Ex Parte Diez et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 15, 2013

11630408 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ARMIN DIEZ and FRANK SCHAIBLE
____________

Appeal 2011-000878
Application 11/630,408
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Armin Diez and Frank Schaible (Appellants) seek our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10-22, which
are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2011-000878
Application 11/630,408

2
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “a cylinder head gasket with
a seal unit.” Spec. 1.1 Claim 10, reproduced below, is the sole independent
claim and is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
10. A cylinder head gasket with a seal unit, comprising:
a through combustion chamber opening having a
longitudinal axis;
a first sealing layer having at least one first resilient bead
encompassing said chamber opening; and
a second sealing layer having a stopper limiting
resilience of said first resilient bead, said stopper having
alternating depressions and elevations on opposite sides thereof
with one of said depressions being opposite one of said
elevations, at least some of said depressions and elevations
being essentially trapezoidal in transverse cross sections thereof
and having limitation walls extending obliquely between
adjacent depressions and elevations of one of said sides of said
second sealing layer, said limitation walls adjacently opposite
one another on said opposite sides bordering a first crosspiece
section of said second sealing layer, said depressions opposing
one another on said opposite sides bordering a second
crosspiece section, said first crosspiece section having a first
width in said transverse cross sections greater than or equal to a
corresponding second width of said second crosspiece section,
said second sealing layer including a third crosspiece section
defined by a radial distance relative to said longitudinal axis
between adjacent ones of said depressions on said opposite
sides, said third crosspiece section having a third width in a
plane of and radially relative to said longitudinal axis, said
second width being greater than said third width.

1 Citations to “Spec.” throughout this opinion refer to the Substitute
Specification filed on August 3, 2009.
Appeal 2011-000878
Application 11/630,408

3
THE REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 10-15, 17, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Popielas (EP 0 939 256 A1; pub. Feb. 22, 1999)2;
and
2. Claims 16 and 18-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Popielas and Höhe (US 7,000,924 B2; iss. Feb. 21, 2006).
ANALYSIS
Appellants dispute the Examiner’s finding that the stopper shown in
Figure 5 of Popielas has a third crosspiece section as called for in claim 10.
Ans. 5-6 (including Examiner’s annotations to Figure 5 of Popielas); App.
Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 2-3.
The Specification describes a third crosspiece section SQ3 as a radial
distance, viewed parallel to the longitudinal axis, from one depression 30 to
an adjacent depression 30. Spec. 7 (“[V]iewed parallel to the longitudinal
axis 16, the adjacent depressions 30 have a radial distance from one another
such that a further third crosspiece cross section SQ3 remains.”). Figure 2,
which is reproduced below, shows this third crosspiece section SQ3 as the

2 The Popielas reference is published in German. Appellants submitted
Popielas in an Information Disclosure Statement without an English
language translation. We did not find any English language translation of
Popielas in the Record. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s
characterization of Popielas’s disclosure. Rather, Appellants dispute the
Examiner’s application of the claim language on the structure depicted in
Figure 5 of Popielas. As such, we decide the appeal in reliance on the
Examiner’s characterization of the reference.
App
App

porti
depr
gask
langu
said
oppo
dista
radia
Exam
does
eal 2011-0
lication 11
on of midd
ession 30 a
Figure 2
et. Spec. 5
A person
age “third
longitudin
site sides”
nce to exis
l distance
iner’s int
not comp
00878
/630,408
le sealing
nd the sta
of the Spe
.
having o
crosspiec
al axis bet
when rea
t, when vi
defines th
erpretation
ort with th
layer lyin
rting point
cification
rdinary ski
e section d
ween adja
d in light o
ewed radi
e third cro
of the cla
is understa
4
g between
of the adj
is a side e
ll in the ar
efined by
cent ones o
f the Spec
ally, betwe
sspiece sec
imed third
nding of t
the endpo
acent upp
levation v
t would un
a radial d
f said dep
ification t
en adjace
tion of th
crosspiec
he claim t
int of leftm
er depressi
iew in sect
derstand
istance rel
ressions o
o call for s
nt depress
e stopper.
e section l
erm.
ost lower
on 30.
ion of the
the claim
ative to
n said
ome
ions. This
The
imitation

App
App

“thir
C1, C
anno
secti
the e
with
stopp
eal 2011-0
lication 11
In partic
d crosspie
2, C3, an
Reprodu
tations as
The Exa
on as defin
ndpoint of
the startin
er. As su
00878
/630,408
ular, the E
ce section”
d C4 (Ans
ced above
provided o
miner’s an
ed in claim
one depre
g point of
ch, the dis
xaminer fo
as shown
. 5-6, 11):
is Figure
n page 5 o
notations
10 does
ssion on o
the adjace
tances mar
5
und Popie
below wi
5 of Popie
f the Answ
demonstra
not exist i
ne side of
nt depress
ked as C,
las disclo
th referenc
las includi
er.
te that a th
n Figure 5
the stoppe
ion on the
C1, C2, C
ses the cla
e to annot
ng the Exa
ird crossp
of Popiel
r overlaps
opposite s
3, and C4
imed
ations C,
miner’s
iece
as because
radially
ide of the
in the

Appeal 2011-000878
Application 11/630,408

6
annotated version of Figure 5 above denote the amount of radial overlap
between adjacent depressions. Due to this overlap between adjacent
depressions on opposite sides of the stopper, no radial distance exists
between the adjacent depressions. Thus, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner erred in finding that Popielas discloses the “third crosspiece
section” as defined in claim 10.
As such, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10, and
dependent claims 11-15, 17, and 22, as being unpatentable over Popielas.
The second ground of rejection also relies on the Examiner’s determination
that Popielas discloses the “third crosspiece section” as called for in claim
10. Ans. 7. Accordingly, we also reverse the rejection of claims 16 and 18-
21 as being unpatentable over Popielas and Höhe for the same reasons set
forth supra.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 10-22.

REVERSED

mls