Ex Parte Schlegl

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2014

12307518 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2014)

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