Hilti Aktiengesellschaft

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2021

2021002026 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 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.
15/561,630 09/26/2017 Peter Gstach 5068.1235 2135
23280 7590 12/02/2021
Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC
589 8th Avenue
22nd Floor
New York, NY 10018
EXAMINER
SAETHER, FLEMMING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3677
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2021 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):
ddk@ddkpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PETER GSTACH, BERNHARD WINKLER,
PATRICK SCHOLZ, MATTEO SPAMPATTI, and
MICHAEL SPROEWITZ
____________

Appeal 2021-002026
Application 15/561,6301
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 9–27. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hilti
Aktiengesellschaft. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2021-002026
Application 15/561,630

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s “invention relates to an expansion anchor.” (Spec. ¶ 1.)
Claims 9, 21, and 26 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 9 is
illustrative. It recites:
9. An expansion anchor comprising:
an expansion sleeve for anchoring on a wall of a borehole;
and
an anchor bolt guided through the expansion sleeve and
having an expansion area for expanding the expansion sleeve;
the expansion sleeve having a first annular groove on an
outside, the first annular groove extending up to a front end face
of the expansion sleeve facing the expansion area, the expansion
sleeve having a second annular groove on the outside, an annular
ridge being situated between the first annular groove and the
second annular groove.

REJECTIONS
Claims 9–12 and 14–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Anquetin (US 5,263,803, iss. Nov. 23, 1993).
Claims 9, 11, and 13–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Kaibach (US 2002/0054805 A1, pub. May 9, 2002).
Claims 21–27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated
by Kobetsky (US 7,744,320 B2, iss. June 29, 2010).

ANALYSIS
Anquetin
Claims 9, 11, 12, and 14–20
“[A]n invention is anticipated if the same device, including all the
claim limitations, is shown in a single prior art reference. Every element of
the claimed invention must be literally present, arranged as in the claim.”
Appeal 2021-002026
Application 15/561,630

3
Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
“Anticipation can occur when a claimed limitation is ‘inherent’ or otherwise
implicit in the relevant reference.” Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor
Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The Examiner finds that tubular sleeve 6 of Anquetin “includes first
and second annular grooves with a ridge (18) therebetween; the first groove
extending to the front face of the expansion sleeve.” (Final Action 2.)
Figures 1 and 3 of Anquetin are reproduced below.

Figure 1 “is a side view of an unset sleeve anchor assembly according to
[Anquetin’s] invention” and Figure 3 “shows, on a still larger scale, the
anchor of [Figure 1] inserted into a blind hole bored in masonry or
concrete.” (Anquetin, col. 2, ll. 12–13, 16–18.) Anquetin discloses that
“[r]achet teeth 16 are formed at one end of tubular sleeve 6 and three
ridges 17 are provided on the outer wall at the other end of sleeve 6, portions
of the ridges 17 being formed as cutting teeth 18.” (Id., col. 2, ll. 32–36.)
Appeal 2021-002026
Application 15/561,630

4
Appellant argues that Anquetin “discloses three ridges 17 provided on
the outer wall of asserted expansion sleeve 6, i.e. added thereto, and thus
expansion sleeve 6 itself does not have any possible ‘first annular groove’ or
‘second annular groove’ on the expansion sleeve as claimed.” (Appeal
Br. 5.) We are not persuaded of error.
Figures 1 and 5 from Appellant’s application are reproduced below.

Figure 1 “shows a side view of an expansion anchor according to
[Appellant’s] invention” and Figure 5 “shows a longitudinal sectional view
of the front area of the expansion sleeve of the expansion anchor from
Figure 1.” (Spec. ¶¶ 24, 28.) The Specification refers to first annular
groove 50, annular ridge 70, and second annular groove 60. (Id. ¶ 32.)
Appellant points to no definition or special meaning in the
Specification for the claim terms “ridge” and “groove.” Applying plain
meaning, we determine that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation,2

2 “During examination, ‘claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim language
should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d
Appeal 2021-002026
Application 15/561,630

5
the term “ridge” includes “an elevated body part or structure” (Merriam-
Webster.com, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ridge, def. 1 (last
visited Nov. 29, 2021)), and the term “groove” includes “a long narrow
channel or depression” (Merriam-Webster.com, www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/groove, def. 1 (last visited Nov. 29, 2021)). With
respect to the term “ridge,” we also address from what base the ridge is
elevated. Appellant’s Figure 5 shows the peak of ridge 70 to be at the same
height as the rest of expansion sleeve 10, except where grooves 50 and 60
are formed. In other words, ridge 70 is elevated only with respect to the area
immediately adjacent to the ridge, i.e., Appellant measures the elevation of a
ridge with respect to the bottom of an adjacent groove.
The Examiner provides an enlarged, annotated, portion of Anquetin’s
Figure 3. It is reproduced below.

