Ex Parte Gentner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2017

13885224 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 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.
13/885,224 06/07/2013 Bernd Gentner TRW(REPA022348-US-PC 8126
26294 7590 08/02/2017
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
08/02/2017 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, THOMAS MOEDINGER, and
ANDREAS PREGITZER
Appeal 2017-003014
Application 13/885,224
Technology Center 3600
Before THU A. DANG, LARRY J. HUME, and AARON W. MOORE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 13—28, which are all of the pending claims.
Claims 1—12 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claimed invention relates to “a belt
tensioner for a belt retractor comprising a load limiter” (Spec. 1,11. 8—10).
Appeal 2017-003014
Application 13/885,224
B. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 13 is exemplary:
13. A belt tensioner for a belt retractor including a
load limiter, comprising:
a pivoted pinion (14) coupled to a belt reel (12),
a drive unit and
a load transmission element (20) moved by the drive unit
that engages in the pinion (14) so as to rotate the pinion (14) in a
tensioning direction A,
wherein the load transmission element (20) is designed to
ensure that a part (20b) of the load transmission element (20) is engaged
in the pinion (14) in a rotational position adopted by the pinion (14) after
rotation by the load transmission element (20)
and wherein the load transmission element is elastically or
plastically deformed during a backward movement.
C. REJECTION
1. Claims 13—28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Wier (US 6,994,288 B2; Feb. 7, 2006).
II. ISSUES
The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in
finding that Wier teaches the claimed “transmission element” that is
‘ ‘'designed to ensure that a part” thereof “is engaged in the pinion . . . after
rotation” (claim 13 emphasis added).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Appellants ’ Invention
1. Appellants’ invention is directed to a seatbelt tensioner,
wherein Figure 5 is reproduced below:
2
Appeal 2017-003014
Application 13/885,224
Figure 5 shows the belt tensioner in a state, after moving the load
transmission element 20 back, in which the rear part 20b of the load
transmission element is completely disengaged from the pinion 14 (Spec. 9,
11. 3-6).
Wier
2. Wier discloses a belt retractor comprising a tensioning device,
wherein Figure 4 is reproduced below:
FIG. 4
Figure 4 shows the belt retractor in a state in which the piston 24 does
not move through the entire tensioning length and the tooth rack section 50
remains engaged by the pinion 28, wherein if an attempt is made to unwind
belt web, the piston 24 will have to be pushed back via the pinion 28 to a
certain extent since the space 74 of the cylinder is filled with pressurized gas
3
Appeal 2017-003014
Application 13/885,224
between the lower end 42 of the piston 24 and the end wall 34 of the
cylinder 22 (col. 3,1. 66 to col. 4,1. 8).
3. Figure 5 is reproduced below:
Figure 5 shows the belt retractor in a state in which the three segments
54 are located left of the pinion 28 while one segment 54b is still in
engagement, wherein during the return travel of the piston 24, the
connection of the segments 54 to the piston 24 is released with the shearing
pins 56 being shorn off while the piston 24 must be moved back by the
pinion at most by only so many teeth as are located on the segment 54b
which was still in contact with the pinion (col. 4,11. 27-40).
IV. ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants in the Appeal Brief. We do not
consider arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in
the Appeal Brief, and we deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
With respect to claim 13, Appellants contend, in the embodiment
shown in Figure 3, “[djuring normal operation of the tensioning device 12 of
4
Appeal 2017-003014
Application 13/885,224
Wier, the piston 24 can be propelled such that the tooth rack section 50 no
longer engages the pinion” (App. Br. 6). Thus, Appellants contend that
Wier does not disclose “a load transmission element that is designed to
ensure that a part of the load transmission element is engaged in a pinion in a
rotational position . . . after rotation by the load transmission element” (id.).
That is, although Appellants concede that, as illustrated in Figures 4 and 5 of
Wier, “there are instances where the tooth rack section 50 may remain
engaged in the pinion 28,” Appellants contend “there are also instances
where the tooth rack section 50 disengages from the pinion 28” (id. at 7).
According to Appellants, “[bjecause the tooth rack section 50 may become
disengaged from the pinion 28 [as shown in Figure 3], it is clear the Wier is
not designed to make sure or certain that the tooth rack section 50 is engaged
in the pinion 28” (id.).
We consider all of Appellants’ arguments and evidence presented, and
disagree with Appellants’ contentions regarding the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 13—28. We agree with the Examiner’s findings of record, and find no
error with the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 13—28 over Wier.
