Ex Parte Rosenfeld et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 25, 2012

10567597 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 25, 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.
10/567,597 02/03/2006 Albrecht Rosenfeld LE/se 030088US 8599
7590 01/25/2012
Robert W Becker & Associates
Suite B
707 Highway 66 East
Tijeras, NM 87059
EXAMINER
BOEHLER, ANNE MARIE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3611
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/25/2012 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 ALBRECHT ROSENFELD, DIETER LECHNER,
JOCHEN HORWATH and UWE MAUZ
________________

Appeal 2009-011559
Application 10/567,597
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER and
MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-011559
Application 10/567,597

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final
rejection of claims 14, 18-20 and 22-251. Claims 1-13, 15, 16 and 21 are
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter pertains to a steering mechanism having a
rack that extends in an axial direction and having a cylinder which extends
in a spaced, but parallel, axial direction, the rack is fixedly connected to the
cylinder in the axial direction. Sole independent claim 14 is illustrative of
the claims on appeal and is reproduced below:

14. A steering mechanism comprising:
a housing;
a rack, which defines an axial direction and meshes with
a pinion; and
a hydraulic servo-drive having a piston/cylinder unit
comprising a cylinder, a piston, and a piston rod that extends in
said axial direction, wherein said rack and said piston rod are
parallel to one another in said axial direction and are spaced
from one another in a direction transverse to said axial
direction, and wherein the rack is fixedly connected to the
cylinder in the axial direction.

1 “Claims 17 and 26 were canceled in the Request for Reconsideration
submitted by the Appellants to address [their] rejection; however, these
amendments were not entered by the Examiner” (App. Br. 7). Appellants
state that they “intend to cancel claims 17 and 26 after a decision regarding
substantive issues 1 and 2 [infra] is rendered by the Board of Appeals” (App.
Br. 7-8). Claims 17 and 26 are not argued in the briefs and accordingly, we
treat claims 17 and 26 as withdrawn from the appeal. See Ex Parte Ghuman,
88 USPQ2d 1478, 1480 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
Appeal 2009-011559
Application 10/567,597

3
References Relied on by the Examiner
Rosell US 4,629,026 Dec. 16, 1986
Ozeki US 6,039,334 Mar. 21, 2000

The Rejections on Appeal
1. Claims 14, 18-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Rosell (Ans. 3).
2. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Rosell and Ozeki (Ans. 3).

ISSUE
Does Rosell anticipate a steering mechanism having a rack that
extends in an axial direction and having a cylinder which also extends in the
same axial direction, the rack being fixedly connected to the cylinder in the
axial direction?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Rosell teaches a rack 30 and a cylinder body
50 oriented as claimed and where the rack “is fixed to the cylinder body in
the axial direction” (Ans. 3, see also 5). Appellants dispute that Rosell
discloses a rack that is fixed to the cylinder in the axial direction because
“the text and the drawings of Rosell are in obvious contradiction” (App. Br.
5, see also Reply Br. 2). Appellants contend there are two options to resolve
this contradiction (App. Br. 6). The first is to “look at the drawings” which
Appellants contend would result in “the conclusion that the rack 30 can
move in [the] axial direction of the cylinder body 50” (App. Br. 6). The
other option is to “look into the original Spanish application or another
Appeal 2009-011559
Application 10/567,597

4
parallel document to see whether that text is clear” (and which, according to
Appellants, “shows that the English translation is incorrect”) and further that
these “other texts say nothing of tilting” (as expressed in Rosell) other than
the rack being “mounted transversally floating onto” the cylinder (App. Br.
6). The Examiner notes that this “original Spanish application or another
parallel document” is not “made of record in the present application” and
instead, the Examiner “maintains that the disclosure of Rosell is clear and
consistent and does not require other supporting documentation” (Ans. 7).
We find no discrepancies between Rosell’s text and drawings and
agree with the Examiner that Rosell describes and shows a rack that is fixed
to a cylinder body in the axial direction.
Rosell states that the rack is “elastically mounted on the movable
cylinder” via intermediate elastic washers 34 and that the rack is “held at its
ends, on this movable cylinder, by arches firmly fixed to the movable
cylinder” (Rosell 1:46-53 and 2:57-63). Rosell teaches that this elastic
mounting arrangement permits the rack “to be able to slightly tilt around the
axis of the piston 20 or about an axis parallel to the piston rod 14” in order to
“avoid[] imperfections of the teeth of the rack” (Rosell 2:40-43, 3:14-26).
These express teachings by Rosell are consistent with the drawings and do
not support Appellants’ contention that “a tilting movement is inhibited” or
that the washers permit the rack to move axially (App. Br. 5, 6, Reply Br. 2,
3). In fact, the Examiner notes that Rosell teaches that the thinned end
fingers of rack 30 “are immobilized” (Ans. 6; Rosell 2:48-54). Rosell
further discusses “the floating transverse relationship between the rack body
30 and the cylinder body 50” and Rosell’s reference to floating transversely
Appeal 2009-011559
Application 10/567,597

5
on the elastic washers is not the same as permitting axial movement (Rosell
3:15-16; App. Br. 6 and Reply Br. 3).
Accordingly, we find no contradiction between Rosell’s text and
Rosell’s drawings as Appellants assert. As such, and based on the record
presented, we do not find Appellants’ contention persuasive that Rosell’s
drawings disclose axial movement between the rack and the cylinder body.
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14, 18-20 and 22-24.
Claim 25 depends directly from claim 14 and was rejected by the
Examiner based on the combination of Rosell and Ozeki (Ans. 3).
Appellants contend that this claim 25 “is patentable over Rosell for the same
reasons as set forth above with regard to claim 14” (App. Br. 7). No other
arguments are presented and, as we find no deficiency in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 14 based on Rosell for the reasons discussed supra, we
also sustain the rejection of claim 25 over Rosell and Ozeki.

CONCLUSION
Rosell anticipates a steering mechanism having a rack that extends in
an axial direction and having a cylinder which also extends in the same axial
direction, the rack being fixedly connected to the cylinder in the axial
direction.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 14, 18-20 and 22-25 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).

Appeal 2009-011559
Application 10/567,597

6
AFFIRMED

MP