Ex Parte SchleglDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 201412307518 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte EUGEN SCHLEGL ____________ Appeal 2012-007666 Application 12/307,518 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Eugen Schlegl (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4–6, which are all the pending claims. Appeal Br. 3. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2012-007666 Application 12/307,518 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a vehicle that is protected against the effect of an external explosion. See, e.g., Spec., p. 1, ll. 12–13. Claim 4, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim appealed and is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 4. A vehicle that is protected against the effect of an external explosion and has a vehicle housing that is disposed on a chassis and is provided with at least one entry/exit door in at least one side wall, wherein the door is disposed in a door opening of the side wall and is hinged to a front edge of the door opening as viewed in a forward direction of travel and in a longitudinal direction of said vehicle, further comprising: an inwardly projecting reinforcing rib disposed on an inner side of said side wall parallel to and in the immediate vicinity of a rear edge of the door opening; and a driver’s seat disposed in said vehicle housing in the area of the door opening, wherein said driver’s seat is provided with a seat panel and a backrest, further wherein said rear edge of the door opening extends essentially parallel to an upright direction of said backrest, and wherein said reinforcing rib, which extends parallel to said rear edge, in all positions of said driver’s seat extends immediately next to or behind said backrest. EVIDENCE The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Grinn US 4,930,836 June 5, 1990 Inayoshi US 5,251,963 Oct. 12, 1993 Sakamoto US 6,694,676 B2 Feb. 24, 2004 Moriyama US 6,779,831 B2 Aug. 24, 2004 Appeal 2012-007666 Application 12/307,518 3 REJECTION The following rejection is before us for review: Claims 4–6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moriyama, Inayoshi, and Sakamoto or Grinn. ANALYSIS Appellant argues the rejection of claims 4–6 together. See Appeal Br. 6–11. We thus select claim 4 as the representative claim to decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims, with claims 5 and 6 standing or falling with claim 4. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). The Examiner correctly found that Moriyama discloses a vehicle that is protected against the effect of an external explosion substantially as claimed. Ans. 4–5 (citing Moriyama, Figs. 1, 2). Next, the Examiner acknowledged that Moriyama may lack explicit disclosure for the pillar/rib extending next to or behind the backrest as claimed (as “Moriyama does not provide details of the seat”), or for details of the pillar comprising a reinforcing rib as claimed (as “Moriyama remains silent as to the exact geometry of the pillar”). Ans. 6. Regarding positioning details of the backrest relative to the pillar/rib, the Examiner correctly found that Inayoshi teaches a driver’s seat with a backrest that is nonadjustable. Ans. 6 (citing Inayoshi, Fig. 3A). The Examiner then reasoned that it would have been obvious to “provide the vehicle of Moriyama with a driver’s seat as taught by Inayoshi” as “a mere substitution of known vehicle seats in an analogous art setting.” Ans. 6. The Examiner determined that such a combination of teachings would “result in a driver’s seat that remains in front of the pillar of Moriyama in all Appeal 2012-007666 Application 12/307,518 4 positions of said driver’s seat” so that the pillar/rib would, in all positions of the seat, extend next to or behind the backrest as claimed. Ans. 6. Regarding structural details of the pillar of Moriyama comprising an inwardly projecting rib, the Examiner first noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such a pillar “must include an inward[ly] extending element (a pillar being a three-dimensional structure).” Ans. 6. Moreover, the Examiner also correctly found that both Sakamoto and Grinn teach a pillar having, or being in the form of, “an inwardly projecting reinforcing rib as claimed.” Ans. 6–7 (citing Sakamoto, Figs. 3, 4; Grinn, Fig. 6); see also Ans. 8–13 (including annotated figures from Sakamoto and Grinn). The Examiner then reasoned that it would have been obvious to “provide the pillar of Moriyama with an integral, parallel rib, as taught by Sakamoto or Grinn, in order to provide a location for hinge attachment and a reinforcement structure for mitigating the effects of external forces [such as forces from an external explosion as indiscriminately recited in the preamble of the claim] upon the vehicle side wall or door.” Ans. 7. Appellant argues that the rejection is deficient for “not providing any suggestion or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings as proposed,” seemingly holding the Examiner to the obsolete teaching, suggestion, or motivation test. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant also asserts, without providing any factual evidence, that the construction of the individual references “is completely unsuitable to protect vehicles from the effects of an external explosion, especially in military situations.” Appeal Br. 8. More specifically, Appellant asserts that “elements needed for protecting a vehicle from an Appeal 2012-007666 Application 12/307,518 5 explosion during combat must necessarily be structurally different and substantially more rigorous to withstand the much more intense forces occurring during an explosion compared with those occurring during a collision,” and that the structure of Moriyama in particular “is completely unsuitable for protection against the effects of an explosion.” Appeal Br. 9. Finally, Appellant points to alleged shortcomings of each reference individually, rather than addressing the combination used in the rejection of record. Appeal Br. 9–10. Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of Examiner error. The Examiner’s factual findings, with respect to the disclosures of Moriyama, Inayoshi, Sakamoto, and Grinn collectively teaching each of the elements recited in the claim, are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, as discussed briefly supra and as detailed in the Examiner’s Answer. See Ans. 4–7, 8–13. Moreover, in support of the legal conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner articulated detailed reasoning based on rational underpinnings to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to combine the teachings of Moriyama, Inayoshi, and Sakamoto or Grinn. See Ans. 6–9; see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). With respect to Appellant’s assertions regarding structural elements necessary for protecting a vehicle from an explosion during combat, we note that Appellant has failed to provide any evidence or persuasive technical reasoning in support of such assertions, and we are unaware of any reason why the structure resulting from the combination of prior art teachings relied upon in the rejection of record would not provide at least some protection against the effect of at least some external explosion as claimed. The claim Appeal 2012-007666 Application 12/307,518 6 does not define any particular amount of protection that must be provided, or any particular magnitude of effect or explosion against which the claimed vehicle is protected. See Ans. 14–15. Finally, we note that nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Moriyama, Inayoshi, and Sakamoto or Grinn, as discussed in detail supra; thus, Appellant’s allegations of shortcomings of each reference individually are not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 4, and claims 5 and 6 falling with claim 4, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moriyama, Inayoshi, and Sakamoto or Grinn for the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer (see Ans. 4–7) and in light of the thorough responses to Appellant’s arguments (see Ans. 7–16). DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moriyama, Inayoshi, and Sakamoto or Grinn. 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 2012-007666 Application 12/307,518 7 mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation