Robert Bosch GmbHDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 30, 20212020002979 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation