Ex Parte Lang et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 21, 2012

11903659 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 21, 2012)

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.
11/903,659 09/24/2007 Heinrich Lang 022946.00504 1507
27863 7590 03/21/2012
MCNAIR LAW FIRM, P.A.
P.O. BOX 447
GREENVILLE, SC 29602-0447
EXAMINER
KENNEDY, JOSHUA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2012 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 HEINRICH LANG, WOLFGANG SEIBOTH, and
STEFAN CENTMAYER
____________________

Appeal 2010-001110
Application 11/903,659
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and
EDWARD A. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-001110
Application 11/903,659

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Heinrich Lang et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-14. (App. Br. 1). We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
The invention is directed to a linkage arrangement for adjustment of a
rearview mirror for a motor vehicle. (Spec. 1). Independent claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed subject matter.
1. A linkage arrangement for a rearview
mirror comprising:
a first linkage component having a
ball socket having a concave surface
including a plurality of first profilings which
are one of concave and convex and have a
longitudinal axis;
a second linkage component having a
convex projection including a plurality of
second profilings which are one of convex
and concave and have a longitudinal axis;
a sliding plate carried between said
ball socket and said projection having
a plurality of third profilings which are one
of convex and concave and are configured to
be received in said first profilings of said
ball socket and a plurality of fourth
profilings which are one of concave and
convex and are configured to be received in
said second profilings of said projection;
said second profilings of said
projection and said third profilings said
sliding plate having a larger radius of
curvature than said fourth profilings of said
Appeal 2010-001110
Application 11/903,659

3
sliding plate and said first profilings of said
ball socket; and,
a connecting rod connecting said first
linkage component, said second linkage
component, and said sliding plate together;
wherein,
said larger radius of curvature of said
second and third profilings of said sliding
plate and said projection allows said second
and third profilings to be fully received in
said first and fourth profilings of said ball
socket and said sliding plate only after
abrasive wear, thereby extending the life of
said linkage by continuing to prevent play
between the components.
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review.
1. Claims 1-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Branham (US 6,302,549 B1, issued Oct. 16, 2001) and
DiGiulio (US 4,157,876, issued Jun. 12, 1979).
2. Claims 8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Branham.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-7
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner found Branham discloses a first
linkage component (i.e., mirror housing 16) including a ball socket having a
concave surface with first profilings (i.e., spherical surface 98); a second
linkage component (i.e., slide member 66) including a convex projection
having second profilings (i.e., spherical surface 86); and a sliding plate (i.e.,
slide member 68) having third profilings (i.e., spherical surface 92) and
fourth profilings (i.e., spherical surface 90). (Ans. 6-7; see also Branham,
Appeal 2010-001110
Application 11/903,659

4
col. 4, ll. 32-34; col. 5, ll. 16-17, 31-33, 36-39; Figs. 4, 5). The Examiner
determined that Branham does not disclose that the second and third
profilings have a larger radius of curvature than the fourth and first
profilings. (Ans. 7).
The Examiner found DiGiulio teaches a linkage arrangement
"wherein 'the radius of curvature of [concave] surface 186 is nevertheless
slightly greater than that of [convex] surface 184."' (Ans. 7). The Examiner
concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to modify Branham's linkage arrangement to have the differing radii of
curvature of the concave and convex surfaces taught by DiGiulio. (Id.).
Appellants correctly contend that the Examiner incorrectly interpreted
the disclosure of Branham. Particularly, Appellants explain that Branham
describes spherical surfaces 98, 86, 92, and 90, not first, second, third, and
fourth "profilings," as found by the Examiner. (App. Br. 9-10). Claim 1
calls for "a first linkage component having a ball socket having a concave
surface including a plurality of first profilings." In our view, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood that the "concave surface" of
Branham's "ball socket" of cup section 74 of mirror housing 16 is spherical
surface 98, and also that spherical surface 98 is not a "plurality of first
profilings," as claimed. Rather, Branham discloses that spherical surface 98
defines grooves 100. (See Branham, col. 5, ll. 37-39; Fig. 5). Claim 1
further recites "a sliding plate carried between said ball socket and said
projection having a plurality of third profilings which are one of convex and
concave and are configured to be received in said first profilings of said ball
socket." (Emphasis added). One of ordinary skill in the art would have also
understood that the spherical surface 92 of Branham's slide member 68 is not
Appeal 2010-001110
Application 11/903,659

5
a "plurality of third profilings," as found by the Examiner. Accordingly, the
Examiner's findings with respect to Branham are not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
The Examiner's application of DiGulio does not cure the deficiencies
of Branham with respect to claim 1. Hence, we do not sustain the rejection
of claim 1, and claims 2-7 which depend from claim 1.
Claims 8 and 11-14
Regarding claim 8, the Examiner found Branham discloses a first
linkage member (i.e., mirror housing 16) including a first hemispherical
component having a concave surface with parallel concave profilings (i.e.,
spherical surface 98); a second linkage member (i.e., slide member 66)
defining a second hemispherical component including an outer convex
surface having parallel convex profilings (i.e., spherical surface 86); and a
third linkage member (i.e., slide member 68) defining a third hemispherical
member having an outer convex surface with convex profilings (i.e.,
spherical surface 92) and an outer concave surface with concave profilings
(i.e., spherical surface 90). (Ans. 4).
Appellants correctly contend that the Examiners' finding that Branham
discloses each and every element of claim 8 is not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. (App. Br. 10-11). Branham describes
spherical surfaces 98, 86, 92, and 90, not convex or concave "profilings."
Claim 8 calls for "a first linkage member defining a first hemispherical
component having at least one inner concave surface having a plurality of
parallel concave profilings." In our view, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood that the "concave surface" of Branham's "first
hemispherical component" of mirror housing 16 is the spherical surface 98,
Appeal 2010-001110
Application 11/903,659

6
and that grooves 100, not spherical surface 98, are "profilings." (See App.
Br. 10). Claim 8 further recites "a second linkage member defining a second
hemispherical component having an outer convex surface having a plurality
of parallel convex profilings along a second plane." One of ordinary skill in
the art would have also understood that the "convex surface" of Branham's
"second hemispherical component" of slide member 66 is the spherical
surface 86, and that grooves 88, not spherical surface 86, are "profilings."
(See App. Br. 10). Hence, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8, and
claims 11-14 which depend from claim 8.
Claims 9 and 10
As discussed supra, Branham does not disclose each and every
element of claim 8. The Examiner's application of DiGulio for claims 9 and
10 which depend from claim 8 does not cure the deficiencies of Branham
with respect to claim 8. Hence, we also do not sustain the rejection of
claims 9 and 10.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-14 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

mls