Ex Parte HUEBEL

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 25, 2018

14792322 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
141792,322 07/06/2015
23911 7590 06/27/2018
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Claus HUEBEL
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.
080437.67886US 4088
EXAMINER
KNUTSON, JACOB D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2018 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):
edocket@crowell.com
tche@crowell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CLAUS HUEBEL 1
Appeal2017-010288
Application 14/792,322
Technology Center 3600
Before: KEVIN F. TURNER, DANIEL S. SONG, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SONG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
Final Office Action (hereinafter "Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-19 in the
present application (App. Br. 1 ). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 6(b) and 134.
We REVERSE.
1 Referred to as "Appellant" herein. The real party in interest is Bayerische
Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (Appeal Brief (hereinafter "App. Br.")
1 ).
Appeal2017-010288
Application 14/792,322
The claimed invention is directed to a motor vehicle having a towing
lug at a front end of the motor vehicle (Abstract). Representative
independent claim 1 reads as follows (App. Br. 7, 8-9, Claims App'x,
emphasis added):
1. A motor vehicle having a vehicle body which forms a
vehicle occupant compartment, comprising:
a front end assembly disposed in front of the vehicle
occupant compartment, the front end assembly having an upper
supporting structure and a lower supporting structure that is an
axle support, wherein
the upper and lower supporting structures are connected
with one another,
the upper supporting structure has two side members,
which are mutually spaced in a transverse direction y of the
vehicle,
below the two side members, the lower supporting
structure is connected with the upper supporting structure by way
of at least one fastening point, and
a towing lug is arranged on the lower supporting structure,
wherein a longitudinal axis of the towing lug is arranged
essentially vertically or diagonally downward, so that a free end
of the towing lug, on which a lug section of the towing lug is
formed, points downward toward a roadway.
Independent claim 15 similarly recites "a lower supporting structure
that is an axle support connected with the upper supporting structure."
(App. Br. 15, Claims App'x).
2
Appeal2017-010288
Application 14/792,322
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 8-17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination ofNozaki (DE 100 59 497 Al,
pub. July 19, 2001, citations to the English translation of record) in view of
Tamura (US 6,161,867, iss. Dec. 19, 2000) (Final Act. 2).
2. The Examiner rejects claims 4--7 and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination ofNozaki in view of Tamura and
Luepke et al. (DE 101 07 965 Al, pub. Aug. 29, 2002, citations to the
English translation of record) (Final Act. 6).
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1
Independent claims 1 and 15 stand rejected based on the combination
ofNozaki and Tamura, the Examiner finding that Nozaki discloses, inter
alia:
a front end assembly (2a, 13) disposed in front of the vehicle
occupant compartment, the front end assembly having an upper
supporting structure (13) and a lower supporting structure (2a)
that is an axle support.
(Final Act. 2).
The Appellant disputes the finding that "hook carrier 2a" disclosed in
Nozaki is "an axle support" as recited in these claims (App. Br. 4).
According to the Appellant, "the term axle support is an art-recognized term
that is understood in the context of vehicle frame parts to refer to the part of
the vehicle frame that inter alia receives the suspension arms and bears the
forces acting on the wheels or transmits them into the body." (Reply Br. 1-
3
Appeal2017-010288
Application 14/792,322
2; see also App. Br. 4). In support of its contention, the Appellant directs
our attention to US Pub. No. 2012/0235397 (i-fi-f l--4), US Pub. No.
2012/0104739, and https://www.ecstuning.com/b-genuine-bmwparts/
front-axle-support/31116785639/ (App. Br. 4--5).
Thus, the Appellant argues that:
[ w ]hen properly construed, there is no evidence that N ozaki' s
hook backing 2a is a front axle support. Indeed, there is no
evidence that Nozaki's hook backing 2a is even part of the
vehicle frame. Rather, the hook backing 2a is actually part of the
tow hook 2 structure - and not the vehicle frame.
(App. Br. 5).
We generally agree with the Appellant. In describing Figure 1, the
Specification states "[ t ]he lower supporting structure 15 is designed as a
front axle support." (Spec. i-f 18). In addition, both independent claims 1
and 15 recite "a lower supporting structure that is an axle support."
Accordingly, both the Specification and the claims utilize the term "axle
support" to refer to a specific lower supporting structure or device.
Furthermore, each of the noted documents utilizes the term "axle support" to
identify a frame structure consistent with the Appellant's argument that
"axle support" is a term of art already recognized by those of ordinary skill
in the art.
The Examiner disagrees and points out that the Specification fails to
establish that "an axle support [is] well known in the art with a recognized
structural component and does not give any definitive definition to 'an axle
support."' (Ans. 9). In that regard, the Examiner determines that "the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term 'axle support' is far
4
Appeal2017-010288
Application 14/792,322
broader than what is shown by the Publications relied upon by Appellant"
because:
prior art reference Schuettenberg US 7,789,411 B2 discloses
such definition of "axle support" is not limited to the structural
component as taught by the publications presented by the
Appellant above, but rather may be as simple as [a plate (18a)]
(fig. 1, col. 4, lines 61 - 62).
(Ans. 9).
However, as the Appellant points out, "[t]erms-of-art are terms-of-art
precisely because they are recognizable as such by those of ordinary skill in
the art for whom the Specification is written," and accordingly, the
Specification need not provide definitions for such terms (Reply Br. 2).
As to Schuettenberg, it does not disclose any structure that is an "axle
support," but instead, discloses "a towed vehicle front axle support plate
18a." (Schuettenberg, col. 4, 11. 60-62). In other words, the disclosure
within Schuettenberg pertains to the supporting function of a metal plate,
and does not disclose a structure, i.e., a plate, that is also known in the art to
be an "axle support" as the Examiner appears to assert. Accordingly, we
further agree with the Appellant that the Examiner's reference to
Schuettenberg as establishing that "axle support" may be "simple as a plate"
takes the Specification of the present application and Schuettenberg out of
context (Reply Br. 2-3, formatting removed).
As to Nozaki, it discloses:
The drag hook 2 shown in FIG. 3 has a hook carrier 2a, a U-
shaped hook member 2b, which is completely attached to the
hook carrier 2a, a bumper carrier 2c for fitting a bumper, and a
strut 2d for attaching the tow hook.
(Nozaki 9; see also id. Fig. 3).
5
Appeal2017-010288
Application 14/792,322
The Examiner explains that:
the lower support structure [2a] would be an axle support when/if
the vehicle is towed by a towing vehicle via the towing lugs (2b)
which are arranged on the lower supporting structure ofNozaki.
Thus the lower support structure would be an axle support due to
being an integral part [of] such towing action.
(Ans. 8).
However, we fail to understand how Nozaki's hook carrier 2a
becomes an axle support, or performs any function pertaining to an axle, by
merely "being an integral part [of] such towing action." Even if "axle
support" were not understood to be a term of art, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the term would require some affiliation or interaction
between the recited supporting structure and an axle. Such affiliation or
interaction is not evident in the hook carrier 2a ofNozaki, which is part of
the tow mechanism. Hence, we agree with the Appellant that the
Examiner's apparent interpretation of the limitation "a lower supporting
structure that is an axle support" to encompass "any component involved in
towing" is not supported by the evidence of record, and thus, is
unreasonably broad (Reply Br. 1, formatting removed).
Therefore, in view of the above, we reverse the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 15, as well as the rejection of dependent claims 2,
3, 8-14, 16, 17, and 19 (see also App. Br. 5).
Rejection 2
The Examiner's rejection relies on Luepke for disclosing limitations
recited in dependent claims 4--7 and 18, but the Examiner's application of
Luepke does not address the deficiencies discussed above relative to
6
Appeal2017-010288
Application 14/792,322
independent claims 1 and 15 (see also App. Br. 6). Accordingly, this
rejection is also reversed.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-19 is REVESED.
REVERSED
7