Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 23, 2021

2020006708 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2021)

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.
15/401,541 01/09/2017 Edmund Anderson 83731515 1868
138534 7590 07/23/2021
Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC
(For Client: Ford Global Technologies LLC)
150 S. Wacker
Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
SCHWARTZ, CHRISTOPHER P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/23/2021 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):
mailroom@hfzlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EDMUND ANDERSON
Appeal 2020-006708
Application 15/401,541
Technology Center 3600

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as FORD GLOBAL
TECHNOLOGIES. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-006708
Application 15/401,541

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is directed to “shock absorbers having internal
jounce control.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A shock absorber apparatus comprising:
an inner tube defining a cavity;
an outer tube surrounding the inner tube to define a
reservoir between the inner tube and the outer tube, the cavity
being in fluid communication with the reservoir; and
a jounce bumper positioned in the reservoir between the
inner tube and the outer tube to restrict a piston in the inner tube
to move less than a full compression stroke.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kenworthy US 3,344,894 Oct. 3, 1967
Keijzer US 3,722,639 Mar. 27, 1973
Katsumori US 4,262,779 Apr. 21, 1981
Domek US 4,284,177 Aug. 18, 1981
Knable US 4,711,463 Dec. 8, 1987
Janes US 4,880,087 Nov. 14, 1989
Heideman US 6,974,002 B2 Dec. 13, 2005
Wilkin US 9,718,322 B2 Aug. 1, 2017
Yasuda US 2003/0024780 A1 Feb. 6, 2003
Satou US 2009/0283373 A1 Nov. 19, 2009
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–5, 18, 19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(l)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kenworthy.
Claims 6–8 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kenworthy in view of Wilkin or Satou.
Appeal 2020-006708
Application 15/401,541

3
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kenworthy in view of Heideman and Domek.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kenworthy in view of Janes or Yasuda.
Claims 13 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kenworthy in view of Katsumori.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Kenworthy in view of Katsumori or Keijzer.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Kenworthy in view of Katsumori, and further in view of Janes or
Yasuda.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Kenworthy in view of Katsumori, and further in view of Knable.
OPINION
Anticipation—Kenworthy
Claims 1, 3–5, 21, and 22
The Examiner finds that Kenworthy discloses a shock absorber as
recited in claim 1, including, in relevant part, a jounce bumper (closed cell
cellular rubber accumulator 86) positioned in reservoir 64 between an inner
tube (metering tubes 18, 58) and an outer tube (reservoir tube 66). Ans. 3.
According to the Examiner, accumulator 86 is “capable of restricting a
piston in the inner tube to move less than a full compression stroke.” Ans. 3
(citing Kenworthy, Fig. 1; col. 4, ll. 38–45).
Appellant argues that Kenworthy’s accumulator 86 “is not a jounce
bumper,” and that metering orifices 48, 50, 52, 62, and not accumulator 86,
provide uniform deceleration over the full stroke of the shock absorber and a
Appeal 2020-006708
Application 15/401,541

4
gentle stop. Appeal Br. 15 (underlining omitted). Thus, Appellant contends
that “nothing in Kenworthy teaches or suggests that the accumulator 86
provides damping to restrict a piston in an inner tube to move less than a full
compression stroke as set forth by claim 1.” Appeal Br. 16.
Further, Appellant submits that a “jounce bumper,” as described in
Appellant’s Specification, “becomes operable at or near a maximum
compressive stroke of a suspension system to prevent a bottoming or provide
a limit to further contractive motion,” “absorb[s] impact forces and/or
dampen[s] noise or vibration by preventing suspension components from
fully compacting during shock impacts,” and provides “an energy sink in a
jounce load path.” Appeal Br. 18 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 16, 18, 19). Appellant
asserts that, in contrast, an “accumulator” is “a device (as in a hydraulic
system) in which a fluid is collected and especially in which it is kept under
pressure as a means of storing energy.” Appeal Br. 18 (citing Merriam-
Webster Dictionary). Thus, Appellant contends that “an accumulator is not
a jounce bumper.” Appeal Br. 18 (underlining omitted).
The Examiner notes that Appellant’s Specification does not define,
“with any degree of particularity, what constitutes a ‘full compression
stroke’ and a ‘maximum compression stroke of the piston in [Appellant’s]
device—only that the maximum compression stroke is less than a full
compression stroke.” Ans. 9. The Examiner construes “full compression
stroke,” as claimed, as corresponding to when Kenworthy’s rod (at threaded
nut 38) hits the bottom of the base (back plate 16), which, according to the
Examiner, would be undesirable, as this would create noise and damage the
device. Ans. 9. The Examiner finds that the combined action of
Kenworthy’s compressible accumulator 86 and Kenworthy’s adjustable
Appeal 2020-006708
Application 15/401,541

