Ex Parte KraemerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 27, 201713323325 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2017) 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. 13/323,325 12/12/2011 Godelieve Kraemer 022862-1451-US00 2884 34044 7590 06/29/2017 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch) 100 EAST WISCONSIN AVENUE MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 EXAMINER HORTON, ANDREW ALAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3727 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/29/2017 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): mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GODELIEVE KRAEMER Appeal 2015-006858 Application 13/323,325 Technology Center 3700 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Godelieve Kraemer (Appellant)1 appeals under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 7 and 15.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Robert Bosch GMBH. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claims 1—6, 8—14, and 16—18 are canceled. Claims App’x (filed Mar. 16, 2015)2-3. Appeal 2015-006858 Application 13/323,325 SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION Appellant’s disclosure is directed to “a wiper cover for a windshield of a motor vehicle.” Spec. 11. Claim 7, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 7. A wiper cover (140) for a jointless wiper blade (135) on a wiper arm (130) of a wiper system (100), characterized by a fastening device (205) for engaging with one end of the wiper arm (130); and a longitudinal groove (305) for receiving a portion of the jointless wiper blade (135); characterized in that a multiplicity of transverse grooves (220) are spaced along a bottom edge of the cover and run from an underside (210), which faces toward the wiper blade (135), in the direction of a top side (215), which faces away from the wiper blade (135), of the wiper cover (140), such that the wiper cover (140) is flexible in a plane running through the underside (210) and the top side (215), the transverse grooves extending parallel to one another such that the wiper cover (140) is divided, in the region of the underside (210), into individual portions or members which are connected to one another in the region of the top side (215); wherein the wiper arm (130) is mounted so as to be rotatable about a wiper shaft and the wiper cover (140) extends from the fastening device (205) to an end of the wiper blade (135) remote from the wiper shaft (125), and characterized in that the wiper cover (140) is connected to a further cover (505) which extends from the fastening device (205) in the direction of the wiper shaft (125), wherein a contour of the further cover (505) merges into a contour of the wiper cover (140). REJECTIONS Claims 7 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over either Jurowski (US 4,014,061, issued Mar. 29, 1977) or 2 Appeal 2015-006858 Application 13/323,325 Watanabe (JP 2007-276724 A, published Oct. 25, 2007) in combination with Oishei (US 2,724,139, issued Nov. 22, 1955). Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakatsuka (JP 2003-127837 A, published May 8, 2003) and Wilhelm (US 6,675,434 Bl, issued Jan. 13, 2004). ANALYSIS Obviousness Based on Jurowski and Oishei The Examiner finds that Jurowski discloses a wiper cover substantially as recited in claim 7, including, inter alia, a wiper cover (yoke 10)3 for a jointless wiper blade (wiper blade 19) and a further cover (locking clip 20). Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner relies on Oishei to explicitly disclose a wiper arm that is rotatable about a wiper shaft, and reasons that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to use Jurowski’s wiper cover with such a rotatable wiper arm. Id. at 3. According to the Examiner, Jurowski’s further cover extends in three dimensions, and, thus, extends along the wiper blade toward the wiper shaft taught by Oishei. Ans. 3; see also Adv. Act. 2 (mailed Oct. 22, 2014) (stating that “any element that acts to ‘cover’ another element may be interpreted as a further cover”). Continuing, the Examiner finds that, because Jurowski’s locking clip 20 “lies over the cover and conceals a portion of the cover,” it is a further cover as required by claim 7. Ans. 3. 3 Parentheticals refer to the terminology of the references. 3 Appeal 2015-006858 Application 13/323,325 Independent claim 15 claims a wiper apparatus having a wiper cover similar to that of claim 7 (Claims App’x 3), and the Examiner rejects claim 15 in the same manner as claim 7 (Final Act. 2—3). Appellant traverses, arguing that Jurowski’s locking clip 20 is not a further cover, and that the locking clip does not extend in the direction of the wiper shaft as required by claim 7. Appeal Br. 6. According to Appellant, a person of ordinary skill, having read the Specification, would not interpret Jurowski’s locking clip 20 to be a further cover. Id. at 7 (citing Spec. 142). Appellant further asserts that the Examiner has not explained how Jurowski’s “locking clip 20 extends from a fastening device of a wiper cover in the direction of a wiper shaft as required in claim 7.” Reply Br. 2 (emphasis omitted). Appellant makes similar arguments regarding the rejection of claim 15. Appeal Br. 7—9. During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, while claims are to be interpreted in light of the specification and with a view to ascertaining the invention, it does not follow that limitations from the specification may be read into the claims. See In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1369. Here, as noted, Appellant baldly asserts that Jurowski’s “locking clip 20 is not a ‘further cover,”’ citing paragraph 42 of the Specification for 4 Appeal 2015-006858 Application 13/323,325 support. Appeal Br. 6—7. As acknowledged by Appellant, this paragraph describes “an embodiment” of the claimed further cover in which the further cover covers the entirety of the wiper arm from the fastening device to the wiper shaft. Spec. 142; see also id. Fig. 5; and Appeal Br. 7, 9. There is no indication, however, that the term “further cover” was imparted a special meaning outside of its ordinary meaning by this description. If a divergent specialized usage were intended, such a meaning was required to be clearly explained in the Specification. