12066283 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2016)

Ex Parte Mieglitz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 19, 2016

12066283 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/066,283 07/25/2008 Hans-Helmut Mieglitz 35161 7590 07119/2016 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 1825 Eye St., NW Suite 900 WASHINGTON, DC 20006 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 21407-175 8642 EXAMINER REDMAN, JERRY E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3634 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 07/19/2016 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 Exparte HANS-HELMUT MIEGLITZ and THORSTEN MEYER Appeal2014-005379 Application 12/066,283 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a motor vehicle door. Spec. i-f 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: Appeal2014-005379 Application 12/066,283 1. A vehicle door ( 1) and an interior thereof being subdivided by a separating means ( 6) into an external wet space (7) facing a body (3) and into an internal dry space (8) facing a door lining (2, 2.1) and which comprises a sealing region (14), within which the separating means ( 6) is clamped between the body (3) and the door lining (2, 2.1 ), and the door lining being fastened to the body with at least one clip ( 5) characterized in that at least one spring device (10, 12, 15) is arranged in the sealing region (14) and located between said door lining (2, 2.1) and one of said body (3) and said separating means ( 6), and does not pass through the separating means. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Schroder US 7,198,319 B2 Apr. 3, 2007 REJECTION The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C Â§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Schroder. OPINION Claim 1 is the only independent claim. Appellants argue all the claims as a group. We select claim 1 as representative, and claims 2-13 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 CPRÂ§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2011). The decision in this appeal turns on whether Schroder discloses "at least one spring device (10, 12, 15) [that] is arranged in the sealing region (14) and located between said door lining (2, 2.1) and one of said body (3) and said separating means ( 6), and does not pass through the separating means" as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). The 2 Appeal2014-005379 Application 12/066,283 Examiner cites clip 45 as including such a spring device. Final Act. 2. Specifically, the Examiner points to arms which extend radially outward from the clip 45 as being a spring device within the meaning of that term as used in claim 1. Ans. 7-8. Appellants contend that clip 45 is not located between the "door lining and one of said body and said separating means" and fails to meet the limitation "does not pass through the separating means." Appeal Br. 7. Appellants also argue that the arms identified by the Examiner as being the "spring device" cannot be the spring device because standing alone the arms have no ability to press. Appeal Br. 8. Appellants argue that clip 45 must be considered as a whole because only as a whole can it function as a spring device. Id. Further, as a whole, the clip 45 is not located between the door lining and one of the body and the separating means; rather, as a whole, it penetrates the separating means. Id. The Specification does not provide any special definition for "spring device," and we take its broadest reasonable meaning to include a resilient or elastic member. 1 Such understanding is consistent with Appellants' Specification. See Spec. i-f 9. Hence, the arms identified by the Examiner are encompassed by the claim term "spring device." Appellants argue that in order to function as a spring device the arms cited by the Examiner must receive force from the overall clip. Appeal Br. 8. We are not persuaded, because there is no requirement in the claim for this arrangement and we believe that a spring remains a "spring device" even when it is not biased. Appellants also argue that the arms cited by the Examiner are incapable of 1 See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spring; see also http://www.dictionary.com/browse/spring?s=t (last visited July 11, 2016). 3 Appeal2014-005379 Application 12/066,283 creating the sealing region to separate wet and dry areas. Id. This last argument is not persuasive because it is not directed to any particular claim language. Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Because we find that the arms identified by the Examiner are a "spring device," it follows from the arrangement shown in Figure 5 of Schroder that they are located "between" (as used in claim 1) the door lining and one of the body and the separating means, and further that they do not pass through the separating means. In view of the foregoing, we have not been apprised of Examiner error, and the rejection of claims 1-13 is sustained. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-13 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv) (2009). AFFIRMED 4