5
orifice arrangement for accommodating a variety of loading conditions and
providing for gradual or controlled deceleration and a gentle stop by
controlling the level of filling of the device “would inherently limit/restrict
the piston 30 to move less than a ‘full compression stroke.’” Ans. 9.
In construing “a jounce bumper positioned in the reservoir between
the inner tube and the outer tube to restrict a piston in the inner tube to move
less than a full compression stroke,” as recited in claim 1, we look to
Appellant’s Specification’s description of Appellant’s jounce bumper 212
and the manner in which it operates in concert with the other structural
elements, such as orifices 317a, 317b and disks 315a, 315b of valve 316, of
the shock absorber. Appellant’s Specification discloses:
To provide an elastic cushion at an end of a travel stroke of the
shock absorber under compression (e.g., to limit jounce), the
suspension systems typically include a jounce bumper. For
example, a jounce bumper typically becomes operable at or
near a maximum compressive stroke of the suspension system
to prevent a bottoming or provide a limit to further contractive
motion.
Spec. ¶ 16. The Specification also discloses that “jounce bumpers absorb
impact forces and/or dampen noise or vibration by preventing articulated
suspension components from fully compacting during shock impacts caused
by heavy loads, potholes, curbs or objects in the road.” Spec. ¶ 18. Further,
Appellant’s disclosed jounce control apparatus “provide[s] an energy sink in
a jounce load path” and “include[s] a collapsible element (e.g., an
elastomeric body).” Spec. ¶ 19.
According to the Specification, the compression cycle
includes a desired operating range between an initial stroke
position of the piston 202 adjacent the first end 204 of the
Appeal 2020-006708
Application 15/401,541

6
housing 116 and a limit stroke position (e.g., a maximum stroke
position) adjacent the second end 206 of the housing 116,
which is less than a full compression stroke position (e.g., a
maximum compression stroke) of the shock absorber 100.
Spec. ¶ 23. However, in certain instances, during high energy impact, such
as when the vehicle traverses potholes or bumps, the piston may travel
beyond the limit stroke position in a compression direction during the
compression cycle. Spec. ¶ 23. To protect the shock absorber and the
vehicle body from extreme jounce forces from such high energy impacts,
Appellant’s shock absorber uses jounce control apparatus 210, which
includes jounce bumper 212 and “prevents an abrupt bottoming-out of the
suspension 102 and/or the shock absorber 100 under full compression.”
Spec. ¶¶ 24, 25. Thus, the jounce control apparatus “provides an energy
sink that absorbs and/or dissipates forces to reduce peak forces (e.g., peak
vertical loads) experienced by the vehicle 104 during an impact event when
the shock absorber 100 moves to a fully compressed state.” Spec. ¶ 24.
Appellant’s shock absorber also includes valve 316, comprising first
disk 315a and second disk 315b that move relative to respective orifices
317a and 317b “[t]o control (e.g., modulate) flow of the damping fluid
between the cavity 302 and the reservoir 304.” Spec. ¶ 27. In the disclosed
valve, first disk 315a moves away from orifice 317a and second disk 315b
seals orifice 317b to allow fluid to flow from reservoir 304 to cavity 302
during the rebound cycle, as illustrated in Figure 3. Spec. ¶ 27. First disk
315a seals orifice 317a and second disk 315b moves away from orifice 317b
to allow fluid flow from cavity 302 to reservoir 304 during the compression
cycle, as illustrated in Figures 6 and 7. Spec. ¶ 27.
Appeal 2020-006708
Application 15/401,541

