Ex Parte Asplund et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2017

12309988 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2017)

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.
12/309,988 02/05/2009 Mattias Asplund HT-145 7138
2529 7590
MARK P. STONE
400 Columbus Avenue
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
CHENEVERT, PAUL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2017 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):
stone92349 @ msn. com
aleitner. stonelaw @msn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTIAS ASPLUND and LARS KARLANDER
Appeal 2015-007008
Application 12/309,988
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JILL D. HILL,
and TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Mattias Asplund and Lars Karlander (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1—11.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2015-007008
Application 12/309,988
BACKGROUND
Independent claims 1 and 11 are pending. Independent claim 1,
reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. A bumper beam for a vehicle, which at least in
attachment regions (20) of said bumper beam is of generally U-
shaped cross-section with the crown (12-16) pointing outwards,
characterised in that the crown has a larger profile height than
profile width at the attachment regions and a smaller profile
height than profile width at a longitudinal central portion of
said bumper beam such that the profile height of the bumper
beam is larger at the attachment regions than at the longitudinal
center, said bumper beam being oriented asymmetrically in a
vertical direction relative to the longitudinal direction of
extension of said bumper beam, and said bumper beam has in
each said attachment region (20) a single transverse metal
bulkhead (25) fastened between the sides (12,13) of the crown
and running generally in the longitudinal direction of the
vehicle for reducing tilting of the bumper beam relative to the
vehicle when the bumper beam is subjected to an impact force
during a collision.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1—3, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Klie (US 4,142,753, iss. Mar. 6, 1979), Muskos (US
7,316,432 B2, iss. Jan. 8, 2008), Mooijman (US 7,044,515 B2, iss. May 16,
2006), and Heatherington (US 6,986,536 Bl, iss. Jan 17, 2006). Final Act.
2.
II. Claims 4—9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Klie, Muskos, Mooijman, Heatherington, and Kalitta (US
3,790,200, iss. Feb. 5, 1974). Final Act. 6.
2
Appeal 2015-007008
Application 12/309,988
ANALYSIS
Appellants only argue claim 1. Appeal Br. 4. Thus, our resolution of
the issues raised regarding claim 1 is dispositive regarding all of the claims
and rejections involved in this appeal.
The Examiner finds that Klie discloses a bumper beam 10 having a U-
shaped cross section and comprising, inter alia, attachment regions and a
transverse metal bulkhead 2 for reducing tilting of the bumper beam when
the bumper beam is subjected to an impact force during a collision. Final
Act. 2 (citing Klie 1:59-68 (disclosing that reinforcing ribs make it “possible
to improve, in a controlled manner, the denting effect of the bumper with the
use of a smaller amount of sheet metal thicknesses”). The Examiner finds
that Klie does not disclose (1) a single transverse metal bulkhead in each
attachment region, (2) a profile height of the bumper beam being larger at an
attachment region than at a longitudinal center, (3) the bumper beam being
oriented asymmetrically in a vertical direction relative to a longitudinal
direction of extension of the bumper beam, or (4) the bumper beam
widening asymmetrically downwardly from the attachment regions towards
the longitudinal center of the bumper beam for reducing tilting of the
bumper beam. Id. at 3. The Examiner finds, however, that Muskos
discloses a bumper beam 10, 11 having a U-shaped cross section and being
oriented asymmetrically in a vertical direction relative to a longitudinal
direction. Id. at 3^4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to modify Klie’s bumper beam to be asymmetrical, as taught by
Muskos, “to allow the bumper beam to conform to new rounded fascia
covers, which improves aerodynamic properties of the vehicle and the
asymmetrical design allows room for airflow to the radiator.” Id. at 4 (citing
3
Appeal 2015-007008
Application 12/309,988
Muskos 2:35—53 (explaining that asymmetry may be necessary to
accommodate air intake for a vehicle having a low bonnet (hood), and such
asymmetry prevents symmetric deformation of the bumper beam)).
The Examiner also finds that Mooijman discloses an asymmetric
bumper beam as claimed, with bulkheads in the attachment region. Id. at 5
(citing Mooijman 3:39-57 (disclosing using bulk head reinforcement walls
50, 52, 54 to attain a desired bumper beam stiffness and impact
characteristics)). The Examiner further finds that Heatherington discloses “a
single transverse metal bulkhead fastened between the sides of the crown . . .
for reducing tilting of the bumper beam relative to the vehicle when the
bumper beam is subjected to an impact force.” Id. at 5 (citing Heatherington
Figure 1, 2:22).
Appellants amended independent claim 1 and added dependent claim
11 in response to our previous Decision on Appeal, dated July 2, 2014
(Appeal No. 2010-006013), which determined that Appellants’ Specification
did not support their contention that a single bulkhead provides benefits or
results that would be unexpected or different from a multiple bulkheads.
Appeal Br. 4. According to Appellants, an asymmetrical bumper beam
widening downwardly from the attachment regions toward a longitudinal
center has a tendency to tilt upon collision impact, particularly when the
collision force strikes the lower portion of the bumper beam. Id. at 5.
Appellants further contend that providing a single bulkhead in each
attachment region, which regions “hav[e] the greatest height,” provides the
bumper beam with “increased torsional rigidity and stability, reducing the
tendency of the asymmetrical bumper beam to tilt.” Id. at 6 (citing Spec p.
3,11. 17-24).
4
Appeal 2015-007008
Application 12/309,988
Appellants argue that Mooijman fails to disclose its bulkheads 50, 52,
54 reducing tilting of a bumper beam during collision, and fails to address
“the problem of tilting of an asymmetrical bumper beam (or any bumper
beam at all) resulting from the impact force of a collision.” Appeal Br. 7—8.
Appellants similarly argue that Heatherington fails to disclose reducing
tilting of a bumper beam upon collision. Id. at 8. According to Appellants,
the structure in Mooijman and Heatherington provide structural elements
that are deformed or crushed to absorb impact energy during a collision, but
does not disclose that the structure reduces tilting of an asymmetrical
bumper beam during a collision. Id. at 9. Appellants contend, therefore that
the combination of Klie, Muskos, Mooijman, and Heatherington “fails to
teach or suggest the structure and structural arrangement of the bumper
beam defined by the claim and the resulting functional advantages.'1'’ Id.
(emphasis added).
The Examiner responds that bumper beams can be either symmetrical
or asymmetrical, and that although Klie and Heatherington disclose
symmetrical bumper beams, Muskos and Mooijman disclose asymmetrical
bumper beams. Ans. 3. The Examiner finds that, because bulkheads (and
other bumper beam reinforcements) make the bumper beams stronger and
stiffer, they render the bumper beams “inherently able to resist greater
deformation and twisting/tilting during impact collisions.” Id. The
combination of references thus provides an asymmetrical bumper beam with
attachment portions having bulkheads, the asymmetrical bumper beam being
stronger and stiffer. Id.
The Examiner further finds that “[bjumper beams tilt during impact
collisions,” and “[bjumper beams without bulkheads inherently tilt more
5
Appeal 2015-007008
Application 12/309,988
than bumper beams with bulkheads,” because adding bulkheads strengthens
the bumper beam as set forth in Klie and Mooijman. Id. According to the
Examiner, even though Appellants “add a bulkhead to their bumper beam to
reduce tilting, this is not a new discovery as it is common knowledge to
employ bulkheads to strengthen bumper beams either only in the
attachments regions (see Moojiman [sicjet al.) or along the whole bumper
beam (see Klie et al.).” Ans. 4. Thus, the Examiner contends,
“[strengthened bumper beams inherently provide reduced tilting during
impact collisions.” Id. The Examiner further contends that, although the
main focus of adding bulkheads to the bumper beam of Mooijman is
improving collision impact energy absorption, such a main focus does not
change the fact that the bulkhead-strengthened bumper beam would also
reduce tilting. Id.
Appellants reply that Mooijman and Heatherington, which the
Examiner relies on for teaching reducing tilting of the bumper beam,
disclose symmetric bumper beams, for which designers are “less
concerned]” with reducing tilting of the bumper beam in a collision. Reply
Br. 4. In fact, Appellants contend, neither Mooijman nor Heatherington
“address or recognize any concern at all for tilting of the bumper beam in a
collision.” Id. Rather, Appellants contend, Mooijman and Heatherington
“are directed to structural arrangements for either increasing the strength of a
bumper to resist deformation or for better absorption of impact forces in a
collision.” Id. Appellants then contend that “a bumper beam may resist
deformation and may control absorption of energy during a collision, but
may nonetheless be subject to tilting, particularly an asymmetrically oriented
bumper beam.” Id.
6
Appeal 2015-007008
Application 12/309,988
The claim language “for reducing tilting of the bumper beam relative
to the vehicle when the bumper beam is subjected to an impact force during
a collision” is functional language.1 Features of an apparatus may be recited
either structurally or functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478
(Fed. Cir. 1997). When an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is
an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner should explain how
the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionality defined
limitations of the claimed apparatus. Id. The burden then shifts to applicant
to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on.
Id.; see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971) (“where the
Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be
critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be
an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require
the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art
does not possess the characteristic relied on”).
Here, the Examiner finds that the prior art discloses the structural
limitations of claim 1, including an asymmetrical bumper beam (disclosed
by at least Muskos) having the claimed cross sectional shape (disclosed by
Klie), and attachment regions each having at least one bulkhead (disclosed
by Klie, Mooijman, and Heatherington). Final Act. 2—5. The Examiner
explains that the prior art structure inherently possesses the claimed
functionality of reducing tilt upon collision impact, because it includes the
claimed structure and additionally discusses bulkheads strengthening a
1 In claim 1, this function is attributed to the “single transverse metal
bulkhead.” In claim 11, this function is attributed to the bumper beam
widening asymmetrically downwardly toward a longitudinal center of the
bumper beam.
7
Appeal 2015-007008
Application 12/309,988
bumper beam. Ans. 3^4 (stating that “[bjumper beams tilt during impact
collisions,” “[bjumper beams without bulkheads inherently tilt more than
bumper beams with bulkheads by the simple fact that adding bulkheads
strengthens bumper beams,” and “[sjtrengthened bumper beams inherently
provide reduced tilting during impact collisions”).
Appellants, rather than establishing that the prior art does not possess
the claimed functionality, continue to instead argue that the prior art does not
explicitly disclose tilting, and that strengthening a bumper beam is not the
same as preventing tilting of an asymmetrical bumper beam. Reply Br. 4.
While this may be the case, it does not establish that the Examiner’s
proposed combination of an asymmetric bumper beam and attachment
portions with a bulkhead would not possess the ability to reduce tilting of the
asymmetric bumper.
Appellants also argue that “there is no teaching or suggestion ... to
combine the references in any manner rendering independent claim 1
obvious, without the benefits of the teachings of [Appellants’] own
disclosure.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellants base this argument on the prior art’s
failure to “recognize or address the problem of tilting of an asymmetrical
bumper beam during a collision.” Id. at 10—11.
The Examiner, however, provided reasons why it would have been
obvious to combine the cited references to arrive at the claimed structure.
Final Act. 4 (reason for combining Klie with Muskos), 5—6 (reason for
combining Klie, as modified, with Mooijman; reason for combining and
Klie, as twice modified, with Heatherington; and reason for combining Klie,
a thrice modified, with Kalitta). The Examiner then explains that the prior
art structure inherently possesses the claimed functionality of reducing tilt
8
Appeal 2015-007008
Application 12/309,988
upon collision impact. Ans. 3^4. Appellants do not refute the Examiner’s
reasoning and explanation.
For the reasons explained above, we are not persuaded that any of the
Examiner’s findings or conclusions are in error. We sustain the pending
rejections.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1—3, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Klie, Muskos, Mooijman, and Heatherington.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 4—9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Klie, Muskos, Mooijman, Heatherington, and Kalitta.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
9