Ex Parte Kuhne

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 15, 2012

11250553 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 15, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/250,553 10/17/2005 Steffen Kuhne 8369.015.US0000 4596
77407 7590 03/15/2012
Novak Druce + Quigg LLP
300 New Jersey Ave, NW
Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20001
EXAMINER
MORROW, JASON S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3612
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte STEFFEN KUHNE
__________

Appeal 2009-013277
Application 11/250,553
Technology Center 3600
___________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., and DENISE M.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection
of claims 11-19, 22, 23, and 25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2009-013277
Application 11/250,553

- 2 -
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 11-13, 15-17, 19, 22, and 23 were rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Mascotte (US 4,099,760).
Claims 14 and 18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Mascotte.
Claim 25 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Maeda (US 3,899,047).

Invention
Appellant discloses a bumper system having force absorbing
components in at least two planes at different heights on a motor vehicle.
(Abstract). Appellant’s Figs. 1 (left) and 2 (right), reproduced below, show
an embodiment of the bumper system. (Spec. 9).

Fig. 1 (left) shows a schematic front view of a vehicle including
the bumper system. Fig. 2 (right) shows a perspective view of
the bumper system.
Appellant’s Fig. 1 shows the vehicle and force distributing member 10
of the bumper system. (Spec. 9-10). Appellant’s Fig. 2 shows the bumper
system’s force distributing member 10 connected to lower and upper
Appeal 2009-013277
Application 11/250,553

- 3 -
longitudinal force absorbing components.1 (Spec. 9-10). During a frontal
collision, the force distributing member 10 distributes the collision’s force
from the point(s) of impact to the force absorbing components. (Spec. 4-5,
7, 9-10).
Independent claims 11 and 25 recite the invention as follows:
11. A bumper system for a motor vehicle having upper and
lower, longitudinally disposed force absorbing components
comprising a transversely disposable force distributing, rigid
member operatively connectable to said force absorbing
components and having a plurality of longitudinally extending
openings therein.
25. A bumper system for a motor vehicle provided with at
least two vertically spaced, longitudinally disposed force
absorbing components, comprising a vertically disposed force
distributing member rigidly connected to said force absorbing
components wherein impact forces applied to said force
distributing member will be transmitted to and absorbed by said
force absorbing components.

ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER MASCOTTE

The Examiner finds that Mascotte’s frame 22 and grid 24 constitute a
force distributing member, as recited by claim 11. (Ans. 3 and 6). The
Examiner also finds that Mascotte’s mounting members 10 and vehicle hood
(not labeled) respectively constitute the recited lower and upper force
absorbing components. (Id.) Appellant argues that Mascotte’s frame 22 is
only connected to force absorbing members at the lower end and that the

1 Appellant’s Appeal Brief refers to elements 12-20 as “longitudinally
disposed force absorbing components” (App. Br. 2), while Appellant’s
disclosure refers to elements 13 and 20 (Abstract) and components 20, 22
(Spec. 11) as the “force absorbing components.”
Appeal 2009-013277
Application 11/250,553

- 4 -
frame and the vehicle’s hood are not “connectable” or attached at the upper
end. (App. Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 2). Appellant also argues that the hood is not
“intended” to act as a force absorbing component, but rather other
components are. (App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2).
ISSUE
Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding that Mascotte
discloses a force distributing rigid member operatively connectable to the
upper force absorbing component?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Mascotte discloses a combination brush guard and utility rack for
a vehicle. (Title). Mascotte’s Figs. 1 (left) and 2 (right) reproduced below
show the front end of the grill and brush guard in the up and down positions.
(Col. 1, ll. 48-52).

Fig. 1 (left) shows the guard in the up position. Fig. 2 (right)
shows the guard in the down position.

Appeal 2009-013277
Application 11/250,553

- 5 -
2. Frame 22 pivots on mounting members 10, which are in turn
connected to the vehicle’s frame 12. (Col. 2, ll. 1-14; Fig. 4). The frame 22
has a metal grid 24 and hinge members 26 secured thereto. (Col. 2, ll. 10-
12; Figs. 1, 4).
ANALYSIS
As pointed out by Appellant, claim 11 recites the “force distributing,
rigid member operatively connectable to said force absorbing components . .
. .” (App. Br. 4). Notably, unlike claim 25, claim 11 does not recite that the
force distributing member is rigidly connected to the force absorbing
components. This recitation of being “operatively connectable” does not
require that the force distributing member is actually connected to the force
absorbing components, as the Examiner indicates in the Response section
(see Ans. 6). Rather, this limitation is a functional or intended use recitation
and only requires that the force distributing, rigid member have the ability to
be connected to the force absorbing components. See In re Schreiber, 128
F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Because Mascotte need not show that the
upper end of the frame is connected to the force absorbing member, we are
not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that Mascotte fails to disclose the
force distributing member and the upper force absorbing components are
attached. (See App. Br. 4-5.)
We additionally agree with the Examiner’s finding that Mascotte’s
frame 22 and grid 24 (see FF 1-2) collectively are operatively connectable to
the hood because the frame has the ability to connect to an upper force
absorbing member during operation. For example, when a severe enough
frontal collision occurs during operation of Mascotte’s vehicle, such as a
collision that threatens the integrity of the passenger compartment (see Spec.
Appeal 2009-013277
Application 11/250,553

