Robert Bosch GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2021

2020002979 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 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.
15/674,243 08/10/2017 Peter Thierbach 2179-0414 6291
10800 7590 03/30/2021
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
HOPKINS, BRANDI N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2855
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2021 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 PETER THIERBACH and STEFFEN KLEIN
Appeal 2020-002979
Application 15/674,243
Technology Center 2800
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, GEORGE C. BEST, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, 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 1–16. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Robert Bosch GmbH.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002979
Application 15/674,243

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal
and is set forth below (with text in bold for emphasis):
1. A force sensor, comprising:
an outer cylindrical part with a bore and a measuring rod
fixed on one side in the bore;
wherein:
a central section of the cylindrical part is a force
introduction section,
two outer sections of the outer cylindrical part are
abutment sections, the two outer sections are removed equally
far axially from the center of the force introduction section, and
the measuring rod is clamped in an area of the force
introduction section.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Sedoni EP 0713637 A1 May 29, 1996
Hŏfer2 DE 3515126 Al Oct. 30, 1996
Huth DE 102014013018
A1
Mar. 3, 2016

2 We use the machine translation provided by Appellant as discussed in
footnote 1 on page 5 of the Appeal Brief.
Appeal 2020-002979
Application 15/674,243

3
THE REJECTIONS3
1. Claims 1–9, 11–14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Sedoni in view of Hŏfer.
2. Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sedoni in view of Hŏfer and further in view of Huth.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering the
evidence presented in this Appeal (including the Examiner’s Answer, the
Appeal Brief, and the Reply Brief), we are persuaded that Appellant
identifies reversible error. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections for
the reasons provided by Appellant in the record, and add the following for
emphasis only.
We refer to the Examiner’s statement of Rejection 1 as set forth on
pages 7–11 of the Final Office Action.
The dispositive issue in the case is the claim interpretation of the
limitation of the “measuring rod is clamped in an area of the force
introduction section,” particularly with regard to the meaning/location of the
“area of the force introduction section.”

3 For Rejection 2, Appellant relies upon the same arguments presented for
Rejection 1. Appeal Br. 21. Therefore, our determination with regard to
Rejection 1 is dispositive for Rejection 2.
Appeal 2020-002979
Application 15/674,243

4
In the Answer, the Examiner sets forth how Sedoni in view of Hŏfer is
interpreted in such a way that the measuring rod is considered to be
“clamped in an area of the force introduction section.” In particular, the
Examiner states that the Appellant’s force introduction section spans the
entire length of the cylindrical part. Ans. 3–4. The Examiner then states
that the term “an area” is interpreted to mean “nearby or close to” because
the “[d]ictionary.com defines area as a region, zone, or sector.” Ans. 4. The
Examiner relies upon Hŏfer for teaching the measuring rod is clamped in an
area of the force introduction section. Ans. 5.
Appellant disputes the claim interpretation relied upon in the
rejection, and hence disputes that the applied art teaches this claim limitation
as properly interpreted. See generally Appeal Brief and Reply Brief.
“[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Translogic
Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)); see also In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining that the scope of the
claims in patent applications is not determined solely on the basis of the
claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable
construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (“[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim
construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to
the meaning of a disputed term’” (citation omitted)). In general,
the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage
as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art,
Appeal 2020-002979
Application 15/674,243

5
taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the [Appellant’s] [S]pecification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s interpretation of this
claim limitation is flawed. Appeal Br. 6. Reply Br. 2–5. Looking to the
Appellant’s Specification, with reference to Appellant’s Figure 1 (annotated
and reproduced below), the cylindrical part (10) is described as having a
force introduction section (20) in the center. Spec. 7, ll. 15–17. The
measuring rod (50) is clamped centrally in the interior of the cylindrical part.
Spec. 9, ll. 5–7. The measuring rod (50) “is screwed into the outer
cylindrical part in the area of the force introduction section 20 with a
prescribed tightening torque.” Spec. 7, ll. 7–9.

FIGURE 1
Figure 1 (with annotations) shows an embodiment of
the force sensor according to Appellant’s
description of the invention.

We reiterate that our consideration of the grounds of rejection entails
the interpretation of the language of the claims wherein we give the claim
terms the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the written
description in the Specification. As stated, supra, “the specification ‘is
always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is
Appeal 2020-002979
Application 15/674,243

6
dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term’”
(citation omitted)). Phillips v. AWH Corp. at 1315. We thus are persuaded
of error in the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim limitation at issue, and
agree with Appellant’s claim interpretation, for the reasons provided by
Appellant in the record. Appeal Br. 6. Reply Br. 2–5.
We thus also agree with Appellant that the measuring rod (19) of
Hŏfer is clamped at the clamping point (26) which is located far left end of
the bolt (16), as shown in Hŏfer’s Figure 1 (reproduced below, with
annotations), which does not meet the claim limitation as properly
interpreted for the reasons provided by Appellant in the record. Appeal Br.
7.

FIGURE 1 of Hŏfer, with annotations.

In view of the above, we reverse Rejections 1 and 2.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision.
Appeal 2020-002979
Application 15/674,243

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–9, 11–14,
16
103 Sedoni, Hŏfer 1–9, 11–14,
16
10, 15 103 Sedoni, Hŏfer, and
Huth
10, 15
Overall
Outcome
1–16
REVERSED