The enlarged portion of Figure 3 shows Anquetin’s elements 17 and 18 in
more detail. In particular, Figure 3 shows the leftmost portion of element 17

1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed.
Cir. 1990)).
Appeal 2021-002026
Application 15/561,630

6
(the structure to the left of the leftmost element 18) forming a channel
extending about the perimeter of the sleeve and extending up to the front
face of the sleeve (a first annular groove). It also shows the leftmost element
18 as raised/elevated with respect to the first annular groove and with
respect to the channel immediately to the right of this leftmost element 18
(an annular ridge). The channel immediately to the right of this annular
ridge extends about the perimeter of the sleeve (a second annular groove).
In other words, even though Anquetin’s use of the terms “ridges” and
“teeth” may create some confusion in view of Appellant’s use of the terms
“grooves” and ridges,” we agree with the Examiner that Anquetin discloses
a first annular ridge, an annular groove, and a second annular ridge on the
outside of the sleeve, as recited in claim 9.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 9 as anticipated by Anquetin. Dependent claims 11, 12, and 14–20 are
not separately argued and fall with claim 9. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Claim 10
Claim 10 recites: “The expansion anchor as recited in claim 9
wherein the annular ridge has a smaller width than the first annular groove
and a smaller width than the second annular groove, and the first annular
groove having a greater width than the second annular groove.”
Using the enlarged portion of Figure 3 (shown above), the Examiner
finds that
[f]rom Fig. 3 it can be seen that the annular ridge (18), when
measured at the crest, has a smaller width then the grooves and
as can also be seen from the figure the first groove has a greater
Appeal 2021-002026
Application 15/561,630

7
width than the second groove. The first groove and second
groove are shown to have the same depth.
(Final Action 3.)
Appellant argues that “[w]ith respect to claim 10, this feature also is
not disclosed in Anquetin, and the asserted widths at the top of page 3 of the
[Final] Office Action actually appears [sic] to be exactly the same.” (Appeal
Br. 6 (emphasis omitted).)
“[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise
proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes
if the specification is completely silent on the issue.” Hockerson-
Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir.
2000). More particularly, “[a]bsent any written description in the
specification of quantitative values, arguments based on measurement of a
drawing are of little value.” In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127
(CCPA 1977).
Here, the Examiner does not direct us to any indication in Anquetin
that Figure 3 is drawn to scale or that Anquetin’s specification is anything
other than silent on this issue. Nonetheless, the Examiner relies on
measurements the Examiner makes of precise proportions based on the
enlargement of the figure. (See Final Action 3.) Particularly in view of the
very slight differences in groove widths, we find these measurements to be
of little value. Therefore, we agree that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 10.

Kaibach
The Examiner finds that Kaibach discloses an expansion sleeve
including “first and second annular (end of paragraph [0010]) grooves with a
Appeal 2021-002026
Application 15/561,630

8
ridge (15) therebetween; the first groove extending to the front face of the
expansion sleeve.” (Final Action 4.) Figure 1 of Kaibach is reproduced
below.

Figure 1 is “[a] cross-sectional view of a fastening element according to
[Kaibach’s] invention.” (Kaibach ¶ 19.) Kaibach discloses that “expansion
segments 5 are provided with locking elements 15 which project beyond the
outer contour of the expansion sleeve 4 radially by a height h.” (Id. ¶ 24.)
Appellant argues that “[t]he locking elements 15 of Kaibach ‘project
beyond an outer contour’ of the expansion sleeve 4, and thus expansion
sleeve 4 of Kaibach does not have an expansion sleeve having a first
annular groove and a second annular groove as claimed.” (Appeal Br. 7
(quoting Kaibach ¶ 24).) As discussed above, the height of a ridge is
Appeal 2021-002026
Application 15/561,630

9
measured with respect to the area immediately adjacent to the ridge. This is
also the depth of the adjacent groove. (See, e.g., Appellant’s Fig. 5.)
Kaibach identifies this as height h. (Kaibach ¶ 24.) In view of the
foregoing, we do not agree that the areas adjacent to the ridges 15 are not
grooves, as that term is used in Appellant’s Specification, and we do not find
Appellant’s argument persuasive.
Regardless, we are mindful of our determination supra that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “groove” includes “a long
narrow channel or depression.” In this regard, we note that Kaibach
discloses that the height of the locking elements 15 can be 0.05 times the
core diameter d of the expansion sleeve. (Id. ¶ 11.) Kaibach further
discloses that the distance between the locking elements 15 can be 0.2 times
the core diameter d. (Id. ¶ 12.) Appellant does not explain why these
dimensions do not read on the term “groove” in claim 9.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 9 as anticipated by Kaibach. Dependent claims 11 and 13–16 are not
separately argued and fall with claim 9. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Kobetsky
Claim 21 recites (emphasis added):
21. An expansion anchor comprising:
an expansion sleeve for anchoring on a wall of a borehole;
and
an anchor bolt guided through the expansion sleeve and
having an expansion area for expanding the expansion sleeve;
the expansion sleeve having an inner circumferential
surface facing the anchor bolt, and an outer circumferential
surface facing outwardly, the expansion sleeve extending
between a front end face facing the expansion area and a rear end
Appeal 2021-002026
Application 15/561,630

