Ex Parte Kappich et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 201311182828 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JOACHIM KAPPICH, JAN PFINGST, and RAINER GEBHARDT ____________ Appeal 2011-007097 Application 11/182,828 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before LINDA E. HORNER, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Joachim Kappich et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2, 3, 5-8, 11, 12, and 14- 16, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal 2011-007097 Application 11/182,828 2 We AFFIRM. THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “a bearing arrangement and to a control arm arrangement for a motor vehicle.” Spec., para. [0002]. Claim 2, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim and is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 2. A transverse control arm for motor vehicles, the transverse control arm comprising: an inside vehicle body-side bearing for connecting the transverse control arm with a vehicle body, said inside vehicle body-side bearing having a stiff construction at least in a vehicle longitudinal direction, said inside vehicle body-side bearing functioning as a swiveling point for the transverse control arm; a wheel suspension bearing for connecting to a wheel; a strut bearing constructed as a hydraulically damped bearing, said strut bearing, as related to said inside vehicle body-side bearing, is configured to be soft in a radial direction and is hydraulically damped, said strut bearing being a hydraulic bush having a connection line, a bearing point for engaging a strut, an elastic base material, and two opposite chambers being filled with a hydraulic fluid and disposed in said elastic base material on both sides of said bearing point, said chambers being connected to each other via said connection line, said chambers disposed in the radial direction beside said bearing point in relation to the swiveling point of the transverse control arm, wherein the radial direction coinciding with the vehicle longitudinal direction; said inside vehicle body-side bearing having a stiffness selected to be at least twice as high as a stiffness of said strut bearing in a direction in which movement is to be damped, said Appeal 2011-007097 Application 11/182,828 3 inside vehicle body-side bearing being stiffer than said strut bearing resulting in said inside vehicle body-side bearing functioning as the swivel point redirecting longitudinal vibrations into said strut bearing where the longitudinal vibrations are damped. THE EVIDENCE The Examiner relies upon the following evidence: Edahiro US 5,009,449 Apr. 23, 1991 Wahl US 5,498,018 Mar. 12, 1996 Sutton US 6,231,062 B1 May 15, 2001 THE REJECTIONS Appellants seek review of the following rejections: 1. Claims 2, 5-7, 11, and 14-161 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wahl and Edahiro2; and 2. Claims 3, 8, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wahl, Edahiro, and Sutton. ANALYSIS Appellants argue the claims subject to the first ground of rejection (claims 2, 5-7, 11, and 14-16) as a group. Br. 7-11. We select claim 2 as 1 While the Final Office Action from which this appeal was taken indicated that claim 16 is rejected, it did not include claim 16 in the first or second ground of rejection. Final Off. Act. at 1-4. The Examiner noted in the Answer that claim 16 is rejected under the first ground. Ans. 7. Appellants’ arguments also indicate they were aware that claim 16 was included in the first ground of rejection. See, e.g., Br. 7. 2 The Final Office Action from which this appeal was taken included Sutton in the statement of the first ground of rejection. Final Off. Act. at 2. The Examiner clarified in the Answer that Sutton was not relied upon in the first ground of rejection of claims 2, 5-7, 11, and 14-16. Ans. 7. Appeal 2011-007097 Application 11/182,828 4 representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Appellants do not present any additional arguments for patentability of dependent claims 3, 8, and 12, which are subject to the second ground of rejection, and rely solely on the arguments presented with regard to claim 2 over Wahl and Edahiro. As such, the outcome of this appeal turns on our determination of the propriety of the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 over Wahl and Edahiro in light of the arguments raised by Appellants. The Examiner found that Wahl teaches the transverse control arm as called for in claim 2 “except for the strut bearing being a hydraulic bearing.” Ans. 3-4. The Examiner found that Edahiro discloses a hydraulic bearing for use in a suspension system of a motor vehicle, where the hydraulic bearing “is soft in a radial direction and comprises a bearing point in the center thereof and hydraulic fluid chambers 32e, 32d which are connected to each other via a connection line 32f, said chambers being disposed in a radial direction beside said bearing point.” Id. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to modify the connection bearing 10 of Wahl, which is disclosed as an upright bush bearing having a soft construction in the radial direction, with the hydraulic bearing of Edahiro, which provides a radial damping effect in the direction in which it is oriented, to achieve a desired damping effect and thus a desired stiffness. Id. at 6-7. Appellants argue that Edahiro teaches a trailing arm 9 with rubber bushings 30, 32, where the movement of oil between oil chambers 30d, 30e of upper bushing 30 is in the vertical direction, i.e., up and down, and thus Appeal 2011-007097 Application 11/182,828 5 Wahl, as modified by Edahiro, would result in a strut bearing that is soft in the vertical direction and not in the radial direction as called for in claim 2. Br. 7-8. As is clear from the Examiner’s articulation of the rejection, the Examiner relied on the movement of oil between oil chambers 32d, 32e in lower bushing 32, and not the movement of the oil between oil chambers in the upper bushing 30, to show damping of movement in the longitudinal direction. Ans. 4; see also Edahiro, col. 6, l. 67 – col. 7, l. 2 (describing “the lower rubber bushing 32 provides the suspension system with a damping effect in the longitudinal direction due to the oil chambers 32d, 32e”). Appellants acknowledge that the longitudinal direction coincides with the radial direction called for in claim 2. Br. 8. As such, we find the Examiner’s determination that Edahiro’s hydraulic bushing is configured to be soft in the radial direction is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellants’ argument as to the damping provided by upper bushing 30 does not persuasively address the basis for the Examiner’s rejection, which relies on the damping provided by lower bushing 32. Appellants also contest the Examiner’s reason to modify Wahl with the hydraulic bearing of Edahiro to achieve a desired stiffness. Br. 9. Appellants argue that Edahiro’s lateral links 3, 4, and 5 that extend in the transverse direction are connected to the vehicle body by rubber bushings 7 and that Edahiro discloses the hydraulic bushing 32 is connected only to a trailing arm that extends in the longitudinal direction. Id. at 9-10. Appellants argue that Edahiro does not suggest incorporating the hydraulic bushing 32 onto a transversely extending control arm 2 of Wahl and posit Appeal 2011-007097 Application 11/182,828 6 that if one were to modify Wahl’s control arm 2 based on the teaching of Edahiro, one would use the rubber bushing 7 of Edahiro. Id. at 10-11. As noted by the Examiner, Wahl discloses that the connection bearing 10 between the strut 3 and the transverse control arm 2 is constructed as an upright bush bearing and has a softer construction in the radial direction than the body-side bearing 9 to provide a damping effect in the radial direction. Ans. 6 (citing Wahl, col. 5, ll. 14-18). We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious, in light of Edahiro’s well-known hydraulic bearing, which provides radial damping, to modify Wahl to use Edahiro’s hydraulic bearing to provide the desired damping effect, i.e., the disclosed “softer construction in the radial direction,” for the connection bearing 10 of Wahl. The claimed subject matter is nothing more than the predicable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). As such, we agree with the Examiner’s determination of unpatentability of claim 2. DECISION We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 2, 3, 5-8, 11, 12, and 14-16. 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Appeal 2011-007097 Application 11/182,828 7 mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation