Robert Bosch GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 15, 2020

2020001807 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2020)

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.
15/610,260 05/31/2017 Thomas Weitze 2178-1762 1044
10800 7590 10/15/2020
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
GARDNER, NICOLE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/15/2020 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte THOMAS WEITZE

Appeal 2020-001807
Application 15/610,260
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–17, which are the sole claims
pending in this application.1 See Appeal Br. 18–22, Claims Appendix. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Robert
Bosch GmbH.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001807
Application 15/610,260

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter relates to “a check valve for a solenoid
valve.” Spec. 1.2 Apparatus claims 1 and 7 are independent. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A check valve for a solenoid valve, comprising:
a check valve seat arranged on an edge of a fluid passage;
and
a movable closing element configured to execute a
direction-oriented throughflow and sealing function,
wherein the closing element has a sealing cone, a contact
foot, and an elastic sealing ring arranged between the contact
foot and the sealing cone, the contact foot having a circular base
surface and a plurality of outflow grooves formed on a
periphery that extends from the circular base surface, and
wherein the outflow grooves are configured in each case
with an arcuate seating edge for the elastic sealing ring during
sealing, the arcuate seating edges having a predetermined arc
length so that a circle segment of the elastic sealing ring butts
against the respective arcuate seating edge during sealing, the
circle segments having an opening angle in the region of 40° to
120°.
EVIDENCE
Name Reference Date
Gruschwitz et al.
(“Gruschwitz”)
US 6,382,250 B1 May 7, 2002
Guy et al. (“Guy”) FR 2665503 Dec. 11, 1992
Bruno FR 2699640 Mar. 10, 1995

2 Appellant’s Specification lacks line or paragraph numbering. We thus
reference Appellant’s Specification via page number only.
Appeal 2020-001807
Application 15/610,260

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3–6, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
as anticipated by Bruno.3
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bruno.
Claims 7–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Gruschwitz and Bruno.
Claims 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bruno and Guy.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1, 3–6, 12, 14, and 15
as anticipated by Bruno
Appellant argues the above claims (i.e., claims 1, 3–6, 12, 14, and 15)
together. See Appeal Br. 6–12. We select claim 1 for review, with the
remaining claims standing or falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claim 1 recites a “sealing ring” and “a plurality of outflow grooves.”
Claim 1 further recites “wherein the outflow grooves are configured in each
case with an arcuate seating edge” and that a “segment of the elastic sealing
ring butts against the respective arcuate seating edge during sealing.”
Appellant contends that “Bruno does not disclose that any portion of
[Bruno’s] elastic ring abuts against the edges of [Bruno’s] cutouts 26.”
Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 5 (there is no “support for the Examiner’s
assertion that the seal is compressed against the arcuate edge of the

3 We refer to the provided English machine translation of this document, as
does the Examiner. See Final Act. 3. This translation lacks line or
paragraph numbering, so we refer to this document via page number only.
Appeal 2020-001807
Application 15/610,260

4
longitudinal ducts” 26). The Examiner disagrees, finding that in Bruno, “the
outflow grooves are configured in each case with an arcuate seating edge”
and that “the sealing ring compresses against the arcuate seating edge to
prevent flow.” Final Act. 3.
Both Appellant and the Examiner replicate and annotate Figures 2b
and 2c of Bruno, and each also re-sizes these figures while providing
additional lines extending between the figures to show alignment of certain
features (the original Bruno drawings have no such inter-linking lines or any
indication as to their relative scale). See Appeal Br. 9; Ans. 14. Both
Appellant and the Examiner also allege that the other “improperly aligned”
or “mischaracterized” Bruno’s figures. Reply Br. 2; Ans. 14.
Regardless of whose annotated drawings are reviewed, Figure 2b of
Bruno depicts three evenly-spaced arcuate passages or ducts 26 cut into
base 27. See also Bruno pg. 12 (“successively at 120 degrees of offset . . . a
longitudinal passage 26 [is cut] in the thickness of the solid portion 27”);
Reply Br. 4 (“the three longitudinal ducts (26) are evenly spaced around the
center of the piston”). Figure 2c of Bruno depicts base 27 with arcuate
cutouts on one side of seal 62 with Bruno stating, “the seal 62 . . . is
compressed against the valve seat 65” located on the other side of seal 62.
Bruno pg. 11. It is readily apparent to a skilled person that movement of
scalloped or cutout base 27 is employed “to control the compression of the
seal” 62 against conical valve seat 65.4 Bruno pg. 13; see also Bruno
Fig. 2c.

4 What a reference teaches or suggests must be examined in the context of
the knowledge, skill, and reasoning ability of a skilled artisan. Further, what
a reference teaches a person of ordinary skill is not “limited to what a
Appeal 2020-001807
Application 15/610,260

5
Appellant contends that “Bruno does not disclose that any portion of
the elastic ring abuts against the edges of the cutouts 26.” Appeal Br. 8; see
also Reply Br. 3. However, such contention is at odds with Bruno’s clear
teaching in Figure 2c of arcuate cutouts 26 in base 27 immediately adjacent
to and engaging seal 62. See also Ans. 15. Appellant does not explain how
seal 62 is to be compressed against seat 65 as enumerated above but for
base 27 (including the edges of its arcuate cutouts) conveying the
compressive force to seal 62.
Appellant further alleges that any contact between seal 62 and base 27
“will be a linear contact.” Appeal Br. 8. However, this assertion disregards
the arcuate shape of the edges of cutouts 26 in base 27, which also compress
against seal 62. Appellant additionally contends that “Bruno does not show
or describe any portion of the sealing ring as laterally overhanging the edges
of the cutouts 26 during sealing.” Appeal Br. 9. This is true because Bruno
does not depict the device when in the sealed position. However, Bruno’s
figures clearly depict seal 62 extending radially outwardly beyond the edges
of cutouts 26. See Ans. 15 (“the sealing ring will overhang the outflow
grooves 26 when seen in the view of Figure 2b”). Additionally, a skilled
person would further understand that seal 62 is compressed via the
movement of base 27 (along with its cutout edges) towards seat 65, with seal
62 sandwiched therebetween. See Bruno Fig. 2c and pg. 13.

reference specifically ‘talks about’ or what is specifically ‘mentioned’ or
‘written’ in the reference.” Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d
1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005). An artisan must be presumed to know
something about the art apart from what the references disclose. See In re
Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962).
Appeal 2020-001807
Application 15/610,260

6
Appellant also reiterates the assertion that Bruno fails to disclose “that
any portion of the sealing ring [62] would butt against the edges of the
cutouts 26.” Appeal Br. 9. However, as cutouts 26 are made in base 27, and
as base 27 abuts and compresses seal 62, Appellant does not explain how
seal 62 could possibly avoid abutting base 27 and its associated cutout
edges. See also Bruno Fig. 2c; Ans. 15.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in finding that Bruno discloses these limitations of claim
1.
Claim 1 further recites that the segments of the sealing ring that abut
the arcuate edges during sealing “hav[e] an opening angle in the region of
40º to 120º.” The Examiner relies on page 12 of Bruno for such teachings.
See Final Act. 3; see also Bruno Fig. 2b. As noted above, these arcuate
edges of cutouts 26 that abut the sealing ring were cut into base 27 “at 120
degrees of offset.” Bruno pg. 12; See also Bruno Fig. 2b. Appellant
contends that “[t]he angular offset between ducts, however, is not relevant to
the angular segments of the sealing ring that abut the outflow grooves.”
Appeal Br. 10. However, Appellant is mistaken that the location of cutouts
26 is irrelevant to the recited sealing ring segments. This is because the
edges of the cutouts and the recited sealing ring segments are identified in
terms of each other, i.e., claim 1 recites that “the elastic sealing ring butts
against the respective arcuate seating edge.” Hence, the one defines the
other. Here, due to Bruno’s cutout spacing of 120 degrees, the opening
angle of each of Bruno’s equally spaced sealing ring segments can have no
greater extent between them than an arc of 120 degrees (but the arc of each
cutout can be less). See Bruno Fig. 2b. As a consequence, Appellant does
Appeal 2020-001807
Application 15/610,260