As an initial matter of claim construction, we give the claim its
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In
re Morris, 111 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appellants contend “it is
clear the Wier is not designed to make sure or certain that the tooth rack
section 50 is engaged in the pinion 28” because, in the state shown in Figure
3, “[djuring normal operation of the tensioning device 12 of Wier, the piston
24 can be propelled such that the tooth rack section 50 no longer engages the
pinion” (App. Br. 6—7). However, we note claim 1 does not require ensuring
the engagement during “normal operation” in the state set forth in Figure 3,
5
Appeal 2017-003014
Application 13/885,224
or at any other time, and, in fact, does not require ensuring the engagement
all of the time. As the Examiner points out, “Appellant appears to rely upon
[a]n overly narrow interpretation of the phrase ‘to ensure’ to imply that the
claim language requires that the engagement must always occur after all
degrees of rotations” (Ans. 2). We agree with the Examiner that “Appellant
provides no such definition for the phrase ‘ensure’ in the specification and
there is no language in the claims providing structure which requires the
constant engagement of the element and the pinion” (id.). Instead, as the
Examiner also points out, even Figure 5 of Appellants’ Specification shows
“a condition, which occurs after rotation, where the ‘load transmission
element 20 is completely disengaged from the pinion 14 again’” (id.; FF 1).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants concede Appellants’ Specification on
page 9, describing Appellants’ Figure 5, discloses that the rear part of the
load transmission element is disengaged from the pinion, but Appellants
contend page 9 of the Specification “does not state that the front part of the
load transmission element is disengaged” (Reply Br. 4). However, we note
Figure 5 of Appellants’ Specification clearly shows the rear part 20b of the
load transmission element 20 is the part closest to the pinion 14, wherein
when the rear part 20b is disengaged, the front part farther from the pinion,
as well as all other parts that are not the rear part, also disengaged (FF 1).
Thus, consistent with the Specification, we find the Examiner’s
interpretation of claim 13 as not requiring “the constant engagement of the
element and the pinion” (Ans. 2) to be reasonable.
Here, independent claim 13 merely recites the transmission element is
“designed to ensure” that a part thereof is engaged in the pinion “after
rotation” (claim 13). Giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation
6
Appeal 2017-003014
Application 13/885,224
consistent with the Specification (especially Figure 5), claim 13 only
requires the “transmission element” be designed such that engagement is
ensured sometime “after rotation.”
Wier discloses, in one embodiment set forth in Figure 4, the belt
retractor in a state in which the piston does not move through the entire
tensioning length and the tooth rack section remains engaged by the pinion
(FF 2). In another embodiment set forth in Figure 5, Wier discloses the belt
retractor in a state in which segments are located left of the pinion while the
one segment on the right is still in engagement (FF 3). Appellants concede
Figures 4 and 5 of Wier show “instances where the tooth rack section 50
may remain engaged in the pinion 28” (App. Br. 7). That is, Wier discloses
a part of the tooth rack section 50 is designed to ensure engagement with the
pinion 28 after rotation in these embodiments set forth in Figures 4 and 5
(FF 2—3). Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s reliance on Wier for
disclosing a “transmission element” “designed to ensure that a part” thereof
“is engaged in the pinion . . . after rotation,” as recited by claim 13.
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 13, and claims 14, 15, and 17—19 depending
therefrom and falling therewith (App. Br. 9), over Wier.
As for dependent claim 16, and although Appellants also contend
“there is absolutely nothing in Wier that discloses that the shearing pins 56
break so that the piston 24 breaks apart when the tensioning device 12 is
assembled” (id.), we agree with the Examiner’s finding that “[t]he shear pins
56 are designed to shear off’ when “the tensioner is in an assembled state”
(Ans. 3). That is, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Wier’s shear
pins are designed to shear/break apart when the tensioning device 12 is
7
Appeal 2017-003014
Application 13/885,224
assembled (id.). Thus, on this record, we also affirm the rejection of claim
16 over Wier.
Appellants repeat the arguments for claim 13 with respect to claims
20—25 and 27 (App. Br. 10). On this record, we also affirm the rejection of
claims 20-25, and 27 over Wier.
With respect to claim 26, Appellants contend “Wier does not disclose
a part of a load transmission element engaged in a pinion being elastically or
plastically deformed ahead of the pinion along a second direction during
movement of the part of the load transmission element in the second
direction” (App. Br. 11). After reviewing the record on appeal, we find the
preponderance of evidence supports Appellants’ position. That is, we do not
find any teaching in the referenced portions that supports the Examiner’s
findings. Although the Examiner finds “[djeformation is an inherent
property of material,” we are unsure as to where there is a specific teaching
of elastic or plastic deformation ahead of the pinion “along a second
direction during movement of the part of the load transmission element in
the second direction” (claim 26) (App. Br. 10). We agree with Appellants
that “the Examiner makes a conclusory statement that the features of claim
26 are inherently disclosed by Wier without further support” (App. Br. 11).
Because we find at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by
Appellants is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, we need not
reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments. On this record, we reverse
the rejection of claim 26 over Wier.
For similar reasons, on this record we also reverse the rejection of
claim 28, reciting “a pinion being rotatable in an unwinding direction to
move a rear part in a second direct opposite a first direct to elastically or
8
Appeal 2017-003014
Application 13/885,224
plastically deform the rear part located ahead of the pinion along the second
direction” over Wier (App. Br. 13).
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13—25 and 27, but
reverse the rejection of claims 26 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9