Adrian Aeschlimann et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 24, 2019

13352782 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2019)

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.
13/352,782 01/18/2012 Adrian AESCHLIMANN P/1336-286 (V 21870) 4405
2352 7590 10/24/2019
OSTROLENK FABER LLP
845 THIRD AVENUE
8TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10022
EXAMINER
DION, MARCEL T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/24/2019 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@ostrolenk.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ADRIAN AESCHLIMANN, ANDREAS SENN, and
RETO ZWAHLEN
____________________

Appeal 2019-002434
Application 13/352,7821
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, the real party in interest is “FRITZ
STUDER AG.” Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002434
Application 13/352,782

2
Appellant’s “invention relates to a device comprising a displaceable
carriage and a linear guide.” Spec. 1, ll. 5–6. More specifically, the
device compris[es] a displaceable carriage with at least one
pocket, in which lubricant can be held under pressure, and an
island-shaped surface to produce a frictional force acting on the
carriage. This makes it possible to provide a hydrodynamic
slideway, for which the friction is adjustable through the
hydrostatic relief. The carriage is precisely movable and
positionable with this type of guide.
Id. at 2, ll. 1–9. Below, we reproduce independent claim 1 as representative
of the appealed claims.
1. A device comprising:
a carriage displaceable along an axis of travel, and
a linear guide for guiding said carriage, said linear guide
comprising a first guide path part to form a first slideway and a
second guide path part to form a second slideway, wherein
said carriage includes at least one elongated linear pocket
to form said first slideway, said at least one pocket being
configured to slide along said first guide path part and being
formed as a groove extending along the axis of travel from a first
end to a second end, the second end being spaced away from the
first end,
the groove including a first wall and a second wall
opposed to the first wall, with a continuous open space defined
between the first wall and the second wall and extending along
their entire length, each of the first and second ends being defined
by a third wall arranged transversally to the first and second
walls, the first and second walls ending at the third wall,
wherein said at least one pocket is configured to hold a
liquid lubricant under pressure in said at least one pocket to
create a relieving force acting on said carriage, and
wherein said second guide path part comprises an island-
shaped surface which creates a frictional force acting on said
carriage and is arranged in such a way that, when said liquid
Appeal 2019-002434
Application 13/352,782

3
lubricant is held in said at least one pocket to create said relieving
force, said first slideway relieves the load on said second
slideway,
wherein a space between said at least one pocket and said
first guide path part is unsealed, to enable a flow of liquid
lubricant through said space and out of said at least one pocket.

REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1–6 and 9–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Furukawa et al. (US 4,351,574, iss. Sept. 28, 1982)
(hereinafter “Furukawa”), Yuhta et al. (US 5,462,362, iss.
Oct. 31, 1995) (hereinafter “Yuhta”), and Sugita et al. (US
4,865,465, iss. Sept. 12, 1989) (hereinafter “Sugita”);
II. Claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Furukawa, Yuhta, Sugita, and Sugi (US 4,491,373, iss. Jan. 1,
1985); and
III. Claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Furukawa, Yuhta, Sugita, and Duchaine (US 4,368,930, iss.
Jan. 18, 1983).

ANALYSIS
Rejection I—Rejection of claims 1–6 and 9–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Independent claim 1 recites the following:
1. A device comprising:
a carriage displaceable along an axis of travel, and
a linear guide for guiding said carriage, said linear guide
comprising a first guide path part to form a first slideway and a
second guide path part to form a second slideway, wherein
Appeal 2019-002434
Application 13/352,782

4
said carriage includes at least one elongated linear pocket
to form said first slideway, said at least one pocket being
configured to slide along said first guide path part and being
formed as a groove extending along the axis of travel from a first
end to a second end, the second end being spaced away from the
first end,
the groove including a first wall and a second wall
opposed to the first wall, with a continuous open space defined
between the first wall and the second wall and extending along
their entire length, each of the first and second ends being defined
by a third wall arranged transversally to the first and second
walls, the first and second walls ending at the third wall,
wherein said at least one pocket is configured to hold a
liquid lubricant under pressure in said at least one pocket to
create a relieving force acting on said carriage, and
wherein said second guide path part comprises an island-
shaped surface which creates a frictional force acting on said
carriage and is arranged in such a way that, when said liquid
lubricant is held in said at least one pocket to create said
relieving force, said first slideway relieves the load on said
second slideway,
wherein a space between said at least one pocket and said
first guide path part is unsealed, to enable a flow of liquid
lubricant through said space and out of said at least one pocket.
Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphases added). Restated, the claimed device
includes a carriage and a linear guide, the carriage having a linear pocket or
groove cooperating with a portion of the linear guide to form a first slideway
between the carriage and linear guide, and the linear guide including an
island-shaped surface that creates a frictional force acting on the carriage,
and forms a second slideway between the carriage and linear guide.
In claim 1’s rejection, the Examiner relies, in part, on Furukawa. For
example, with reference to Furukawa’s Figure 2, the Examiner relies on
Furukawa’s machine part 13 and base 11 to disclose the claimed carriage
Appeal 2019-002434
Application 13/352,782