7
not explain how Bruno fails to teach the limitation of the sealing ring’s
“circle segments having an opening angle in the region of 40º to 120º.” See
Reply Br. 4.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, Appellant is not
persuasive that Bruno fails to anticipate claim 1. We sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3–6, 12, 14, and 15.
The rejection of claim 2
as unpatentable over Bruno
Appellant’s contention regarding claim 2 is that this claim “depends
from claim 1, and thus incorporates all of the limitations of claim 1.”
Appeal Br. 12. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2
is faulty “as set forth above” regarding claim 1. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant’s
contention is not persuasive. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 2.
The rejection of claims 7–10
as unpatentable over Gruschwitz and Bruno
Appellant only presents arguments regarding independent claim 7.
See Appeal Br. 12–16 (“claims 8–10 are patentable over Gruschwitz and
Bruno for at least the same reasons as claim 7 as set forth above”). We
select claim 7 for review.
Appellant contends that “like claim 1, claim 7 requires” certain
limitations and acknowledges the Examiner’s reliance on Bruno for
depicting such limitations. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant thereafter contends
that “[f]or the same reasons as those discussed above with regard to the
rejection of claim 1, . . . the Examiner has mischaracterized the Bruno
reference” and thus, claim 7 is equally allowable. Appeal Br. 13.
Appeal 2020-001807
Application 15/610,260

8
Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error, and
especially under the present rejection based on obviousness in contrast to the
earlier rejection of claim 1 based on anticipation. See Appeal Br. 14–15.
For example, the Examiner’s reasoning for combining Gruschwitz and
Bruno is because the combination “would allow for a large flow by
increasing the flow area.” Final Act. 8. Appellant contends that the
combination “is not needed and not relevant . . . because the advantage
cannot actually be realized” in Gruschwitz’s valve. Appeal Br. 15.
However, Appellant does not dispute Bruno’s clear teaching of reducing the
size of base 27 via the creation of cutouts 26 therein. See above. As such,
Appellant does not explain how this reduction in size of an impediment to
fluid flow within Gruschwitz’s reservoir 34 would fail to increase the flow
area now available. To be clear, the Examiner is addressing Gruschwitz’s
fluid flow both “through and around [Gruschwitz’s] valve 30 by use of the
grooves taught by Bruno.” Ans. 16; see also id. at 15. In contrast,
Appellant only addresses flow that moves “axially past the contact foot”
(i.e., “through” the valve) and not also flow “around” the valve within
Gruschwitz’s reservoir 34, as addressed by the Examiner.5 Appeal Br. 15;
see also Gruschwitz Fig. 1.
The Examiner states that “[b]y providing grooves in [Gruschwitz’s]
foot portion 40, as taught by Bruno, the fluid flowing through
[Gruschwitz’s] valve 30 does not impact the foot 40, and is instead able to

5 Appellant acknowledges that in Gruschwitz, “fluid can disperse radially”
around the valve, but Appellant does not address the Examiner’s reduction
in the size of Gruschwitz’s foot portion 40, via the implementation of
Bruno’s cutouts, to “allow for a large flow by increasing the flow area.”
Reply Br. 6; Final Act. 8.
Appeal 2020-001807
Application 15/610,260

9
flow more freely through and around the valve 30 by use of the grooves
taught by Bruno.” Ans. 15–16. Appellant does not address such flow
“through and around” (see Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 6), and as such,
Appellant is not persuasive of Examiner error on this point.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 7–10 as unpatentable over Gruschwitz and
Bruno.
The rejection of claims 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17
as unpatentable over Bruno and Guy
Appellant argues these claims as a group contending that they
“depend directly or indirectly from claim 1” and that “Guy does not alleviate
any of the deficiencies in Bruno discussed above with regard to the rejection
of claim 1.” Appeal Br. 16. As indicated above, we are not persuaded that
Bruno has any deficiencies that would need curing. Accordingly, as we are
not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17
as unpatentable over Bruno and Guy. We sustain their rejection.
CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claim
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–6, 12,
14, 15
102(a)(1) Bruno 1, 3–6,
12, 14, 15

2 103 Bruno 2
7–10 103 Gruschwitz, Bruno 7–10
11, 13, 14,
16, 17
103 Bruno, Guy 11, 13,
14, 16, 17

Overall
Outcome
1–17
Appeal 2020-001807
Application 15/610,260

10
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