Ex Parte Rhoads

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 16, 2019

12831789 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/831,789 07/07/2010
74275 7590 01/16/2019
DILWORTH IP, LLC
2 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 206
TRUMBULL, CT 06611
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David C. Rhoads
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.
01925-P0304A 3132
EXAMINER
LETTMAN, BRYAN MATTHEW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/16/2019 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
Ex parte DAVID C. RHOADS
Appeal2017-004642
Application 12/831,789
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
David C. Rhoads ("Appellant") appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17,
and 19. 1 An oral hearing was held on January 8, 2019. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Haldex Brake Corporation is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal2017-004642
Application 12/831,789
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A spring brake actuator comprising:
a push rod assembly including a push rod plate, said push
rod plate having a distal surface, a circumferential edge, and a
proximal surface opposite the distal surface;
a diaphragm comprising:
a rim projecting from said diaphragm for engaging
a housing containing said push rod plate,
a bottom wall having an interior surface for
engaging said push rod plate, and
a sidewall connecting said projecting rim with said
bottom wall via a curved abutment;
at least one flange extending in an axial direction
from a periphery of the interior surface of the bottom wall
of said diaphragm, adjacent to the curved abutment of the
sidewall, to a distal end terminating at or beyond the
proximal surface of the push rod plate in the axial
direction, the at least one flange including an inner wall
adjacent to and at least partially circumscribing the
circumferential edge of the push rod plate, the inner wall
terminating at the distal end radially outboard of the
circumferential edge of the push rod plate; and
an adhesive between said diaphragm and the distal surface
of said push rod plate;
wherein said adhesive maintains an attachment and a seal
between said diaphragm and said push rod plate keeping said
diaphragm and said push rod plate in line with each other.
2
Appeal2017-004642
Application 12/831,789
REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17, and 19 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ware (US 4,860,640, issued Aug.
29, 1989) and Coble (US 4,936,758, issued June 26, 1990).
DISCUSSION
The Examiner relies on Ware for teaching most of the limitations of
claim 1. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner apparently relies on annular rib 86
as corresponding to both the recited flange and the curved abutment. Id. In
support of the rejection, the Examiner provides the following annotated
version of a portion of Ware's Figure 1:
Curved
Abutment
Id. at 4. This drawing illustrates the Examiner's interpretation of the
sidewalls and bottom wall of Ware's diaphragm 48. See also Ans. 3.
Appellant contends that the rejection is based on "a strained and
overly broad interpretation of the claims with respect to the prior art."
Appeal Br. 7. Among Appellant's arguments is that Ware's rib 86, which
"the Examiner considers ... to be an abutment between a curved sidewall
and a bottom wall ... is not abutting between the two at all. Instead, the rib
86 merely projects from a flat portion of the diaphragm 48 far from the
sidewall." Id. at 8. The Examiner responds by maintaining the position that
3
Appeal2017-004642
Application 12/831,789
Ware's sidewalls begin adjacent to the "bottom wall" as shown in the
drawing reproduced above. Ans. 3. Appellant argues in the Reply Brief that
"the Examiner takes an unreasonable interpretation of Ware and suggests
that the sidewall forms both the side of the diaphragm and part of the bottom
of the diaphragm .... One [of ordinary skill] in the art would not understand
Ware in this way." Reply Br. 2. For the following reason, we do not sustain
the rejection.
Appellant's Figure 2 illustrates diaphragm 130. See Spec. ,r 33; Fig.
2. Diaphragm 130 comprises bottom wall 240 and side wall 230. Spec.
,r 33. As can be seen in Appellant's Figure 2, sidewall 230 extends in a
generally vertical direction from bottom wall 240. See Spec. Fig. 2. The
Examiner interprets the "bottom wall" of Ware's diaphragm 48 as the central
horizontal portion only. See Final Act. 4. The Examiner interprets the
sidewalls of Ware's diaphragm as including a substantially horizontal
portion extending from Ware's "bottom wall" and then transitioning in a
generally vertical direction at the left and right side of diaphragm 48. Id.
The Examiner does not adequately explain how one of ordinary skill in the
art would reasonably understand that the claimed sidewall corresponds to a
sidewall that includes a substantially horizontal portion of Ware's diaphragm
in addition to a generally vertical portion. We agree with Appellant that the
rejection is based on an unreasonably broad and strained interpretation of the
term "sidewall." Due to this unreasonably broad claim construction, the
Examiner's finding that Ware discloses "at least one flange ... adjacent to
the curved abutment of the sidewall" is not supported by the disclosure in
Ware. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also do not
4
Appeal2017-004642
Application 12/831,789
sustain the rejection of claims 2, 5, 6, and 8 which depend from claim 1 for
the same reasons.
The Examiner's rejections of independent claims 10 and 19 are
likewise based on the same unreasonable interpretation of the term
"sidewall" discussed above. Final Act. 5-8. We do not sustain the
rejections of claims 10 and 19 for the same reasons stated above for claim 1.
We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 11, 14, and 17 which depend
from claim 10 for the same reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17,
and 19 is reversed.
REVERSED
5