10
face away from the expansion area, the expansion sleeve defining
a grooved section at the front end face and a primary annular
section next to the grooved section away from the front end face,
the primary annular section having a first thickness between the
inner circumferential surface and the outer circumferential
surface;
the expansion sleeve having a first annular groove on an
outside of the grooved section, the first annular groove extending
up to a front end face of the expansion sleeve facing the
expansion area, the expansion sleeve having a second annular
groove on the outside, an annular ridge being situated between
the first annular groove and the second annular groove;
the first annular groove having a first annular groove
base, and the second annular groove having a second annular
groove base, a first annular groove thickness between the first
annular groove base and the inner circumferential surface and a
second annular groove thickness between the first annular
groove base and the inner circumferential surface being less
than the first thickness.
Figure 8 of Kobetsky, as annotated by the Examiner, appears below.

(Final Action 5.) Figure 8 shows “an enlarged, end elevational view of the
sheet or plate . . . before the sheet or plate is rolled or formed into” the
Appeal 2021-002026
Application 15/561,630

11
expansion sleeve component of Kobetsky’s anchor bolt and expansion
sleeve assembly. (Kobetsky, col. 5, ll. 48–52.)
Appellant argues that “[t]he Final Office Action fails to address the
limitation of a first annular groove base, and clearly Kobestky [sic] does nto
[sic] have one (nor for that matter does it have a first groove under and [sic]
definition of that term as the asserted end is just a sloped surface.)” (Appeal
Br. 8.)
The Examiner answers that “a groove by definition must have a base
so, the office action pointing to a groove clearly implies a groove base” and
that “since the structure of ‘first annular groove base’ is not in any way
limited by the claims it is simply a base part of the sloped surface consistent
with the other grooves shown in Kobetsky.” (Answer 4, 5.)
As an initial matter, we determine the broadest reasonable
interpretation for the term “groove base.” Appellant’s Figure 5, reproduced
above, is helpful in this regard. Appellant’s Specification discloses that
[t]he second annular groove advantageously has at least one
beveled edge, in particular two beveled edges. A beveled edge
may be understood to be, in particular, an edge which runs at an
angle other than 90° with respect to the groove base and/or the
sleeve outer wall in the longitudinal section.
(Spec. ¶ 17.) Appellant’s Specification further discloses that “[f]irst annular
groove 50 is open toward front end face 19 of expansion sleeve 10 and has
only a single edge, namely a rear edge 52, in the longitudinal section.
Groove base 53 of first annular groove 50 has an approximately cylindrical
design” and that “[s]econd annular groove 60 has a cylindrical groove
base 63, which is delimited by a front edge 61 and a rear edge 62.” (Id.
¶ 32.) In other words, Appellant’s Specification distinguishes between a
groove base and a groove edge. Additionally, Appellant’s Specification
Appeal 2021-002026
Application 15/561,630

12
refers to w50 as the width of first annular groove 50, and w60 as the width of
second annular groove 60. Widths w50 and w60 measure groove width as
including the lateral dimensions of both the groove base and the groove
edges. Appellant’s Specification does not refer to w50 or w60 as the width of
the groove base.
Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
Specification, we determine that the term “groove base” includes the area
between, but not including, the edges of the groove; or, in the case of the
first annular groove, the area between the front of the sleeve and the edge
(marked as 52 in Figure 5).
In view of the above, we determine that in the Examiner’s annotated
version of Kobetsky’s Figure 8, the element marked as “first annular
[g]roove”, indicates an edge, but not a groove base. The Examiner does not
otherwise indicate the location of a first annular groove base. Therefore, we
will reverse this rejection of claim 21. Independent claim 26 includes the
same language and for the same reason we will also reverse the rejection of
claim 26, and of dependent claims 22–25 and 27.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 9 and 11–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) are affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 10 and 21–27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) are reversed.

Appeal 2021-002026
Application 15/561,630

13
Specifically:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
9–12,
14–20
102(a)(1) Anquetin 9, 11, 12,
14–20
10
9, 11,
13–16
102(a)(1) Kaibach 9, 11,
13–16

21–27 102(a)(1) Kobetsky 21–27
Overall
Outcome
9, 11–20 10, 21–27

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