Ex Parte Overzier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 3, 2016

13048923 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/048,923 03/16/2011
24972 7590 08/05/2016
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
666 FIFTH A VE
NEW YORK, NY 10103-3198
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Frank Overzier
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.
1019116772 9716
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, XUAN LANT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/05/2016 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
U-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANK OVERZIER, JOCHEN MA YER,
WILLI NAGEL, and BERND GOETZELMANN
Appeal2014-008416
Application 13/048,923 1
Technology Center 3600
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal arises under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a rejection of
claims 1-8 and 17-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Robert Bosch GmbH as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-008416
Application 13/048,923
BACKGROUND
The claims are directed to a brake booster coupling device. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A brake booster coupling device, comprising:
a braking piston, which is at least partially displaceable in a
brake master cylinder;
an input piston, which is situatable on a brake input element
so that the input piston is displaceable in the event of an
operation of the brake input element from its starting
position by a driver braking distance in a direction
toward at least one of the braking piston and the brake
master cylinder, wherein a force transmission between
the input piston, which is displaced by a driver braking
distance below a predefined threshold value, and the
braking piston is prevented;
a booster piston, which is situatable on a brake booster drive
so that the booster piston is displaceable with the aid of
the brake booster drive, at least in the case of a driver
braking distance of the input piston below the predefined
threshold value, so that the braking piston, which
contacts the booster piston, is displaceable with the aid of
the brake booster drive from a non-braking position into
at least one braking position; and
a contact element, which is situated on the braking piston,
and which is at least one of displaced and deformed in
the event of a displacement of the braking piston from
the nonbraking position into the at least one braking
position so that a first contact surface of the contact
element is transferred in relation to the braking piston in
a direction toward a second contact surface of the input
piston, the second contact surface of the input piston,
which is displaced by a driver braking distance greater
than the threshold value, contacts the first contact surface
of the contact element so that a driver brake force is
transmitted from the input piston, which is displaced by
2
Appeal2014-008416
Application 13/048,923
the driver braking distance greater than the threshold
value, via the contact element to the braking piston,
which is present in a position range including the non-
braking position and the at least one braking position.
REJECTIONS
Appellants seek our review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-5 and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Bacardit (US 2004/0069582 Al, pub. Apr. 15,
2004). Final Act. 2--4.
2. Claims 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bacardit and Leiber (US 4,482,192, pub. Nov.
13, 1984). Final Act. 4-5.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Bacardit teaches the claimed invention,
identifying the claimed input piston as element 21 in Bacardit, which
Bacardit refers to as a plunger. Final Act. 2; Bacardit ii 44. The Examiner
further finds that Bacardit teaches the claimed contact element, identifying
element 48, which Bacardit refers to as the second rear end of the main
piston. Final Act. 3; Bacardit ii 40.
According to the Examiner, the claim language regarding the contact
element reads on the identified elements because Bacardit depicts that the
"contact element 48 moves in relation to the braking piston 52 towards the
input piston 21 in figure 2 when compared to figure 3" and teaches that
pressure in the master cylinder causes that motion, similar to one of
Appellants' embodiments. Ans. 3.
3
Appeal2014-008416
Application 13/048,923
Appellants take issue with the rejection, noting that Bacardit lacks
discussion "regarding any operational relationship between elements 21 and
52" in particular regarding "displacement of element 21 by a driver braking
distance below a predefined threshold value." Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis
omitted). Appellants contrast that missing teaching with Bacardit' s teaching
that the gap between elements closes "when the input force exerted on the
rod 14 exceeds a give[n] force threshold." Id. (quoting Bacardit ii 44). We
agree with Appellants' distinction. Bacardit teaches that the input force
applied by the driver changes the behavior of the system, not that
displacement of that input does so. That understanding is consistent with
Bacardit' s statement that:
The invention therefore makes it possible to provide a
servo brake for which the reaction of the brake circuit is not
transmitted to the actuation rod 14 when a braking force is
applied at a rate above or equal to a given rate threshold
corresponding to an emergency braking situation, something
that makes it possible to avoid the drier of the vehicle
inadvisable relaxing his braking effort and thus makes it
possible to ensure maximum braking force under all
circumstances.
Bacardit ii 71; accord id. ii 1. Although Bacardit employs some structures
that appear to move similarly to the elements in Appellants' claimed
invention, the fundamental principle of operation and the details of what
conditions drive those structures in Bacardit depart from Appellants'
invention.
We note that the Examiner's approach may have resulted from the
view that many claim limitations recite "broad and optional language such as
'so that', 'transferred in relation"' (Ans. 2-3), "'situatable', ...
'displaceable', [and] 'in the case"' (id. at 4). By reading a number of claim
4
Appeal2014-008416
Application 13/048,923
limitations as optional, the Examiner appears to have discounted those
limitations that require particular interactions between the claimed elements.
We do not read the claims so broadly.
In sum, the Examiner has not shown that a preponderance of the
evidence supports the rejections. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674
(Fed. Cir. 1985). "Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art
disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim."
Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
That standard has not been shown by the Examiner's rejection here and we
therefore do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-5 and 17-20 as anticipated
by Bacardit. Regarding claims 6-8, the Examiner relies on the same
unsupported findings of Bacardit. The Examiner does not look to Leiber to
remedy the deficiencies of Bacardit. We likewise do not sustain the
rejection of claims 6-8 as unpatentable over Bacardit and Leiber.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8 and 17-
20 is reversed.
REVERSED
5