Ex Parte Muller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

13502803 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017)

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.
13/502,803 04/19/2012 Dirk Muller 470260.00013 7040
26710 7590
QUARLES & BRADY LLP
Attn: IP Docket
411 E. WISCONSIN AVENUE
SUITE 2350
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-4426
EXAMINER
CUMAR, NATHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2017 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):
pat-dept@quarles.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DIRK MULLER, MARIO CHRISTENSEN,
STEFAN MONIG, CRISTOF BRAUNER,
MARTIN WITTE, and NORBERT HELLER
Appeal 2015-002955
Application 13/502,803
Technology Center 3600
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1—10. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as “Huf Hulsbeck & First
GmbH & Co.” (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2015-002955
Application 13/502,803
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants’ invention “is directed toward a handle device for a
locking device for a movable door” on a vehicle. (Spec. 1,11. 5—7.)
Illustrative Claim2
1. A handle device for a locking device for a movable
door on a vehicle, said handle device comprising:
a handle part mounted movably with respect to a door of
the vehicle, said handle part being movable between a rest
position-and an operating position, wherein, in the rest position,
the handle part is arranged flush with an outer side of the door
and, in the operating position, the handle part protrudes from the
outer side of the door, wherein, in the operating position, the
handle part can be operated in order to open the door;
a blocking unit locking the handle part in the rest position;
and
an actuating unit operatively connected to the blocking
unit and moving said blocking unit between a locking position
and a release position, wherein upon moving said blocking unit
from said locking position to said release position, said actuating
unit moves the handle part from the rest position toward the
operating position.
Graham
Niskanen
Herbert
Brunner
References
US 7,013,689 B2
US 7,526,936 B2
US 7,543,863 B2
DE 19731325 A1
Mar. 21,2006
May 5, 2009
June 9, 2009
Jan. 28, 1999
Rejections
I. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4—7, 9, and 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Brunner. (Final Action 2.)
2 This illustrative claim is quoted from the Claims Appendix (“Claims
App.”) of the Appeal Brief.
2
Appeal 2015-002955
Application 13/502,803
II. The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brunner and Herbert. (Final Action 6.)
III. The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brunner and Graham. (Final Action 6.)
IV. The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brunner and Niskanen. (Final Action 7.)
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal, with the rest of the
claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2—10) depending therefrom. (See Appeal Br.,
Claims App.) Independent claim 1 recites “[a] handle device for a locking
device for a movable door on a vehicle.” (Id.)
Independent Claim 1
Independent claim 1 recites “a handle part” that is “movable between
a rest position and an operating position,” “a blocking unit” that “lock[s] the
handle part in the rest position,” and “an actuating unit” that moves the
blocking unit “between a locking position and a release position.” (Appeal
Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Brunner discloses a handle 5 that
reads on the claimed handle part; and the Examiner finds that Brunner
discloses a drive lever 6 and a motor 30 that collectively read on the claimed
blocking unit and the claimed actuating unit. (See Final Action 2—3.)
Brunner discloses a door handle 5 that moves between a rest position
(N) and an operating position (O). (See Brunner, Fig. 3.) To move
Brunner’s handle 5 from the rest position to the operating position, a user
pushes on a press-button surface 16 of a drive lever 6. (See id., Figs. 1,3.)
Brunner’s drive lever 6 includes two lever arms 8 and 9 that are generally
3
Appeal 2015-002955
Application 13/502,803
pivoted around a pivot point 10. (See id., Fig. 3.) When force is applied to
the press-button surface 16, the lever arm 9 pivots into a space 24 in the
door, and the lever arm 8 moves the handle 5 out of the door. (See id.)
The Appellants argue that Brunner’s drive lever 6 “cannot be both the
blocking and the actuating unit.” (Appeal Br. 8.) We are not persuaded by
this argument because it does not address why Brunner’s two lever arms 8
and 9 cannot be respectively considered the “blocking unit” and the
“actuating unit.” Brunner’s lever arms 8 and 9 are “operatively connected”
as required by independent claim 1. (Appeal Br., Claims App.) And the
Appellants do not point, with particularity, to claim language precluding
these units from also being physically connected as is the case with
Brunner’s drive lever 6.
The Appellants argue that Brunner’s drive lever 6 “cannot and does
not block the arm 8.” (Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 1.) We are not
persuaded by this argument because independent claim 1 requires the
blocking unit to “lock[] the handle part in the rest position.” (Appeal Br.,
Claims App.) Brunner’s lever arm 8 is shown engaging a recess 11 in the
handle 5, thereby blocking/locking it from movement. (See Brunner, Fig. 3.)
In other words, Brunner’s handle 5 cannot move unless Brunner’s lever
arm 8 is moved.
The Appellants argue that Brunner’s drive lever 6 “does not lock the
handle part in position,” but rather “the lever 6 can be easily, and directly,
moved with an applied force.” (Appeal Br. 8.) According to the Appellants,
Brunner’s lever movement “is done ‘with relatively little effort.’” (Id.) We
are not persuaded by this argument because Brunner’s handle 5 cannot move
unless the lever arm 8 (i.e., the blocking unit) is moved, and Brunner’s lever
4
Appeal 2015-002955
Application 13/502,803
arm 8 cannot move unless the lever arm 9 (i.e., the actuating unit) is moved.
The Appellants do not point with particularity to claim language precluding
the actuating unit’s movement of the blocking unit from being accomplished
easily or directly. We further note that, in the Appellants’ illustrated
embodiment, a cover 34 is arranged “[i]n order to permit simple and
comfortable actuation of the actuating unit 33.” (Spec. 14,11. 5—7.)
The Appellants argue that, in Brunner, “[mjotion of the lever 6 results
in movement of the handle 5.” (Appeal Br. 8.) We are not persuaded by this
argument because we fail to see how it corresponds to claim limitations. In
fact, the Appellants’ position is aligned with a finding that movement of
Brunner’s lever arm 9 (i.e., by pushing press-button surface 16) moves the
blocking unit (lever arm 8) between a locking position and a release
position, and “upon moving said blocking unit from said locking position to
said release position, said actuating unit moves the handle part from the rest
position toward the operating position.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
The Appellants argue that movement of Brunner’s handle 5 results
“irrespective of whether the handle includes an actuator motor 30,” as the
actuator motor 30 “can be manually overridden.” (Appeal Br. 9; see also
Reply Br. 1.) We are not persuaded by this argument because Brunner’s
lever arm 9 would still serve as the claimed actuating unit absent motor 30.
As the Appellants do not otherwise argue Examiner error, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Brunner (Rejection I).
Dependent Claim 4
Dependent claim 4 recites that “the blocking unit is biased into the
locking position.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that
5
Appeal 2015-002955
Application 13/502,803
Brunner’s blocking unit is biased into the locking position by motor 30.
(See Final Action 4; see also Answer 11.)
The Appellants argue that the Examiner does not sufficiently support
a finding that Brunner discloses the biasing feature recited in dependent
claim 4. (See Appeal Br. 9.) We are persuaded by this argument because
the Examiner only explains why, when Brunner’s lever 6 is not manually
operated, and motor 30 is not activated, handle 5 is maintained in the rest
position. (See Final Action 4.) This does not adequately explain why
Brunner’s blocking unit (i.e., lever arm 8) is biased into its locking position
by motor 30 or otherwise, and such is not readily apparent in Brunner’s
disclosure.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Brunner (Rejection I).
Dependent Claims 2, 3, and 5—10
The Appellants do not argue dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10
separately from independent claim 1. (See Appeal Br. 9.) As for dependent
claims 3,7, and 8, the Appellants argue only that the additional prior art
references do not “address the deficiencies” in Brunner as applied to
independent claim 1. (See id. 9-10.) Dependent claims 2, 3, and 5—10 fall,
therefore, with independent claim 1.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2, 5—7,
9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Brunner (Rejection I);
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Brunner and Herbert (Rejection II); we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brunner and Graham (Rejection III); and we sustain the
6
Appeal 2015-002955
Application 13/502,803
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brunner and Niskanen. (Rejection IV).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—3 and 5—10.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7