7
As described in Appellant’s Specification, Appellant’s “jounce
bumper 212 reacts and/or absorbs the increased force and/or pressure in the
reservoir 304 to slow or reduce (e.g., cushion) an impact force as the piston
202 moves toward a fully compressed stroke position.” Spec. ¶ 38. For
example, jounce bumper 212 “compresses or collapses to manage forces at a
limit of suspension travel when the piston 202 moves in the compression
direction 208.” Spec. ¶ 38. Further, Appellant’s Specification states:
An absorption characteristic or performance of the jounce
bumper 212 restricts or hinders the piston 202 from moving
past a maximum compression stroke position in the
compression direction 208. For example, the jounce bumper
212 of the illustrated example may be a supplemental energy
device that improves energy absorption. For example, the
jounce bumper 212 of the illustrated example dissipates energy
to provide or enable a more gradual rate build up by reducing
an abruptness of the compression of the shock absorber 100.
Thus, the jounce bumper 212 provides an energy sink in a
jounce bumper load path under medium to high energy impact
loading such as, for example, potholes and bumps.
Spec. ¶ 38.
Thus, based on the disclosure in Appellant’s Specification,
Appellant’s shock absorber comprises valve 316 to control/modulate flow of
damping fluid from the cavity to the reservoir through orifice 317a during
the compression cycle, as well as jounce bumper 212, which becomes
operable at or near the maximum compressive stroke of the piston to prevent
an abrupt bottoming-out or limit further contractive motion by compressing
or collapsing to absorb and/or dissipate forces when the shock absorber
moves to a fully compressed state. Those of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that, as damping fluid flows from the cavity to the reservoir, the
Appeal 2020-006708
Application 15/401,541

8
pressure in the reservoir increases, thereby applying a braking or stopping
pressure tending to resist further downward movement of the piston. The
role played by Appellant’s jounce bumper 212 in restricting the piston’s
movement in its compression stroke is to take up space in reservoir 304,
thereby effectively reducing the volume of the reservoir, and hence the
volume of damping fluid that can be displaced by movement of the piston in
the compression stroke before the forces exerted by the damping fluid in
cavity 302 against further movement of the piston reach a level to effectively
brake or stop the piston’s movement. Further, due to its
compressible/elastomeric properties, Appellant’s jounce bumper 21
absorbs/dissipates energy to cushion the impact force as the piston moves
toward a fully compressed stroke position, to prevent an abrupt bottoming-
out.
Kenworthy, similarly, provides metering orifices 48, 50, 52, and 62,
much like orifice 317a of Appellant’s valve 316, to regulate/modulate the
flow of hydraulic fluid from the cavity defined within metering tube 18, 58
to reservoir 64. Kenworthy, Fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 60–66; col. 4, ll. 12–17.
Kenworthy also provides closed cell cellular rubber accumulator 86 near the
bottom of reservoir 64, which, like Appellant’s jounce bumper 212, is
compressible. Kenworthy, Fig. 1; col. 3, l. 35; col. 4, ll. 18–19, 38–40.
Kenworthy discloses that, upon application of a load, piston 30 starts
moving downwardly, forcing hydraulic fluid from the cavity inside tube 18
through the metering orifices into reservoir 64, while compressing rubber
accumulator 86. Kenworthy, col. 4, ll. 12–19. According to Kenworthy, the
resistance of flow through the orifices “governs the shock absorber’s internal
pressure which in turn sets up resisting forces to stop the load,” and “[t]he
Appeal 2020-006708
Application 15/401,541

9
controlled deceleration and gentle stopping is accomplished because the
kinetic energy of the moving rod and piston decays throughout the length of
the stroke and approaches zero at the end of the stroke due to the
longitudinal spacing of the metering orifices.” Kenworthy, col. 4, ll. 19–27.
Thus, much like Appellant’s jounce bumper 212, Kenworthy’s rubber
accumulator 86 takes up space within the reservoir, thereby effectively
reducing the volume of the reservoir, and hence the volume of damping fluid
that can be displaced by movement of the piston in the compression stroke
before the forces exerted by the damping fluid in the cavity within tube 18
against further movement of the piston reach a level to effectively brake or
stop the piston’s movement, to restrict piston movement in the compression
stroke. Further, much like Appellant’s jounce bumper, Kenworthy’s
compressible rubber accumulator absorbs/dissipates energy to cushion the
impact force as the piston moves toward a fully compressed stroke position,
thereby helping to provide controlled deceleration and gentle stopping.
For the above reasons, we discern no error in the Examiner’s finding
that Kenworthy’s rubber accumulator 86 is “a jounce bumper positioned in
the reservoir between the inner tube and the outer tube to restrict a piston in
the inner tube to move less than a full compression stroke,” as recited in
claim 1. See Ans. 8–9. In particular, the Examiner states that Kenworthy’s
accumulator is capable of functioning in the manner disclosed and claimed
by Appellant “simply by being in the reservoir 64 and taking up space (i.e.[,]
accommodating the volume of fluid displacement of the piston rod 36 as it
moves into the chamber).” Ans. 8. The Examiner also points out that
Kenworthy’s accumulator meets all the structural requirements disclosed in
Appellant’s Specification—namely, it is compressible, made of a material
Appeal 2020-006708
Application 15/401,541