5
and linear guide, respectively. Final Action 2–3. The Examiner further
relies on Furukawa’s fluid flow port 15 to disclose the carriage’s linear
pocket or groove, as claimed. Id. Still further, the Examiner relies on a
portion of Furukawa’s base 11 which is below machine part 13’s fluid
escape opening 23 to disclose the claimed second slideway. Id.
According to the Examiner, “Furukawa does not teach that the second
guide path part comprises an island-shaped surface. Yuhta teaches
[cylindrical projected portions 2, on which the Examiner relies to disclose] a
slideway with island-shaped surfaces[, as claimed].” Id. at 4 (citations to
Yuhta omitted). The Examiner determines that “[i]t would have been
obvious . . . to form the second guide path part of Furukawa with
island[-]shaped surfaces as taught by Yuhta in order to maintain a
lubricating property as taught by Yuhta ([as disclosed in Yuhta’s] paragraph
starting [at] col[umn] 2, line 60).” Id.
Consistent with Appellant’s argument (Appeal Br. 11–13; Reply
Br. 8–9), while claim 1 recites a device including a carriage and a linear
guide (Appeal Br., Claims App.), and Furukawa similarly is directed to “[a]
load-compensated type guide mechanism, adapted for a machine
incorporating a movable machine part and a stationary base having a guide
surface on which the movable machine part slides” (Furukawa, Abstract),
Yuhta discloses “an artificial hip joint structure” having “recessed portions
[that] play the role of a supplier of the lubricant, and a load is received by
the projected portions, so that the lubricating property of the slide surface
thereof can be maintained for a long period of time” (Yuhta, col. 2, l. 51;
col. 2, l. 67–col. 3, l. 3). Contrary to the Examiner’s statement, there is no
indication that because Yuhta’s artificial hip joint desires to “maintain a
Appeal 2019-002434
Application 13/352,782

6
lubricating property,” in Furukawa there is any reason to use Yuhta’s
cylindrical projected portions 2 to “maintain a lubricating property” between
Furukawa’s machine part 13 and the portion of Furukawa’s base 11 which is
below machine part 13’s fluid escape opening 23.2
In Furukawa, fluid is provided from fluid source 51 into fluid
opening 21 that is adjacent fluid escape opening 23, to provide fluid between
base 11 and machine part 13. Furukawa Fig. 2; col. 4, ll. 18–46. The
purpose of providing fluid in this area is not to “maintain a lubricating
property” between Furukawa’s base 11 and machine part 13, but rather
“fluid flow opening 19 and . . . fluid supply passage 21 are provided for
detecting a small perpendicular displacement of . . . movable machine
part 13 from the guide surface of . . . base 11 through detection of a change
in the back pressure of the pressurized fluid” between base 11 and machine
part 13, while “fluid escape opening 23 is arranged so as to surround . . .
opening 19. Therefore, the pressurized fluid streaming from . . . opening 19
escapes through . . . fluid escape opening 23 and . . . passage 25 into the
atmosphere.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 30–35, 39–43 (bold omitted). Based on the
way that these components of Furukawa are used, it is unclear why one
would have used Yuhta’s cylindrical projected portions 2 or any other
structure whose purpose is “to maintain a lubricating property” between
Furukawa’s machine part 13 and the portion of Furukawa’s base 11 which is
below machine part 13’s fluid escape opening 23.

2 We note that Appellant’s independent claim 1 expressly recites that the
reason for using the island-shaped surface is to “create[] a frictional force
acting on said carriage,” and not to “maintain a lubricating property.”
Appeal Br., Claims App.
Appeal 2019-002434
Application 13/352,782

7
Thus, the Examiner does not support adequately that it would have
been obvious to use Yuhta’s cylindrical projected portions 2 between
Furukawa’s machine part 13 and the portion of Furukawa’s base 11 which is
below machine part 13’s fluid escape opening 23. Therefore, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. We
also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claim 18, which the Examiner rejects with, and which includes a recitation
similar to that discussed above with respect to, claim 1. Further, we do not
sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 2–6, 9–17, 19, and 20 that
depend from claims 1 and 18.

Rejections II and III— Rejection of claims 7, 8, and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103
Claims 7, 8, and 22 depend from independent claims 1 and 20, the
rejection of which we do not sustain. In these dependent claims’ rejections,
the Examiner does not rely on Sugi or Duchaine to disclose anything that
would remedy the above-discussed deficiency in the independent claims’
rejection. Thus, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of these dependent claims.

CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–20
and 22.

Appeal 2019-002434
Application 13/352,782

8
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 9–20 103(a) Furukawa,
Yuhta,
Sugita
1–6, 9–20
7, 8 103(a) Furukawa,
Yuhta,
Sugita,
Sugi
7, 8
22 103(a) Furukawa,
Yuhta,
Sugita,
Duchaine
22
Overall Outcome 1–20, 22

REVERSED