Ex Parte Gentner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2017

14008101 (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.
14/008,101 09/27/2013 Bernd Centner TRW(REPA)022753-US-PCT 2477
26294 7590 10/03/2017
TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P.
1300 EAST NINTH STREET, SUITE 1700
CLEVELAND, OH 44114
EXAMINER
MANSEN, MICHAEL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
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):
rkline @ tarolli. com
docketing@tarolli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BERND GENTNER, ANDREAS PREGITZER,
THOMAS MOEDINGER, and SCOTT M. FRANZ
Appeal 2017-004756
Application 14/008,101
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
17—21, 23, 25—33, and 35—37. Claims 1—16 are cancelled and the rejection
of claims 22, 24, 34, and 38 is withdrawn. Claims App., Ans. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2017-004756
Application 14/008,101
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a seatbelt retractor. Spec., Title. Claim 17,
reproduced below with a dispositive limitation emphasized in italics, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
17. A belt retractor (10) comprising a belt tensioner (16) and
a force-limiting device, wherein the belt tensioner (16) includes
a pivoted pinion gear (24) associated with a belt reel (14), a drive
unit (18) and an oblong force-transmitting element (22) movable
by the drive unit (18) which is supported at least partly in a
tubular portion (21) and is adapted to be engaged in the pinion
gear (24) so as to rotate the pinion gear (24) in a tensioning
direction (A),
wherein the force-transmitting element (22) is made of a
softer material than the pinion gear (24) and the pinion gear (24)
digs itself into the surface of the force-transmitting element (22)
when the force-transmitting element (22) is displaced, and
wherein that the force-transmitting element (22) includes
a bending portion (30) which is provided at the rear end of the
force-transmitting element (22) viewed in a first direction of
movement (B) of the force-transmitting element (22) and which
is designed to be pressure-resistant in the longitudinal direction
(L) of the force-transmitting element (22) but to be flexible in a
direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (L).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Beier
Schmidt
Adomeit
US 4,006,644
US 2006/0266866 A1
DE 1020070447843 A1
Feb. 8, 1977
Nov. 30, 2006
Feb. 26, 2009
2
Appeal 2017-004756
Application 14/008,101
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 17—21, 23, 25—30, 32, 33, and 35—37 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Beier.
Final Act. 2-4, Ans. 2.
Claims 17, 30, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U .S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Adomeit in view of Beier. Final Act. 4—5.
APPELLANTS’ CONTENTION1
The Examiner’s reason for modifying Schmidt and Adomeit to include
a force-transmitting element made of a softer material than that of the pinion
gear as taught by Beier, i.e., in order to provide a locking function, is not
supported by the evidence of record thereby rendering the combinations
improper. App. Br. 10-11, 17-20; Reply Br. 5—10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claims 17
and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We agree with Appellants’ conclusions as
to this rejection of the claims.
In formulating overlapping rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) the
Examiner finds both Schmidt and Adomeit teach or suggest all the elements
of independent claim 17 except for the disputed limitation of a force-
transmitting element (22) being made of a softer material than a pinion gear
1 We note Appellants raise additional contentions of error but we do not
reach them as our resolution of this contention is dispositive of the appealed
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
3
Appeal 2017-004756
Application 14/008,101
(24). Final Act. 2, 4. In connection with both rejections the Examiner relies
on Beier’s softer cap element that digs into a harder gear for teaching or
suggesting the disputed hardness relationship. Id. The Examiner reasons
“[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the
time the invention was made, to provide the force-transmitting element [of
Schmidt and/or Adomeit] either made from a softer material or with a
separate portion of a softer material in order to provide a locking function as
taught by Beier.” Final Act. 2—3, 4—5.
Appellants contend the Examiner’s reasoning for making the
modification is deficient because “[t]he deformable metal sheathing of Beier
does not provide a locking function.” App. Br. 10, 19. Appellants argue
Beier’s “metal sheathing 10 cannot lock the roller 5 otherwise the safety
belt 1 could not be tensioned.” App. Br. 11. Appellants further direct
attention to Beier’s disclosure that, rather than including a reverse stop
locking device as part of a tensioning mechanism, “the usual roller locking
device provides locking of the winding roller 5, thereby preventing payout
of safety belt 1.” Id. citing Beier col. 2,1. 66 — col. 3,1. 7. Appellants
conclude “Beier therefore explicitly uses a conventional roller locking
device wholly separate from the metal sheathing 10 to lock the winding
roller 5. The metal sheathing 10 of Beier therefore does not provide the
advantage of locking a belt spool.” Id. Accordingly, Appellants argue, the
Examiner’s reasoning for modifying Schmidt and/or Adomeit to include the
softer material of Beier is improper as based on a factual error, i.e., that
doing so would provide a locking functionality. App. Br. 11, 19.
Appellants’ argument is persuasive. Although Beier discusses a
reverse stop locking device there is no disclosure such functionality is
4
Appeal 2017-004756
Application 14/008,101
provided by the proposed modification, i.e., as a result of the softer material
used for sheathing 10. Instead, Beier discloses belt locking is accomplished
using “the usual roller locking device” (col. 3,1. 5) or that reverse roller
motion “can be achieved by using a self[-]locking design for the helical
grooves 6 or a reverse stop for piston 8” (col. 3,1. 33 — col. 4,1. 2). Thus,
because Beier fails to disclose metal sheathing 10 provides the locking
function constituting the Examiner’s reasoning for incorporating the
sheathing into the structures of Schmidt and Adomeit, we agree with
Appellants that “the Examiner has not provided an articulated reasoning
with a rationale underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness.”
App. Br. 11. Accordingly we do not sustain the rejections of claims 17—21,
23, 25-33, and 35-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 17—21, 23, 25—30
and 32, 33, and 35—37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Schmidt and Beier.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 17, 30, and 31
under 35 U .S.C. § 103(a) over Adomeit and of Beier
REVERSED
5