10
(closed cell cellular rubber) that is “no different than the material” of
Appellant’s jounce bumper, and “is positioned nearly identically within a
shock absorber having the same” structure as Appellant’s shock absorber.
Ans. 8–9. We reject Appellant’s contention that Kenworthy’s metering
orifices act alone, rather than in concert with rubber accumulator 86, to
provide uniform deceleration and gentle stopping. See Appeal Br. 15.
Moreover, Appellant’s assertion that Kenworthy’s accumulator
collects fluid (Appeal Br. 18) is unsound. Kenworthy discloses that
“accumulator 86 is compressed by the incompressible hydraulic fluid,” not
that accumulator 86 absorbs or collects hydraulic fluid. Kenworthy, col. 4,
ll. 38–40. Further, a skilled artisan would infer from Kenworthy’s
disclosure of “[a] closed cell cellular rubber accumulator 86” that
accumulator 86 does not absorb or collect fluid. Kenworthy, col. 3, l. 35
(emphasis added). Rather, as the Examiner explains, Kenworthy’s
accumulator 86 “functions as an ‘energy’ accumulator[,] i.e.[,] a spring.”
Ans. 8.
For the above reasons, Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Kenworthy. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 3–5, 21, and 22, for which
Appellant does not present any separate arguments, as being anticipated by
Kenworthy.
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the jounce bumper is
retained in the reservoir via friction provided by an inner surface of the outer
tube and an outer surface of the inner tube.” Claims App. 1. The
Examiner’s rejection does not specifically address this particular limitation,
Appeal 2020-006708
Application 15/401,541

11
stating only that, “[r]egarding claims 2-5, as readily apparent from the
drawings, these requirements are met.” Ans. 3. Although Figure 1 of
Kenworthy illustrates rubber accumulator 86 retained in reservoir 64
between the inner tube (metering tubes 18 and 58) and reservoir tube 66, it
cannot be ascertained from Figure 1 that accumulator 86 is retained by
friction, and Kenworthy does not describe a friction fit. In fact, to the
contrary, as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, Kenworthy discloses that
accumulator 86 “is retained in the lower half of reservoir 64 by a clover
leaf-shaped retainer 88.” Kenworthy, col. 3, ll. 40–41. This suggests that
accumulator 86 is not retained in the reservoir via friction. See Appeal
Br. 25 (making essentially this point). Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 2 as being anticipated by Kenworthy.
Claims 18 and 19
In contesting the rejection of independent claim 18, Appellant relies
on essentially the same arguments presented for claim 1. See Appeal
Br. 23–24. For the reasons discussed above, these arguments fail to apprise
us of error in the rejection of claim 1 and, likewise, fail to apprise us of error
in the rejection of claim 18. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim
18, and of claim 19, for which Appellant does not present any separate
arguments, as being anticipated by Kenworthy.
Obviousness—Kenworthy in view of Wilkin or Satou; Kenworthy in view of
Heideman and Domek; Kenworthy in view of Janes or Yasuda
Appellant does not present any arguments specifically addressing the
rejections of claims 6–12 and 20. See Appeal Br. 10–26. Accordingly, for
the reasons discussed above, we also sustain the rejection of claims 6–8 and
20 as being unpatentable over Kenworthy in view of Wilkin or Satou; the
Appeal 2020-006708
Application 15/401,541

