Ex Parte Huegle et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2013

10554419 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte AXEL HUEGLE and JUERGEN PAUCKER
____________

Appeal 2011-001033
Application 10/554,419
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, JEFFREY T. SMITH and
BRADFORD E. KILE, Administrative Patent Judges.

KILE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

App
App

claim
been
allow
hous
para
plate
oper
front

1 Th
eal 2011-0
lication 10
This is a
s 16-19 a
indicated
ed. We h
Appellan
ing of a ta
graph one]
Fig. 2 de
7 of a tac
ating elem
plate and

e real part
01033
/554,419
ST
n appeal u
nd 21-28.
as contain
ave jurisd
ts’1 inven
chograph
. Appella
picts a per
hograph.
ent design
a peripher

y in intere
ATEMEN
nder 35 U
Claims 1
ing allowa
iction und
tion is dire
for a moto
nts’ Figure
spective i
Spec. at 7,
ed to be re
al rim of t

st is Sieme
2
T OF TH
.S.C. § 134
-15 have b
ble subjec
er 35 U.S.C
cted to an
r vehicle.”
s 2 and 3

llustration
ll. 15-25.
ceived wi
he operatin
ns Aktien
E CASE
from a fi
een cance
t matter an
. § 6.
“operatin
Spec., p.
are reprod
FIG. 3
of a rear s
Fig. 3 is a
thin cylind
g elemen
gesellscha
nal rejecti
lled, claim
d claim 2
g device .
1, [amend
uced below

ide 13 of a
n illustrat
rical guid
t is dimens
ft.
on of
20 has
9 has been
. . in a
ed
:
front
ion of an
e 15 of the
ioned to

Appeal 2011-001033
Application 10/554,419

3
operably engage a first contact face 17 of the cylindrical guide. Spec. at 7, l.
26 thru 8, l.2.
Claim 16 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
16. An operating device, comprising:

an operating element;

a front element comprising an operator-side front
side and rear side;

a recess in the front element, said recess having a
first cylindrical guide extending from the rear side
of the front element to form a first contact face on
said front element, the operating element being
movable within said recess and said recess being
surrounded by the first contact face on the front
element;

the operating element comprising a flat second
contact face which faces the first contact face and
is configured such that it is in contact with the first
contact face in a non-actuated position, and

the second contact face being arranged to be
removed from the first contact face upon actuation,
wherein the first contact face on the rear side of the
front element is of annular and flat configuration;

wherein the operating element is surrounded
circumferentially by the flat second contact face
which corresponds to the first contact face and is
of annular configuration;

wherein the first contact face and the flat second
contact face have a medium to high surface
quality; and
Appeal 2011-001033
Application 10/554,419

4

wherein the flat second contact face of the
operating element is stressed against the first
contact face of the recess by a first elastic element
such that a permanently defined surface pressure is
set between the first contact face and the flat
second contact face, and the first contact face and
the flat second contact face are arranged to interact
as a seal against spray water and dirt.

The Examiner relied on the following references in rejecting the
appealed subject matter:
Hollweck US 4,136,569 Jan. 30, 1979
Gorsek US 4,779,305 Oct. 25, 1988

Appellants, at App. Br. 4, request review of the following rejections
from the Examiner’s final office action:
I. Claims 16-18, 21, and 24-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
anticipated by Hollweck.
II. Claims 19, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hollweck and Gorsek.
OPINION
Rejection I – Anticipation
The Examiner rejected claims 16-18, 21, and 24-282 as being
anticipated by the disclosure of Hollweck. Figs. 1 and 2 of the Hollweck
patent are reproduced below:

2 Appellants argue claims 16-18, 21 and 24-28 as a group with respect to
anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We select independent claim 16 as a
representative claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).
App
App

gene
hous
Holl
havin
reces
the r
guid
face
thim
and t
first
actua
elem
force
The
eal 2011-0
lication 10
Figure 1
rally thimb
ing 1 in a
weck, col.
The Exa
g a front
s in the fr
ear side of
e extendin
on the fron
ble-shaped
he operati
contact fac
ted positi
ent is a pu
on the op
Examiner
01033
/554,419
depicts a
le shaped
motion ge
2, ll. 22-2
miner foun
element w
ont elemen
the front
g from the
t element
, operatin
ng elemen
e and is in
on (Fig. 1)
shbutton w
erating ele
uses Fig. 1
thermostat
push butt
nerally par
5.
d that Ho
ith an oper
t having a
element. A
rear side
. Ans. 4.
g element
t has a flat
contact w
. Id. The
ith a first
ment coun
to illustra
5
resetting
on 10 that
allel to the
llweck dis
ator front
first cylin
ns. 4 and
of the fron
The Exam
is movable
second co
ith the fir
Examiner
elastic ele
ter to the
te the rela
device tha
is slideabl
length of
closes an o
side and a
drical gui
7 (annotat
t element
iner also f
within th
ntact face
st contact
found that
ment that
direction o
tionship o

t includes
y received
the housin
perating e
rear side a
de extendi
ed Fig. 1)
forms a fir
ound that
e cylindric
which op
face in a n
the opera
exerts a re
f actuatio
f the “cont
a hollow
within a
g..
lement,
nd a
ng from
. The
st contact
the
al recess
poses the
on-
ting
storing
n. Id. at 5
act faces.”
.

Appeal 2011-001033
Application 10/554,419

6
Ans. 7. The Examiner concluded that the Hollweck disclosed all of the
elements recited in claim 16 and that therefore claim 16 is anticipated by the
Hollweck disclosure. Id. at 4-5.
Appellants argue that Hollweck fails to disclose the structure recited
in the third full paragraph of claim 16 – “a recess in the front element . . .
etc.” Appellants further argue that Hollweck fails to disclose “a first
cylindrical guide extending from the rear side of the front element to form a
first contact face.” App. Br. 4-5. Appellants dispute that the Hollweck
disclosure meets the terms of “the operating element comprising a flat
second contact face which faces the first contact face and is configured such
that it is in contact with the first contact face in a non-actuated position.”
Reply Br. 2. In addition Appellants note that claim 16 additionally recites,
“the second contact face being arranged to be removed from the first contact
face upon actuation”. Id. Appellants argue that “the Hollweck device can
not be construed to meet the above positional relationship between the
claimed first and second contact surfaces.” Id. Appellants specifically argue
that:
[U]pon actuation of the Hollweck device, the
second contact face of the push button (10) (which
the Examiner asserts corresponds to the operating
element of independent claim 16) is never
removed from the first contact face of the housing
(1) (which the Examiner asserts corresponds to the
front element of independent claim 16), because
there is no first cylindrical guide extending from
the rear side of the front element that forms a first
contact face on the front element in the Hollweck
device at the location identified by the Examiner.
Id. at 2-3.
Appeal 2011-001033
Application 10/554,419

7
We agree with the position of the Examiner. The front element of
Hollweck includes an outwardly facing peripheral rim (not numbered in
Figs. 1 and 2). The interior cylindrical surface of the Hollweck front
element provides a first cylindrical guide (corresponding to element 15 in
Appellants’ Fig. 2 ) extending from beneath the outwardly facing peripheral
rim of the front element and thus extending from the rear side of the front
element to form a first contact face. Ans. 7, [annotated Fig.1]. Fig. 1 is an
illustration of the contact faces in engagement during a non-actuation
posture and Fig. 2 of the Hollweck patent discloses the contact faces
separated when the Hollweck operating element is depressed.
Appellants have failed to convince us that the Examiner’s analysis is
in error. We therefore AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16-19,
21, and 24-28 as anticipated by the Hollweck disclosure.

Rejection II - Obviousness
The Examiner rejected claims 19, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Hollweck in view of Gorsek.
Although Appellants generally traverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 19, 22 and 23 there are no specific arguments directed to distinctive
aspects of these claims. App. Br. 7. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 19, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
the reasons presented by the Examiner and above.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 19, 22, and 23 is AFFIRMED.

ORDER
The rejection of claims 16-19 and 21-28 is AFFIRMED.
Appeal 2011-001033
Application 10/554,419

8

TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2011).

AFFIRMED

Klh