Ex Parte 7306235 et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 23, 2011

95000429 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 23, 2011)

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.
95/000,429 01/23/2009 7306235 RBI-2L 1724
59582 7590 03/24/2011
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
38525 WOODWARD AVENUE
SUITE 2000
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304-2970
EXAMINER
FETSUGA, ROBERT M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3993
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2011 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
____________

DORMAN PRODUCTS, INC. LLC
Requestor, Appellant

v.

Patent of FEDERAL-MOGUL CORP. and
FEDERAL-MOGUL WORLDWIDE, INC.
Patent Owner, Respondent
____________

Appeal 2010-010433
Reexamination Control 95/000,429
Patent 7,306,235
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before, JAMESON LEE, SALLY C. MEDLEY and
DANIEL SONG, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The one-month time period for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in
37 C.F.R. § 41.79, and the two-month time period for filing an appeal, as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304 (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.983(b)(1)), both begin to run
from the “MAIL DATE” shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to
this decision.
Appeal 2010-010433
Reexamination Control 95/000,429
Patent 7,306,235
2
Appellant, Third-Party Requester Dorman Products, Inc. (“Dorman”)
appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(c) and 315(b) from the Examiner’s decision
confirming the patentability of claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent 7,306,235 and
refusal to adopt Dorman’s proposed rejections. Right of Appeal Notice 4-6.
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arose from a Request for Inter Partes Reexamination
(“Req. Reexam.”) of U.S. Patent 7,306,235 (“235 Patent”) filed by Dorman
on January 23, 2009. Federal-Mogul Worldwide, Inc. and Federal-Mogul
Corp. (“Federal-Mogul”) are the owners of the ‘235 Patent. The ‘235 Patent
is the subject of the judicial proceeding styled Federal-Mogul Worldwide,
Inc. et al. v. Dorman Products, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, (Civil Action No. 08-14302). App.
Br. 3. The judicial proceeding has been stayed pending the resolution of this
reexamination proceeding and the reexamination proceeding of U.S. Patent
7,302,925. App. Br. 3.
The ‘235 Patent issued with two claims. No claims have been added
or amended. The ‘235 Patent is related to a gasket used for sealing a joint
between an intake manifold and a cylinder head of an internal combustion
engine. Col. 2, ll. 27-29. The ‘235 Patent discloses, referring to figure 2
reproduced below [numbers from figure 2 inserted], a gasket including a
carrier frame [12] with elastomeric material [22] molded about openings
[14] in the carrier frame [12]. A compression limiting device [24] is formed
separately from and molded to the carrier frame [12] and includes a
compression limiting surface [26] and a locator pin [30] extending
Appeal 2010-010433
Reexamination Control 95/000,429
Patent 7,306,235
3
outwardly from the compression limiting surface [26]. Col. 1, ll. 39-41; col.
2, l. 19-col. 3, l. 11.
Figure 2 of the ‘235 Patent is below:

Figure 2 depicts a portion of the gasket assembly.
Claim 1 is representative:
1. An air intake manifold gasket assembly for an internal
combustion engine, comprising:
a carrier frame have a plurality of air intake openings
corresponding to associated air ports of an intake manifold and
a cylinder block;
an elastomeric sealing material molded to said carrier
frame about said air intake openings in said carrier frame, said
elastomeric sealing material forming inner peripheral openings
about said air intake ports and having outwardly extending
elastically compressible sealing beads to form an air tight seal
about said air ports between the intake manifold and the
cylinder block; and
at least one compression limiting device formed
separately from said carrier frame, said at least one compression
limiting device being molded to said carrier frame between at
least one of said inner peripheral openings and said carrier
frame, wherein said compression limiting device has opposite
compression limiting surfaces for engaging the intake manifold
and the cylinder block and further comprising a locator pin
extending outwardly from one of said compression limiting
surfaces.
Appeal 2010-010433
Reexamination Control 95/000,429
Patent 7,306,235
4
Dorman relies on the following evidence:
Ang et al. (“Ang”) 5,513,603 May 07, 1996
Combet et al. (“Combet”) 6,371,489 Apr. 16, 2002
Hinson 6,609,717 Aug. 26, 2003
General Motors Manifold Gasket (“GM Gasket”)
The following rejections were proposed by Dorman and indicated as
issues to be reviewed on appeal:
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by the GM Gasket;
claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hinson;
claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the GM
Gasket and Hinson;
claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the GM
Gasket and Ang;
claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Combet and
Hinson.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner incorrectly refuse to adopt Dorman’s proposed
rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by the GM Gasket?
2. Did the Examiner incorrectly refuse to adopt Dorman’s proposed
rejection of the claims as obvious over Hinson by determining that it
would not have been obvious to modify Hinson by positioning the
locator pins (i.e., grommets) on the compression limiters?
3. Did the Examiner incorrectly refuse to adopt Dorman’s proposed
rejections of the claims as obvious over the GM Gasket and Hinson
and as obvious over the GM Gasket and Ang?
Appeal 2010-010433
Reexamination Control 95/000,429
Patent 7,306,235
5
4. Is the Examiner’s refusal to adopt Dorman’s proposed rejection of the
claims as obvious over Combet and Hinson based on a determination
that Combet in light of Hinson does not raise a substantial new
question of patentability final and non-appealable?
FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
GM Gasket
1. The GM Gasket is purported to be illustrated in Haynes Repair
Manual No. 38010 (“HRM 38010”) and Haynes Repair Manual No.
38026 (“HRM 38026”). Kimpel Decl.2 ¶ 10; Req. Reexam. Ex’s. M,
N, R; App. Br. Ex’s 4, 11-12.
2. Figure 9.4 from Haynes Repair Manual 38010 (Ex. M, Ex. 11) is
reproduced below:

2 Kimpel’s declaration, executed 22 January 2009, is labeled as Ex. R in the
Request for Reexamination and Ex. 4 in the Appeal Brief.
Appeal 2010-010433
Reexamination Control 95/000,429
Patent 7,306,235
6
3. According to Kimpel, Figure 9.4 shows a GM 3100 Series V6 Engine
fitted with the GM Gasket. Kimpel Decl. ¶ 11.
Hinson
4. Hinson describes, referring to figure 1 below [numbers from figure 1
inserted], a gasket [10] including a plastic carrier body [12] having a
top surface [14] adapted to interface with an engine intake manifold
and a bottom surface [16] adapted to interface with an engine cylinder
head deck. Col. 2, ll. 49-60.
Hinson’s figure 1 is below:

Figure 1 depicts a gasket assembly.
5. The gasket includes flexible alignment grommets [50], a plurality of
air intake apertures [20], [22], a plurality of bolt apertures [26] located
adjacent the air intake apertures [20], [22], and a plurality of
compression limiters [40], [42] surrounding the bolt apertures [26]
and located symmetrically between the air intake apertures [20], [22].
Col. 2, ll. 5-9; col. 2, l. 61-col. 3, l. 27.
6. The compression limiters [40], [42] ensure that the plastic carrier
body [12] does not become over compressed upon securing the gasket
Appeal 2010-010433
Reexamination Control 95/000,429
Patent 7,306,235
7
between the intake manifold and the cylinder head deck via bolts
passing through the bolt apertures [26]. Col. 3, ll. 10-15.
7. The plastic carrier body [12] is injection molded with thermoplastic
material and incorporates the flexible alignment grommets [50]. Col.
3, ll. 28-31, 53-60; col. 4, ll. 25-28.
8. The compression limiters [40] [42] are made of powdered metal and
embedded in the plastic carrier body [12] during molding of the
plastic carrier body [12]. Col. 2, ll. 5-7; col. 3, ll. 20-28, 51-60.
Ang
9. Ang describes, referring to figures 1 and 4 below [numbers from
figures 1 and 4 inserted], a valve cover [10], including a flange [30]
with a plurality of bosses [36] and seal [42] adapted to mate with and
seal a flat peripheral surface of an engine cylinder head [12]. Col. 3,
ll. 27-35, 42-54.
Ang’s figures 1 and 4 are below:

Figures 1 and 4 depict a valve cover sealing assembly.
Appeal 2010-010433
Reexamination Control 95/000,429
Patent 7,306,235
8
10. The plurality of bosses [36] are each formed with a bushing [45]
located in a circular hole [46] which includes counterbores [48], [50]
at the upper and lower peripheral surfaces [49], [32] of the flange [30]
which are filled with fast curing silicone material and interconnected
by a cylindrical section [52] extending therebetween. Col. 4, ll. 4-25.
11. A steel compression limiter [54] is inserted in the bushing [45]. Col.
4, ll. 29-44.
ANALYSIS
The GM Gasket as prior art
Dorman cites the GM Gasket as prior art in its Request for
Reexamination and relies on the GM Gasket as the basis for several of its
proposed rejections now on appeal. Req. Reexam. 13; App. Br. 5. Dorman
relies on several different documents, photographs, etc., as constituting the
“GM Gasket.” Specifically, Dorman relies on: (1) Haynes Repair Manual
No. 38010 (“HRM 38010”) referred to as “Ex. M”3; (2) Haynes Repair
Manual No. 38026 (“HRM 38026”) referred to as “Ex. N”4; and (3)
photographs of a GM Gasket alleged to have been (i) publicly available 1
year prior to the earliest effective filing date of the ‘235 Patent, and (ii)
known or used by others in the US prior to the date of invention of the ‘235
Patent, referred to as “Ex. L (1-5)”5. Req. Reexam. 13-14. Of these, only a
photograph from Exhibit L (Ex. L-5)6 is relied on for showing how the GM
gasket anticipates or renders obvious the ‘235 Patent claims. Req. Reexam.

3 Also Appeal Brief Exhibit 11.
4 Also Appeal Brief Exhibit 12.
5 Also Appeal Brief Exhibit 10.
6 Also Appeal Brief Exhibit 10(e).
Appeal 2010-010433
Reexamination Control 95/000,429
Patent 7,306,235
9
16-18; App. Br. 11-12. This photograph, however, is not from a patent or
printed publication, but is a photograph of a product that Dorman alleges
was publicly available7 more than 1 year prior to the earliest effective filing
date of the ‘235 patent. Req. Reexam. 14.
By statute, inter partes reexamination is restricted to prior art
consisting of patents or printed publications. 35 U.S.C. §§ 301 and 311.
Dorman relies on the photographs of a commercially available GM Gasket
as prior art which do not meet the statutory requirement. It is the
photograph, particularly Exhibit L-5 (Ex. 10(e) in the Appeal Brief), and not
the descriptions found in the printed publications, e.g., HRM 30810 or HRM
30826, that Dorman relies on to show the elements of the GM Gasket. Req.
Reexam. 16-18; e.g., App. Br. 11-12.
We have considered the statement made by Declarant Christopher
Kimpel that the gasket illustrated in Figure 9.4 of HRM 30810 (Ex. M) “is
the gasket shown in Ex. L (1-5).” Kimpel Decl. ¶ 12. We do not give
Kimpel’s testimony substantial weight, because he does not explain what he
means when he testified that the gasket illustrated in Figure 9.4 of HRM
38010 is the gasket shown in Exhibit L (1-5). There is no photograph of a
gasket (e.g., Ex. L; Ex. 10) that is the same as that shown in Figure 9.4 of the
printed publication, and Kimpel does not explain his statement in any
meaningful way.

7 Dorman alleges that the photograph is of a gasket that Dorman purchased
on October 16, 2008 and that the gasket has an original equipment date of
August 22, 2002. Req. Reexam. 14. We understand Dorman’s remarks to
mean that a gasket such as the one shown in Exhibit L qualifies as § 102(b)
prior art on the basis that the gasket was in public use or on sale in the U.S.
Appeal 2010-010433
Reexamination Control 95/000,429
Patent 7,306,235
10
Dorman appears to rely on what is shown in the photographs of the
GM Gasket to supplement that which is lacking in the printed publications,
i.e., HRM 30810 and HRM 30826. However, the photographs of the
publicly available GM Gasket cannot be utilized to expand the scope of the
disclosure of the printed publications despite Kimpel’s testimony that both
the repair manuals and the photographs describe the same thing. Although
the Manual of Patent Examining Practice (“MPEP”) is not binding authority,
it provides appropriate guidance in this regard:
Affidavits or declarations [] which explain the contents or
pertinent dates of prior art patents or printed publications in
more detail may be considered in reexamination, but any
rejection must be based upon the prior art patents or printed
publications as explained by the affidavits or declarations [].
The rejection in such circumstances cannot be based on the
affidavits or declarations [], but must be based on the prior art
patents or printed publications.
MPEP § 2258(I)(e).
In this case, Kimpel’s declaration does not sufficiently explain the
content of the printed publications, i.e., HRM 30810 and HRM 30826, as
they may relate to the claimed features, other than to assert that they
generally describe a gasket. In fact, according to Kimpel’s declaration
Figure 13.6b of HRM 38026 (Ex. N) does not show a gasket with the
claimed features, but shows a portion of a GM engine that would receive a
manifold gasket like the one shown in Exhibit L, e.g., the photograph of the
publicly available part. Kimpel Decl. ¶¶ 14-15. Based on the record before
us, it is manifest that Dorman is not relying on the Kimpel Declaration for
the purpose of explaining how the printed publications, i.e., the repair
manuals, describe the claimed invention, but rather is relying on the Kimpel
Appeal 2010-010433
Reexamination Control 95/000,429
Patent 7,306,235
11
Declaration and the commercially available GM Gasket as the basis for the
proposed rejections. As explained, the statutes regarding inter partes
reexaminations do not permit the reliance on publicly available products,
i.e., in public use or on sale, or known or used by others.
Accordingly, we will only consider the “GM Gasket” as that prior art
which is described in the printed publications, i.e., HRM 30810 and HRM
30826. We will also consider the Kimpel Declaration to the extent that the
contents of the printed publications are explained by Kimpel. Based on the
facts before us, we do not consider any photographs or explanation of the
publicly available GM Gasket to which Dorman directs attention to, as prior
art.
Proposed rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by the GM Gasket
Independent claim 1 recites: “at least one compression limiting device
formed separately from said carrier frame, said at least one compression
limiting device being molded to said carrier frame . . . comprising a locator
pin extending outwardly from one of said compression limiting surfaces.”
On the basis of the photographs in Exhibit L, the Examiner agrees with
Dorman that the GM Gasket includes a compression limiting device that is
continuously molded with the carrier frame, but disagrees with Dorman that
the photograph shows other claimed features. Action Closing Prosecution
(“ACP”) 3; App. Br. 12-13, Ans. 8, 14; Rebuttal Br. (“Reb. Br.”) 12. As
stated above, we do not consider the photographs or explanation of the
photographs (e.g., the publicly available GM Gasket) to which Dorman
directs attention to, as prior art. Thus, we turn our attention to the printed
publications (the manuals).
Appeal 2010-010433
Reexamination Control 95/000,429
Patent 7,306,235
12
According to Kimpel, Figure 9.4 of HRM 38010 shows a GM Series
V6 engine fitted with a GM Gasket. FFs 1-3. Neither Dorman nor Kimpel
sufficiently explain how Figure 9.4 shows all of the claimed features. The
photocopies of the pertinent pages of HRM 38010 and HRM 38026
submitted by Dorman are of poor quality. It is not readily apparent which
part(s) shown in Figure 9.4 constitute the GM gasket and it is also not
apparent how Figure 9.4 shows a gasket with a compression limiting device
comprising a locator pin as claimed. Neither Dorman nor Kimpel
sufficiently explain how either HRM 38010 or HRM 38026 describe the
claimed features. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s refusal to
reject claim 1 as anticipated by the GM Gasket as proposed by Dorman.
Proposed rejection of claims 1-2 as obvious over Hinson
Claim 1 recites: “said compression limiting device has opposite
compression limiting surfaces . . . and further comprising a locator pin
extending outwardly from one of said compression limiting surfaces.”
Hinson describes a gasket [10] including a plastic carrier body [12] that
includes compression limiters [40], [42] and alignment grommets [50] (i.e.,
locator pins). FFs 4-6. Dorman and the Examiner agree that Hinson does
not describe a locator pin that extends from a surface of the compression
limiter. Req. Reexam. 22; ACP 4; App. Br. 15, 19; Ans. 10; Reb. Br. 9.
Dorman proposes that it would have been obvious to combine a
known locator and known compression device as recited in claim 1 since it
is well recognized that combining formerly separate objects into a single unit
without any improvement to either object or their operation is not inventive
and only involves routine skill in the art. App. Br. 17; Req. Reexam. 22-23.
The Examiner disagrees finding that it would require more than routine skill
Appeal 2010-010433
Reexamination Control 95/000,429
Patent 7,306,235
13
to form Hinson’s compression limiter and locator pin into a single unit
because Hinson describes rigid metal compression limiter devices and
flexible plastic locator pins. Ans. 10-11, citing Hinson col. 3, ll. 20-22, 31-
33, Fig. 4; see FFs 7-8. The Examiner determined that based on Hinson’s
disclosure, it would not have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the
art to form one of the metal compression devices and one of the plastic pins
as a combined unit. Ans. 11.
Dorman argues that: 1) the Examiner misinterprets claim 1 to require
the compression limiting device and locator pin to be made from the same
material or as a single unit; and 2) Hinson does not disclose locator pins
made from a different material than the compression limiters. App. Br. 15-
16; Reb. Br. 10. Dorman’s arguments are misplaced. The Examiner does
not find that claim 1 requires the compression limiting device and locator
pin to be made from the same material or as a single unit. Contrary to
Dorman’s argument, Hinson describes that the locator pins (i.e., grommets
[50]) and compression limiter devices [40], [42] are made from plastic and
metal respectively. FFs 4-6. It is on the basis of Hinson’s description that
the Examiner challenges Dorman’s own assertion that it would only involve
routine skill in the art to combine Hinson’s separate locator pin and
compression limiter into a single unit. Req. Reexam. 22-23; App Br. 17.
Dorman also argues that the ‘235 Patent device is configured as a
replacement for known prior art gaskets used with GM engines and that the
particular location of the locator pin on the ‘235 Patent gasket is dictated by
the prior art GM engine. App. Br. 19-20, citing Federal-Mogul's Brief in
Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction at 1-2, 6, 13; Kimpel Decl. at
¶¶ 15-17. Dorman further asserts that: 1) Hinson teaches that the
Appeal 2010-010433
Reexamination Control 95/000,429
Patent 7,306,235
14
compression limiters [42] must surround the bolt apertures [26]; and 2) the
location of bolt apertures [26] are a design constraint based on the intended
engine. Reb. Br. 10, citing Hinson col. 3, ll. 16-17. Dorman concludes that
it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art and with
knowledge of Hinson’s disclosure, to modify Hinson’s compression limiters
to include the locator pin when designing a gasket for a GM series 3100 or
3400 engine based on the engine design constraints. Reb. Br. 10.
Dorman’s arguments are unpersuasive as they narrowly focus on the
engine design constraints requiring certain locations of the locator pins and
bolts holes. Dorman’s arguments do not address whether the engine design
constraints require certain locations for both the compression limiters and
the locator pins, i.e., at the same location or at adjacent locations. Claim 1
requires the locator pin to extend from a surface of the compression limiting
device. We agree that the locations of the engine bolts will dictate the
locations of the gasket bolt holes and some of the gasket compression
limiters (see FF 5) and that the location of engine receiving cavities will
dictate the location of corresponding gasket locator pins. However, Dorman
does not assert nor direct us to objective evidence to demonstrate that the
prior art GM engine design constraints would require a locator pin to
necessarily extend from a surface of a compression limiting device. Nor has
Dorman directed us to objective evidence to demonstrate that combining
Hinson’s compression limiter and locator pin into a single unit would have
been obvious. Obviousness “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory
statements; instead there must be some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoted in KSR Int’l Co. v.
Appeal 2010-010433
Reexamination Control 95/000,429
Patent 7,306,235
15
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Dorman does not provide a
sufficient articulated reason and/or rational underpinning to support its
conclusion of obviousness. It remains unclear why one with ordinary skill in
the art would modify Hinson’s locator pin (i.e., grommet [50]) to extend
from a surface of the compression limiter [40], [42], based on Hinson’s
teaching that compression limiters [40] surround gasket bolt holes [26] (FF
5) and the prior art GM engine design dictating the locations of the gasket
bolt holes and locator pins.
For all these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s refusal to reject the
claims as obvious over Hinson as proposed by Dorman.
Proposed rejection of claims 1-2 as obvious over GM and Hinson and as
obvious over GM and Ang
On the basis of the photographs in Exhibit L, Dorman and the
Examiner “agree[] that the GM Gasket includes a compression limiting
device and a locator pin within the context of claim 1”. Req. Reexam. 15,
18, 25-27; ACP 2-3; App. Br. 20-24; Reb. Br. 11. Hinson and Ang are
relied upon for describing a compression limiting device that is either
formed separately from the carrier frame or formed separately and molded to
the carrier frame. FFs 4-11; App. Br. 21-25; Reb. Br. 11-12. Dorman
concludes that it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill to make
or modify the GM Gasket compression limiting device and pin in
accordance with the compression limiter of either Hinson or Ang. Req.
Reexam. 26-27; App. Br. 23-24; Reb. Br 11-12.
Appeal 2010-010433
Reexamination Control 95/000,429
Patent 7,306,235
16
The Examiner and Dorman do not rely on the disclosure of the GM
Gasket from HRM 38010 or HRM 380268. For the same reasons explained
before, it is not readily apparent how Figure 9.4 of HRM 38010, for
example, shows a gasket with a compression limiting device comprising a
locator pin as claimed. Neither Dorman nor Kimpel sufficiently explain
how either HRM 38010 or HRM 38026 describe the claimed features.
Neither Hinson nor Ang describe a locator pin extending from a surface of a
compression limiting device and therefore neither reference remedies the
deficiencies of the GM Gasket. For all these reasons, we sustain the
Examiner’s refusal to reject the claims as obvious over the GM Gasket and
Hinson and as obvious over the GM Gasket and Ang as proposed by
Dorman.
Proposed rejection of claims 1-2 as obvious over Combet and Hinson
Dorman argues that the Examiner improperly determined that Combet
was not presented in a new light and therefore improperly determined that
Combet and Hinson do not raise a substantial new question of patentability.
App. Br. 25-26, citing Order Granting the Request for Inter Partes
Reexamination. We will not consider Dorman’s arguments in this regard
because the determination of whether a reference or combination of
references raises a substantial new question of patentability is final and non-
appealable in inter partes reexamination proceedings. 35 U.S.C. § 312(c);
75 Fed. Reg. 36357-58 (June 25, 2010).

8 The Examiner also relies upon photographs of a later generation GM
Gasket submitted by Federal Mogul after the Appeal was filed. Ans. 9, 16;
Respondent Br. 11-13, Ex. 4. The photographs are not prior art and are
untimely according to 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.68(b)(1)(viii), 41.63(c).
Appeal 2010-010433
Reexamination Control 95/000,429
Patent 7,306,235
17
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s refusal to reject claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by the GM Gasket.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s refusal to reject claims 1-2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hinson.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s refusal to reject claims 1-2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the GM Gasket and Hinson.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s refusal to reject claims 1-2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the GM Gasket and Ang.
The Examiner’s determination that Combet in light of Hinson does
not raise a substantial new question of patentability is final and not subject to
appeal.
ORDER
AFFIRMED
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

Appeal 2010-010433
Reexamination Control 95/000,429
Patent 7,306,235
18
Volpe and Koenig, P.C.
United Plaza, Suite 1600
30 South 17th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Patent Owner:

DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
38525 WOODWARD AVENUE
SUITE 2000
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304-2970