12
rejection of claims 9 and 10 as being unpatentable over Kenworthy in view
of Heideman and Domek; and the rejection of claims 11 and 12 as being
unpatentable over Kenworthy in view of Janes or Yasuda.
Obviousness—Kenworthy in view of Katsumori
The Examiner finds that Kenworthy discloses a shock absorber
substantially as recited in claim 13, but that “Kenworthy lacks a showing of
a valve controlling any of the orifices 82,84.” Ans. 6. The Examiner relies
on Katsumori for a check valve. See Ans. 6.
Appellant reiterates the argument that Kenworthy’s orifices, not
accumulator 86, provide deceleration and a gentle stop of piston 30, and
submits that “Katsumori does nothing to cure the deficiencies of Kenworthy
because Katsumori, like Kenworthy, does not teach or suggest a” jounce
bumper positioned to collapse “to dampen a force imparted to the shock
absorber to restrict an abrupt bottoming-out of at least one of a suspension
of a vehicle or the shock absorber under full compression as set forth by
claim 13.” Appeal Br. 22. For the reasons discussed above in regard to
claim 1, Appellant’s arguments fail to apprise us that Kenworthy is deficient
vis-à-vis this limitation and, thus, fail to apprise us of error in the rejection
of claim 13. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 13, and of
claim 16, for which Appellant does not present any separate arguments, as
being unpatentable over Kenworthy in view of Katsumori.
Obviousness—Kenworthy in view of either Katsumori or Keijzer;
Kenworthy in view of Katsumori and either Janes or Yasuda
Appellant does not present any arguments specifically contesting the
rejections of claims 14 and 15. See Appeal Br. 10–26. Accordingly, for the
reasons discussed above in addressing the rejection of claim 13, we also
Appeal 2020-006708
Application 15/401,541

13
sustain the rejection of claim 14 as being unpatentable over Kenworthy in
view of Katsumori or Keijzer; and the rejection of claim 15 as being
unpatentable over Kenworthy in view of Katsumori, and further in view of
Janes or Yasuda.
Obviousness— Kenworthy in view of Katsumori, and further in view of
Knable
In rejecting claim 17, the Examiner finds that “Kenworthy, as
modified [in view of Katsumori], lacks specifically showing a second jounce
bumper.” Ans. 7. The Examiner cites Knable for its teaching of “providing
a ‘second’ jounce bumper in the area of 40 or 60.” Ans. 7; see also Final
Act. 6. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to provide “a
‘second’ jounce bumper in the area between elements 24 and 44 in
Kenworthy simply to reduce the amount of noise, impacts to the device upon
a heavy load, or to provide a slightly different spring characteristic tailored
to a specific application.” Ans. 7; see also Final Act. 6 (stating same).
Appellant notes that the Final Action referenced Knable, but “did not
provide either a copy of Knable, or [indicate] a reference number associated
with Knable.” Appeal Br. 26. Thus, Appellant submits that Appellant “is
unable to address this rejection.” Appeal Br. 26.
Appellant’s observations regarding the Examiner’s failure to indicate
a reference number or other identifying information regarding the Knable
reference in the rejection are correct. See Final Act. 6. However, in re-
stating the rejection of claim 17 on page 7 of the Answer, the Examiner
includes the reference number “4,711,463” after “Knable.” Further, the
Examiner correctly points out that “the reference to Knable was cited on the
[Form PTO-]892 in the Office Action mailed December 1, 2017.” Ans. 10.
Appeal 2020-006708
Application 15/401,541

14
Appellant does not provide any substantive arguments in the Reply Brief
contesting the merits of the rejection of claim 17 and, thus, does not apprise
us of error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 17 as being
unpatentable over Kenworthy in view of Katsumori, and further in view of
Knable.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED as to claims 1 and 3–22
and REVERSED as to claim 2.
Appeal 2020-006708
Application 15/401,541

15
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 18, 19,
21, 22
102(a)(1)/(a)(2) Kenworthy 1, 3–5, 18,
19, 21, 22
2
6–8, 20 103 Kenworthy, Wilkin 6–8, 20
6–8, 20 103 Kenworthy, Satou 6–8, 20
9, 10 103 Kenworthy,
Heideman, Domek
9, 10
11, 12 103 Kenworthy, Janes 11, 12
11, 12 103 Kenworthy,
Yasuda
11, 12
13, 16 103 Kenworthy,
Katsumori
13, 16
14 103 Kenworthy,
Katsumori
14
14 103 Kenworthy,
Keijzer
14
15 103 Kenworthy,
Katsumori, Janes
15
15 103 Kenworthy,
Katsumori, Yasuda
15
17 103 Kenworthy,
Katsumori, Knable
17
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–22 2

PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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 IN PART