Ex Parte Knapke et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 29, 2009

10650717 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 29, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BRIAN KNAPKE and SCOTT HENRICKS
____________

Appeal 2008-2622
Application 10/650,717
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: January 29, 2009
____________

Before WILLIAM F. PATE III, JOHN C. KERINS, and
STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

WILLIAM F. PATE III, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-18. The rejection
of claim 19 has been withdrawn by the Examiner in the Answer. It stands
objected to. These are the only claims in the application.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 6 and 134.
Appeal 2008-2622
Application 10/650,717

2
The claimed subject matter is directed to a drive axle assembly having
a differential gear set therein, with a shock absorber connected between the
differential housing and the sprung mass of the vehicle.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A drive axle assembly connected to a sprung mass of a
vehicle, said drive axle assembly comprising:
a hollow axle housing having an opening there through;
a removable cover member provided to cover said
opening in said axle housing, said cover having at least
one bracket facilitating a connection to a shock absorber,
wherein said shock absorber is connected between said cover
and said sprung mass of said vehicle to directly dampen relative
movement there between.

REFERENCES
The references of record relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
lack of novelty are:
Solleder 4,699,230 Oct. 13, 1987
Carroll 5,758,738 Jun. 02, 1998
Svensson US 6,439,588 B1 Aug. 27, 2002

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-4, 8-12, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
being unpatentable over Solleder.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, and 10-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
being unpatentable over Carroll.
Appeal 2008-2622
Application 10/650,717

3

Claims 1-4, 8-12, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
being unpatentable over Svensson.
Claims 7 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Carroll.
The rejection of claim 19 has been withdrawn by the Examiner, and
claim 19 is now indicated as being directed to allowable subject matter.
OPINION
As an initial matter, we first construe the claims on appeal. With
respect to claim 1, while a hollow axle and a removable cover member are
positively set out in the claim, the shock absorber is not positively recited in
the same manner. However, based on the language of the claim which
recites the position of the shock absorber, and based on the dependent
claims, which further limit the shock absorber and its position, and based on
Appellants’ arguments, it is our claim construction that the shock absorber is
a positively recited feature of the drive axle assembly called for in claim 1.
We further note that the shock absorber is positively set out in independent
claim 10.
Appellants’ argument with respect to the differing rejections on appeal
are all the same, namely, that the independent claims call for a shock
absorber installed between the axle housing or the differential and the sprung
mass of the vehicle to dampen movement therebetween. It is our finding
that Solleder discloses rubber bushings mounting the differential housing to
an unsprung rear axle carrier. Carroll discloses a transaxle mounted in a rear
Appeal 2008-2622
Application 10/650,717

4
bracket at 63, 64, 66 having a synthetic rubber or other cushion (not shown,
col. 4, ll. 31-35) and a semi-circular front bracket 57. Svensson teaches a V-
shaped torque rod provided at its ends with cylindrical rubber bushings 18.
As we have construed claim 1, and as claim 10 positively recites, the
independent claims on appeal require a shock absorber to be connected
between the differential and the sprung mass of the vehicle.
We are in agreement with the Appellants that the claim term “shock
absorber” is a specialized and well understood term in the automotive art.
We also agree with Appellant that construing the term “shock absorber” to
cover any mechanism that absorbs shocks such as rubber bushings or elastic
elements is unreasonable. For example, consultation with a dictionary
supports Appellants’ argument. The Random House Dictionary of the
English Language, 2nd Unabridged Edition, (New York, 1987) defines
“shock absorber” as - a device for damping sudden and rapid motion as the
recoil of a spring mounted object from shock (emphasis supplied) -. The
dictionary further gives an indication that the term came into use in the
United States between 1905 and 1910. Accordingly, based on all of the
circumstances in this case, we hold that the Examiner’s claim construction
of the term “shock absorber” as -anything that absorbs shock- is an
unreasonable claim construction, and the claims are limited to a mechanical
device which dampens sudden and rapid motions as in the springs of a
vehicle.
Consequently, it can be seen that neither Solleder, Carroll nor Svensson
discloses a shock absorber, as we have construed the term, between the
Appeal 2008-2622
Application 10/650,717

5
differential and the sprung mass of the vehicle. Therefore, the Examiner’s
rejections under §§ 102 and 103 for lack of novelty and obviousness are
shown by the Appellants to be in error. These rejections are reversed.
REVERSED

vsh

LINIAK, BERENATO & WHITE
STE. 240
6550 ROCK SPRING DRIVE
BETHESDA, MD 20817