Ex Parte Catania

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 24, 2002

09610015 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 24, 2002)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MICHAEL VITO CATANIA
____________
Appeal No. 2002-0840
Application No. 09/610,015
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before COHEN, McQUADE, and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
COHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 3,
4, and 6 through 10. Claims 5 and 11 stand withdrawn; 37 CFR
1.142(b). These claims constitute all of the claims remaining in
the application.
Appellant’s invention relates to a stabilizer bar attachment
system of a vehicle suspension system and to a vehicle suspension
system. A basic understanding of the invention can be derived
Appeal No. 2002-0840
Application No. 09/610,015
2
from a reading of exemplary claims 1 and 3, respective copies of
which appear in the APPENDIX to the main brief (Paper No. 12).
As evidence of anticipation and obviousness, the examiner
has applied the documents listed below:
Kincaid et al 6,076,840 Jun. 20, 2000
(Kincaid)
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 through 10 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by or, in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kincaid.
The full text of the examiner’s rejection and response to
the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer (Paper
No. 14), while the complete statement of appellant’s argument can
be found in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 12 and 15).

Appeal No. 2002-0840
Application No. 09/610,015
1 In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have
considered all of the disclosure of each document for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art. See
In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into account not
only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw
from the disclosure. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159
USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
3
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellants’ specification and claims, the applied teachings,1 and
the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determination which
follows.
We do not sustain the rejection of appellant’s claims under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by or, in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kincaid.
Claim 1 is drawn to a stabilizer bar attachment system of a
vehicle suspension system comprising, inter alia, a pair of
bushings sized to fit in end openings of a stabilizer bar, with
Appeal No. 2002-0840
Application No. 09/610,015
4
each of the bushings including an aperture and a cap having an
outer diameter larger than an interior dimension of the
stabilizer bar to abut ends of the stabilizer bar, and a pair of
threaded linkages, the bushings being inserted into the ends of
the stabilizer bar and expanding outwardly as a linkage is turned
within the aperture, securing the bushings within the stabilizer
bar.
Claim 8 sets forth a vehicle suspension system comprising,
inter alia, a stabilizer bar, a pair of expandable bushings
having an aperture to receive a threaded linkage and a cap having
an outer diameter larger than an interior diameter of the
stabilizer bar to abut an end of the stabilizer bar, and a pair
of threaded linkages each having a head to provide pressure on
the cap of the bushings, the bushings being inserted into each
end of the stabilizer bar and expanding outwardly as a threaded
linkage is turned within the aperture securing the bushing within
the stabilizer bar.
At this point, we make reference to the specification to
gain an understanding of the meaning of the claimed recitation of
a pair of bushings including or having a cap. Considering the
Appeal No. 2002-0840
Application No. 09/610,015
5
underlying disclosure (specification, page 5), we are instructed
that Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the (direct connect) insert 10,
which insert includes a generally cylindrical shaped body portion
12, an annular cap 14, and an aperture 16. Additionally, the
insert is indicated as being comprised of a material that will
readily expand. In light of the above, it is quite apparent to
us that the bushing itself includes or has a annular cap 14, with
the bushing and its cap being of a material that will readily
expand, as further revealed in the drawings.
We certainly appreciate the relevance of the Kincaid
teaching applied by the examiner, vis-a-vis the now claimed
subject matter. The examiner’s primary focus is upon the
embodiment in Kincaid shown in Figs. 5 and 6. For this
embodiment, however, Kincaid expressly teaches, as distinct
entities, a rubber or elastomeric material bushing 100 and a
washer 104, with the washer abutting the end wall 108 of the
bushing. The cross-hatching in Figure 5 of Kincaid leads us to
believe that the washer 104 is fabricated from a metal material,
in contrast with the rubber or elastomeric material bushing 100.
It is also worthy of noting that the patentee indicates that,
optionally, the washer can be eliminated if the radial dimension
Appeal No. 2002-0840
Application No. 09/610,015
6
of the integral nut 58 engages end surface 84 of the stabilizer
bar 30 (apparently what is intended is akin to the showing in
Fig. 2 wherein nut segment 52 engages end surface 84).
Considering our understanding of the meaning of the claim
language regarding the bushing including or having a cap, and the
overall teaching of Kincaid, it is clear to us that the claimed
invention is not anticipated by or rendered obvious by the
applied patent. As a final point, we find ourselves in agreement
with appellant’s argument that counters the examiner’s assertion
of equivalency of a washer and a cap, particularly when the
particular Kincaid disclosure is taken into account. For the
above reasons, the rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) cannot be sustained.

In summary, this panel of the board has not sustained the
rejection on appeal.
Appeal No. 2002-0840
Application No. 09/610,015
7
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. McQUADE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ICC:pgg
Appeal No. 2002-0840
Application No. 09/610,015
8
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009