will increasingly contact more elastomer layers as the load is increased,” lacks adequate support. Ans. 5. While the Examiner concludes “it is believed that subsequent layers in the multilayered spring of Bourgeot would impact the upper support plate during sufficient compression,” the Examiner provides no support or citation for this conclusion. Ans. 7. Further, the layers of Bourgeot, even if under axial compression, do not appear capable of engaging the flange area of the internal armature (8). To the contrary, orthogonal compression is absorbed along the vertical axis by distributing the load “from one layer 7 to another layer 7 in the same manner as the Appeal 2012-011994 Application 11/921,932 5 shear.” Col. 5, ll. 29–33. We therefore decline to sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Likewise, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims 3, 4, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) for the reasons set forth above and because there is no finding by the Examiner that Workman cures the noted deficiency. See Ans. 6. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 2–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 2–7. REVERSED Ssc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation