Ex Parte Alguera Gallego et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2018

12864131 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2018)

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.
12/864,131 09/29/2010 Jose Manuel Alguera Gallego 13639/006 (J 1270 WO US) 2262
27879 7590 02/20/
BGL/Indianapolis
BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
201 NORTH ILLINOIS STREET
CAPITAL CENTER, SUITE 1100
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204-4220
EXAMINER
MCMAHON, MATTHEW R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/20/2018 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 JOSE MANUEL ALGUERA GALLEGO
and JENS POLKE
Appeal 2017-000546
Application 12/864,131
Technology Center 3600
Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-000546
Application 12/864,131
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s Final
rejection of claims 1, 6—14, and 20-24. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a vehicle coupling. Spec. 1. Claims 1,10,
22 are independent. App. Br. 13—16 (Claims App.). Claim 1, reproduced
below,1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A vehicle coupling comprising
a coupling body formed by a coupling plate
of a fifth wheel coupling made of metal and
having a rear insertion opening for inserting a
vertical king-pin, the insertion opening being
bordered bilaterally by two coupling horns of
the coupling plate, the coupling plate
configured to have an installed position on a
vehicle, in which the coupling plate forms a top
surface of the coupling body, and
at least one structural element arranged
under the coupling plate in the installed
position, the at least one structural element
being at least one stiffening reinforcement rib,
wherein the at least one stiffening reinforcement
rib is glued to the coupling plate via a bulk
plastic material.
Hicks
Bohm
Verhaeghe
REFERENCES
US 2003/0047906 A1 Mar. 13, 2003
US 6,863,339 B2 Mar. 8, 2005
US 2009/0212533 A1 Aug. 27, 2009
1 App. Br. 13 (reference numbers omitted).
2
Appeal 2017-000546
Application 12/864,131
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 6—9, 11—14, and 21—24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hicks and Bohm. Final Act. 3.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hicks and Verhaeghe. Id. at 10.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 6—9, 11—14, and 21—24—Unpatentable over Hicks and Bohm
Appellants argue claims 1, 6—9, 11—14, and 21—24 as a group. App.
Br. 5, 8. We select claim 1 as representative of the group, and decide the
appeal on the basis of claim 1 alone. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Hicks discloses the claimed coupling body
formed by a fifth-wheel coupling plate and at least one structural element, in
the form of at least one stiffening reinforcement rib, arranged under the
coupling plate. Final Act. 3 (citing Hicks 139, Figs. 3—5). The Examiner
acknowledges, however, that Hicks does not teach that the at least one
reinforcing rib is glued to the coupling plate via a bulk plastic material. Id.
at 4. The Examiner relies on Bohm to teach this limitation. According to
the Examiner:
Bohm teaches the use a structural member (1; see Fig. 1),
wherein the structural members comprise a plate (3) forming a
top surface (Fig. 1), and at least one structural element
(reinforcement insert 7) arranged under the plate, the structural
element being at least one stiffening reinforcement rib, and
further wherein the stiffening reinforcement rib is glued to the
coupling plate via a bulk plastic material (foamed backing 5; see
Col. 2, lines 50-57).
Id. The Examiner determines that “[i]t would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the
3
Appeal 2017-000546
Application 12/864,131
device of Hicks such that the at least one stiffening reinforcement rib is
glued to the coupling plate via a bulk plastic material, as taught by Bohm, for
the purpose of simultaneously reducing the weight of the coupling body
while maintaining or increasing the strength [of] the coupling body by
reinforcement.” Id.
Appellants argue that Hicks does not teach that its coupling plate and
reinforcing rib are separate components, much less that they are glued
together by a bulk plastic material. App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 3
(asserting that all of Hick’s embodiments “consist of metal and ribs directly
formed on the underside of the hitch plate.”). This argument is unpersuasive
because the Examiner does not rely on Hicks for teaching this limitation.
Instead, as the Examiner states, “Hicks is relied upon as the base reference in
the rejection and provides a coupling body significantly as claimed[, and]
Bohm is relied upon to teach a manner of reinforcing a metal plate member
using a reinforcing rib attached to the plate by way [of] gluing via a plastic
material.” Ans. 3. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.”).
Appellants argue that Bohm’s “vehicle panel is entirely unsuited for
coupling a vehicle and a trailer,” and in particular that Bohm’s use of “‘a
foil, such as a thin metal sheet, or other sheet material such as plastic’ for the
outer wall 3 . . . would result in the immediate destruction of the vehicle
coupling, including the cover plate and the foam, from the impact of the
kingpin or from the friction forces.” App. Br. 7. Appellants again
misconstrue the proposed combination. The Examiner is not proposing
4
Appeal 2017-000546
Application 12/864,131
using Bohm’s sheet material for the claimed coupling plate. As noted
above, the Examiner relies on Hicks to teach the coupling body having a
coupling plate and reinforcing rib, and on Bohm to teach reinforcing a metal
plate by attaching a reinforcing rib to the plate with a plastic material. This
argument also incorrectly implies that Bohm must be bodily incorporated
into Hicks to support a conclusion of obviousness. However, “[t]he test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . [rjather,
the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted). As the Examiner states, “[t]he fact
that the particular plate used in Bohm may or may not be sufficient in
strength to withstand the forces of a trailer coupling is not particularly
relevant in this case, as it would still fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in
the art the advantage of providing reinforcement for a metal plate in a light­
weight manner.” Ans. 3^4. Finally, Appellants provide mere attorney
argument and no persuasive evidence to support its assertion of “immediate
destruction” if Bohm’s teachings are used.
Appellants further argue that Bohm is non-analogous art. Appellants
assert that “[t]he person of ordinary skill in the field of trailer couplings . . .
does not design or construct the vehicle frame or vehicle body itself,” and
thus would not have “any knowledge of designing vehicle frames or vehicle
bodies.” App. Br. 8. The Examiner responds that the field at issue is not
limited to trailer couplings, “but rather would be within the field of ‘vehicle
couplings,’ as claimed, and in the field of reinforcement of metal plates.”
5
Appeal 2017-000546
Application 12/864,131
Ans. 7. The Examiner reasons that Bohm “would fairly be considered
pertinent to the reinforcement of metal vehicle components.” Id. at 5.
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of Examiner error. “[Fjamiliar
items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many
cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple
patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 420 (2007). As the Examiner points out, the “invention relates to
a vehicle coupling,” Spec. 1, and is not expressly limited to trailer couplings.
Moreover, Bohm is at least reasonably pertinent to the problem with which
Appellants’ invention is directed—reducing the weight of vehicle parts
while maintaining the strength of the parts. For example, Bohm teaches that
an object of the invention is to provide a composite vehicle part “that is
lightweight and that can be fastened to adjacent composite parts to form a
reliable, simple and stable structure.” Bohm, 1:22—25; see also id. at 2:31—
36 (composite parts may be assembled “to form a mountable vehicle body
part or even a self-supporting vehicle frame.”).
Finally, Appellants argue that “even if Bohm could be used to modify
Hicks, the combination would result in a structure that would render the
vehicle coupling inoperable for the intended purpose.” App. Br. 8. This
conclusory assertion is not persuasive as Appellants do not adequately
explain this argument or proffer record evidence to support it.
Appellants do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination
that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious. Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as of claims 6—9, 11—14, and 21—
24, as unpatentable over Hicks and Bohm.
6
Appeal 2017-000546
Application 12/864,131
Claims 10 and 20—Unpatentable over Hicks and Verhaeghe
Appellants argue claims 10 and 20 as a group. App. Br. 11. We
select claim 10 as representative of the group, and decide the appeal of the
rejection of these claims on the basis of claim 10 alone. 37 C.F.R.
§41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 10 is similar to claim 1 except that the coupling body comprises
a coupling jaw, and the at least one stiffening reinforcement rib is
completely encapsulated by the bulk plastic material that is used to attach it
to the coupling body. App. Br. 14 (Claims App.). As with the previous
rejection, the Examiner relies on Hicks to teach the claimed coupling body
and at least one stiffening reinforcement rib, but acknowledges that Hicks
does not teach that the stiffening reinforcement rib is glued to the coupling
body via a bulk plastic material that encapsulates the rib. Final Act. 11. The
Examiner therefore relies on Verhaeghe to teach this limitation. Id. (citing
Verhaeghe, Figs. 1—3). Verhaeghe teaches a light-weight laminated panel
structure that can be used as a truck trailer floor. Verhaeghe Tflf 1—2, 7. The
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify Hick’s
device such that “the stiffening reinforcement rib is glued to the coupling
body via a bulk plastic material, [and] the at least one structural element is
completely encapsulated by the bulk plastic material,” as taught by
Verhaeghe, “for the purpose of reducing weight and optimizing strength by
reinforcement.” Final Act 11, 12.
Appellants argue that Verhaeghe “is not concerned with a vehicle
coupling, rather with a sandwiched trailer floor that needs to withstand
forces exerted by the load and by the kingpin.” App. Br. 11. However, as
noted above, the Examiner is not relying on Verhaeghe for this teaching.
7
Appeal 2017-000546
Application 12/864,131
Ans. 6. Appellants also argue that Verhaeghe is non-analogous art, using the
same reasoning used above with respect to Bohm. App. Br. 11. As with
Bohm, Verhaeghe is at least reasonably pertinent to the problem with which
Appellants’ invention is directed—reducing the weight of vehicle parts
while maintaining the strength of the parts. See Verhaeghe 17 (stating that
“aim of the present invention is to provide a light weight support panel
structure, which shows an improved mechanical strength”).
Appellants do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination
that the subject matter of claim 10 would have been obvious. Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of claim 10, as well as of claim 20, as unpatentable
over Hicks and Verhaeghe.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6—14, and
20—24 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8