- 6 -
1), portions of Mascotte’s frame 22 would come in contact with and thus
operatively connect to the hood, side panels, and other vehicle components
distributing the collision’s forces. See Ans. 6. We therefore find that
Mascotte discloses the “force distributing, rigid member operatively
connectable to said force absorbing components” as recited.
Regarding the argument that Mascotte’s hood is not intended to be a
force absorbing component (App. Br. 5), this contention also fails. As
illustrated above, in a severe front end collision, the hood and other
components absorb forces placed on the frame and thus act as force
absorbing components. Secondly, while Mascotte’s tire may be a force
absorbing component during collision (App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 5), this does
not eliminate the possibility of other parts in Mascotte also acting as force
absorbing components. Also, Mascotte shows that the tire is removable and
may not necessarily be attached to the frame during use. (See Fig. 3).
Lastly, claim 11 recites the vehicle generally – not the bumper system
specifically – has the force absorbing components and thus does not exclude
the hood from being an upper force absorbing component as broadly as
recited.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the anticipation rejection of
independent claim 11. Because Appellant does not present separate
arguments for dependent claims 12, 13, 15-17, 19, 22, and 23 (App. Br. 4-5),
we sustain the anticipation rejection of these claims as well.

Appeal 2009-013277
Application 11/250,553

- 7 -
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER MASCOTTE

Appellant does not present separate arguments for dependent claims
14 and 18. (App. Br. 6). We therefore sustain the obviousness rejection of
these claims over Mascotte for the above-discussed reasons.

ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER MAEDA

Appellant argues that Maeda does not disclose a “force distributing
member which is subjected to impact forces,” but “[i]nstead, [Maeda]
provides for impact receiving member 35 or 73 which transfers impact loads
. . . and a vertically disposed member such as plate 95 which is supported
and guided on the lower disposed force absorbing components, and
functions, sequentially, to transmit the impact load additionally to upper
dispersed force absorbing components.” (App. Br. 5).
The Examiner responds that the “claim does not require the force
disturbing [sic] member be directly impacted” and, “[s]ince the structure of
94 functions to distribute impact forces between the longitudinal force
absorbing components 32, 81, it satisfies the limitations of the claim.” (Ans.
7).2 Appellant’s Reply Brief does not address the Examiner’s response.
ISSUE
Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding that Maeda’s
discloses “impact forces applied to said force distributing member will be
transmitted to and absorbed by said force absorbing components,” as recited
in claim 25?

2 The rejection cites Maeda’s Fig. 18c. Ans. 4. Because Fig. 17b provides a
clearer perspective view of similar components relied upon in Maeda’s Fig.
18c (see Maeda, col. 20, ll. 30-37), we refer to Maeda’s Fig. 17b.
Appeal 2009-013277
Application 11/250,553

- 8 -
FINDINGS OF FACT
3. Maeda discloses a dampening device for a motor vehicle frame
telescopically moving when encountering a front end collision. (Abstract).
Maeda’s Fig. 17b, reproduced below, shows an embodiment of the vehicle
body structure incorporating the impact absorbing devices. (Col. 6, ll. 60-66;
col. 18, ll. 20-25).

Fig. 17b shows a perspective view of a vehicle body structure.

4. Panels 94-96 prevent individual components of the impact
absorbing devices A and A’ from buckling when stresses are applied thereto
and transmit substantially equalized distributing forces to the component
members of the impact absorbing devices A and A’. (Col. 18, ll. 48-55; Fig.
17b).
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that Maeda’s panel 95 is not a force distributing
member because the panel “sequentially” transmits the impact load to the
force absorbing components rather than directly impacting the force
Appeal 2009-013277
Application 11/250,553

- 9 -
distributing member. (App. Br. 5). However, as pointed out by the
Examiner (Ans. 7), claim 25 recites that the impacts forces are applied to the
force distributing member (e.g., 94) and does not require such impact forces
be a direct application. Maeda discloses that impact forces are received by
the panels 94-96 and then transmitted as longitudinal forces to the impact
absorbing devices A, A’. (See FF 3-4; see also Ans. 4). We therefore
disagree with Appellant that Maeda fails to disclose impact forces applied to
the force distributing member will be transmitted to and absorbed by said
force absorbing components, as recited.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the anticipation rejection of
claim 25.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 11-13, 15-17, 19, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Mascotte is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 14 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Mascotte is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Maeda is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

gvw