Ex Parte Kraemer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2017

13323325 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2017)

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