Ex Parte Becher et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 31, 2016

13382161 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/382, 161 01/04/2012
22116 7590 04/04/2016
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Klemens Becher
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2009Pl2252WOUS 8281
EXAMINER
SMITH, JASON C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2016 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):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KLEMENS BECHER, THILO HOFFMANN, PETER HOSCH,
BERNHARD KITTINGER, ARMIN SCHANK,
MICHAEL SUMNITSCH, MARTIN TEICHMANN,
and GERHARD WEILGUNI
Appeal2014-003123
Application 13/382,161
Technology Center 3600
Before NEAL E. ABRAMS, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Klemens Becher et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 6-10. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-003123
Application 13/382,161
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a chassis frame for rail vehicles.
Claim 6, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
6. An undercarriage frame for rail vehicles, comprising:
two longitudinal members, and
a transverse member arranged between the two
longitudinal members,
wherein the transverse member is connected to the
longitudinal members in an articulated manner, and
wherein the longitudinal members are implemented in a
curved shape and project through a recess of the transverse
member.
THE PRIOR ART
The Examiner relied upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Mielcarek
Kemppainen
Landrot
us 4,676, 173
us 5, 123,358
US 6,338,300B1
THE REJECTIONS
June 30, 1987
June 23, 1992
Jan. 15,2002
Claims 6 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Landrot.
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Landrot and Kemppainen.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Landrot and Mielcarek.
2
Appeal2014-003123
Application 13/382,161
OPINION
Claims 6 and 10
Anticipation - Landrot
Claim 6 requires that "the transverse member is connected to the
longitudinal members in an articulated manner," and that the "longitudinal
members are implemented in a curved shape and project through a recess of
the transverse member." In response to Appellants' argument that Landrot
explicitly teaches in column 3, lines 27-31, that the side members 6 may be
"fixed" to the transom 2 so that the transom and the side members constitute
a "rigid assembly," and that the Examiner appears to be "contending that
assembly of the transom and side members (though explicitly taught to be a
rigid attachment) is flexible and allows relative movement between the
transom and the side members" (Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis omitted)), the
Examiner expresses the position that
even though Landrot sho\'l/S the side members fixed \'l1ith U=
Bolts, and Landrot shows the transom and U-bolts provide a rigid
assembly; this does not mean the assembly isn't flexible and isn't
able to allow flexibility of movement as the definition of
articulate is defined on page 5 of the remarks by the appellant.
The definition is taken from www.thefreedictionary.com. The
appellant does not provide any special definition of "articulated"
in the specification. Also, the claim calls for the members to be
connected in an "articulated manner", which is broader than an
"articulate connection" between the two members.
Ans. 2.
The applicable definition of "articulated" set forth in
www.thefreedictionary.com is "built in sections that are hinged or otherwise
connected so as to allow flexibility of movement." RANDOM HOUSE
KERNERMAN WEBSTER'S COLLEGE DICTIONARY (2010),
3
Appeal2014-003123
Application 13/382,161
http://www. thefreedictionary. com/ articulated. The Examiner's contention
that Landrot' s "rigidly" attached transverse member and longitudinal
members nevertheless "allow flexibility of movement" there between
sufficient to consider them to be "connected ... in an articulated manner" is
clearly contrary to the definition of that term. We, therefore, agree with
Appellants that the Examiner is in error in interpreting Landrot's teaching of
fixedly attaching the transverse member and the longitudinal members
together by means of U-bolts as meeting the terms of Appellants' claim 6,
which requires that they are attached in an "articulated manner."
With regard to the limitation in claim 6 that the longitudinal members
"project through a recess of the transverse member," the Examiner takes the
position that
the [Landrot] U-bolts form a recess through which the side
members pass through, which is clearly shown in figures 2 and
3. The claim does not call for the entire periphery of the
members to go through the transverse member; only that they
project through the transverse member, which is clearly met by
Landrot.
Ans. 2-3.
Appellants assert:
Landrot does not teach any recess in the transom and the
Examiner has not provided any evidence or reference in Landrot
(in text or figures) as to the presence of a recess in the transom.
Instead, as clearly evident from FIG 2 of Landrot, the side
members 6 are arranged below the transom 2, and do not
penetrate through any recess provided in the transom 2. In fact,
as noted above from co[l]. 3 lines 27-31 of Landrot, the side
members 6 are rigidly affixed to the transom 2 via bolts 10 that
penetrate into grooves provided into the transom. Landrot
4
Appeal2014-003123
Application 13/382,161
provides no evidence of any recesses in the transom 2 that can
accommodate the side members 6 penetrating therethrough.
Appeal Br. 7. Again, we agree with Appellants. Landrot's U-bolts that
attach the side members to the transom do not constitute "a recess of the
transverse member" that the side members" project through," as is required
by the claim.
For the reasons expressed above, Landrot fails to anticipate the
subject matter recited in Appellants' claim 6, and therefore the rejection of
independent claim 6 and, it follows, of dependent claim 10, are not
sustained.
Claims 7 and 8
Obviousness - Landrot and Kemppainen
Claim 9
Obviousness-Landrot and Mielcarek
Claims 7-9 depend from claim 6. Consideration of the teachings of
Kemppainen and Mielcarek fail to overcome the discrepancies in Landrot set
forth above in the rejection of claim 6. This being the case, these two
rejections are not sustained.
DECISION
None of the rejections are sustained.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
5