Ex Parte Hufenbach et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

14360025 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/360,025 05/22/2014
13897 7590 09/27/2018
Abel Law Group, LLP
8911 N. Capital of Texas Hwy
Bldg 4, Suite 4200
Austin, TX 78759
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Werner Hufenbach
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.
6560-P50137 7940
EXAMINER
SAETHER, FLEMMING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3677
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
mail@Abel-IP.com
hmuensterer@abel-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WERNER HUFENBACH, MAR TIN LEPPER,
JENS WERNER, and ENRICO LADUSCH
Appeal2017-009538
Application 14/360,025
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 33-35, 40-44, and 50-52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Kelbert (US 5,205,692, issued Apr. 27, 1993) and
Applicants' Admitted Prior Art ("AAPA"). Claims 36-39 and 45--49 are
1 LEICHTBAU-ZENTRUM SACHSEN GMBH ("Appellant") is the
applicant, as provided by 37 C.F.R. § 1.46, and is identified as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-009538
Application 14/360,025
withdrawn from consideration. Final Act. 2; Adv. Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 33 and 43 are independent. Claim 33, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter:
33. An arrangement for introducing force to a component of
fiber composite material, wherein the arrangement comprises (i)
the component of fiber composite material which comprises a
passage, (ii) a bolt-shaped connecting element which is capable
of providing a screw connection, and (iii) a bush which consists
of a first bush part and a second bush part, borders the passage
of the component and accommodates a part of the connecting
element, the first bush part and the second bush part being
configured to engage in one another in axial extension and each
of the first and second bush parts comprising a radially extended
union collar with a collar side which faces the component and on
which a sliding surface is present.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Kelbert discloses an arrangement comprising
every limitation in claims 33 and 43 except for a component of fiber
composite material. Final Act. 2-3 ( citing Kelbert, Fig. 2). The Examiner
finds that Kelbert discloses a component (panel 14) that is a part of a
vehicle, and which is asserted to correspond to the claimed component, but
Kelbert does not disclose what material the component is made of. Id. at 3
( citing Kelbert, col. 2, 11. 33-39).
The Examiner relies on AAP A as disclosing that vehicle components
made of fiber-reinforced plastic are known. Id. ( citing Spec. 1 ). The
Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to modify the component
2
Appeal2017-009538
Application 14/360,025
of Kelbert corresponding to the claimed component, to use a fiber composite
material therefor, in view of AAPA, because "both [Kelbert's component
and AAPA's component] are vehicle components [and] making the
component disclosed in Kelbert out of a fiber-reinforced plastic would yield
the same predictable results. Furthermore, fiber-reinforced plastic vehicle
components are also known to provide other advantages as being relatively
light and strong." Id.; see also Ans. 5.
Appellant disagrees that it would have been obvious to modify
Kelbert to use a component of fiber composite material. Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant argues that the only indication provided by Kelbert as to what
material its component may be formed of is from the disclosure, "[ t ]he
mounting assembly 10 has particular use in mounting air conditioning
components, such as an evaporator case assembly, to the firewall of the
vehicle." Id. ( citing Kelbert col. 2, 11. 33-39). Appellant contends that in
the automotive art, a "firewall" is "the part of the bodywork that separates
the engine from the driver and passengers." Id. 2 The Examiner submits that
composite firewalls are well-known, as evidenced by Malek. 3 Adv. Act. 2;
see also Ans. 5. Appellant contends that it would not be appropriate to use a
fiber composite as a material for a firewall because of the function of a
firewall. Appeal Br. 11-12. Appellant points out that Malek discloses a
hybrid design composed of a parent body composed of galvanized iron,
which is reinforced by thermoplastics, and that Malek mentions "firewall"
merely in a host of examples of potential applications for the hybrid design.
2 Appellant cites https :// en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_( engine).
3 US 8,383,242 B2, issued Feb. 26, 2013.
3
Appeal2017-009538
Application 14/360,025
Id. at 12; see Malek col. 1, 11. 3-10, col. 30, 1. 31---col. 31, 1. 7. As such,
Appellant argues that an ordinary artisan would have no reason to use a fiber
composite material for Kelbert's arrangement in view of Malek. Id.
Appellant's contentions are persuasive. The passage in Appellant's
Specification referenced by the Examiner states:
The device is used for constructions that are to be point-
connected to components made from relatively soft material such
as e.g. boards made of fiber-reinforced plastic, whereby forces
acting upon the constructions are transferred into the components
made of fiber composite material. The known connections
mainly consist of connecting metal elements penetrating the
plastic component, which is screw-connected to the components
similar to a bolt connection. Such devices are for example used
in the vehicle technology for wheel suspensions or for connecting
chassis control arms to fiber composite parts.
Spec. 1 ( emphases added). This paragraph only mentions "vehicle
technology for wheel suspensions or for connecting chassis control arms to
fiber composite parts," which does not disclose or suggest that fiber
composite material can be used for every automotive part. We agree with
Appellant that this description does not disclose that the fiber composite
material could be used for a firewall of a vehicle. See Reply Br. 3. As
Appellant explains, a firewall must be able to withstand fire to protect
passengers in a vehicle, and thus, is commonly constructed of steel as
opposed to plastic materials, in which the plastic material is part of a fiber
composite material and is usually flammable. Id. at 4.
Malek only uses the term "firewall" in a long list of motor vehicle
components. Malek, col. 30, 1. 31---col. 31, 1. 7. We are unable to find the
term "fiber" in Malek' s disclosure. We agree with Appellant that the hybrid
design of Malek is nowhere described as being a fiber composite material.
4
Appeal2017-009538
Application 14/360,025
In light of the requirements of a vehicle "firewall," a preponderance of the
evidence does not support the Examiner's finding that fiber composite
materials are commonly used in firewalls. See Adv. Act. 2. As such, the
Examiner's position that modifying Kelbert to use a component of fiber
composite material for a firewall would yield predictable results is
unsupported by evidence. See Final Act. 3.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 33 and 43, and claims 34,
35, 40-42, 44, and 50-52 depending therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 33-35, 40-44, and 50-52.
REVERSED
5