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[A] patentee may choose to be his own lexicographer and use terms in a manner other than their ordinary meaning, as long as the special definition of the term is clearly stated in the patent specification or file history.”). Thus, we construe “further cover” according to its ordinary meaning, which does not require it to cover the entirety of the wiper arm from the fastening device to the wiper shaft. We agree with the Examiner’s determination that the ordinary meaning of “further cover” includes a second element (in addition to the previously recited “wiper cover”) that acts to lie over or conceal another element. See Ans. 3; Adv. Act. 2. We further note that this interpretation is consistent with dictionary definitions of the term “cover.” See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cover (last visited June 23, 2017) (defining cover as “something that protects, shelters, or guards,” “something that is placed over or about another thing,” and “something that conceals or obscures”). This interpretation is also consistent with Appellant’s use of the term. See, e.g., Spec. 19. 5 Appeal 2015-006858 Application 13/323,325 Jurowski discloses that its locking clip 20 is inserted into slot 14 of yoke 10. Jurowski 3:46-48. Jurowski further discloses that locking clip 20 “includes a flat top plate 21 which . . . bears downwardly against the top surface 10a of the yoke 10.” Id. at 3:62—65; see also id. Fig. 4. Accordingly, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s determination that Jurowski’s locking clip 20 is a further cover, and that by extending in three dimensions the locking clip will extend from the fastening device in the direction of the wiper shaft. Appellant’s arguments fail to persuade us otherwise. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 15 as being unpatentable over Jurowski and Oishei. Obviousness Based on Watanabe and Oishei The Examiner finds that Watanabe discloses a wiper cover substantially as claimed in claim 7, including, inter alia, a wiper cover (air spoiler 8) for a jointless wiper blade (wiper blade 2) and a further cover 5. Final Act. 3. The Examiner relies on Oishei to explicitly disclose a wiper arm rotatable about a wiper shaft, and reasons that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to use Watanabe’s wiper cover with such a rotatable wiper arm. Id. According to the Examiner, Watanabe’s further cover rests on the wiper blade and acts to conceal the top portion of the wiper blade. Ans. 5; see also Adv. Act. 2. The Examiner relies on Watanabe and Oishei similarly to reject claim 15. Final Act. 2—3. Appellant traverses, arguing that Watanabe’s element 5 is a spring, not a further cover. Appeal Br. 6, 8. According to Appellant, a person of ordinary skill, having read the Specification, would not interpret Watanabe’s 6 Appeal 2015-006858 Application 13/323,325 spring element 5 to be a further cover. Id. at 7, 9 (citing Spec. 142); see also Reply Br. 2. Watanabe’s element 5 is welded to element 3 (Watanabe 122), and the wiper blade 2 slides into a gap between elements 3 and 5 {id. 123, Figs. 8, 9). The assembly then is connected to the wiper arm {id. 124). Air spoiler 8 is provided in two parts 27, each of which slides over element 3 (which is fixedly attached to element 5) {id. 126, Figs. 3, 5). In the assembled condition, element 5 overlies the wiper blade 2. Id. Fig. 3. Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s determination that Watanabe’s element 5 is a further cover as defined above, and that by extending in three dimensions the element will extend from the fastening device in the direction of the wiper shaft. Appellant’s arguments fail to persuade us otherwise. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 15 as being unpatentable over Watanabe and Oishei. Obviousness Based on Nakatsuka and Wilhelm The Examiner finds that Nakatsuka discloses a wiper cover substantially as claimed in claim 15, including, inter alia, a wiper cover 4 for a jointless wiper blade 2, 3 on a wiper arm 1, 5, 5a; spring elements 2; a retaining element 2b; and a further cover 1. Final Act. 4—5. The Examiner relies on Wilhelm to teach a retaining element that extends around and engages the spring elements, and reasons that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to modify Nakatsuka’s retaining element to be like that of Wilhelm. Id. at 4—5. According to the Examiner, Nakatsuka’s 7 Appeal 2015-006858 Application 13/323,325 further cover 1, along with wiper cover 4, acts to conceal various windshield wiper elements, and, thus, is a further cover. Ans. 5. Appellant traverses, arguing, inter alia, that “there is no disclosure or suggestion in Nakatsuka that element 5 is a wiper arm that is connected further to a wiper shaft.” Appeal Br. 10. Nakatsuka is a Japanese language document, for which the present record does not contain an English language translation. Thus, the Examiner’s rejection appears to rest solely upon what the Figures of Nakatsuka convey to a person of ordinary skill. Nakatsuka’s elements 5, 5a appear to be the shaft of the drive device, onto which the wiper arm is attached, and element 1 appears to be a cap overlying the shaft. See Nakatsuka Fig. 2. There appears to be a grooved, conically-shaped interference fit between element 5a and element 1, preventing relative rotation therebetween. See id. Thus, we are persuaded that Nakatsuka elements 1, 5, 5a are not a wiper arm mounted to be rotatable about a wiper shaft, as recited in claim 15. For the foregoing reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 as being unpatentable over Nakatsuka and Wilhelm. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 7 and 15 as being unpatentable over Jurowski and Oishei is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 7 and 15 as being unpatentable over Watanabe and Oishei is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claim 15 as being unpatentable over Nakatsuka and Wilhelm is reversed. 8 Appeal 2015-006858 Application 13/323,325 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 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation