Ex Parte Cuylen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 1, 2017

13036324 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2017)

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.
13/036,324 02/28/2011 Jens Cuylen 2009P03043US 4704
27350 7590 08/03/2017
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
Box SA
P.O. BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, EL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
MCCARRY JR, ROBERT J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/03/2017 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):
boxsa@patentusa.com
docket @ paten tusa. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JENS CUYLEN, ROGER GANSEKOW, EDZARD LUBBEN,
MARTIN OFFER, and ANDREAS SCHAEFER-ENKELER
Appeal 2017-000999
Application 13/036,324
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—3 and 5—9, which are all the claims pending and
rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to a
coach body for a multiple-unit railway vehicle having two bogies at each
Appeal 2017-000999
Application 13/036,324
end and to a train set composed of such coach bodies. See generally Spec. 1.
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A coach body for a multiple-unit railway vehicle of a
high-speed train, comprising:
a plurality of passenger seats, wherein each passenger
seat comprises arm rests,
wherein the coach body of the high-speed train has a
length of at least 27.5 m,
wherein a maximum outside width in a longitudinal
center of the coach is 2.86 m, and
wherein side walls of the coach body are designed such
that the coach body has an inside width of at least 2.6 m,
wherein the side walls each comprise a thickness which
differs over a height and/or the length of the coach body,
wherein the thickness is reduced in a first section of each
side wall, which is adjacent to the arm rests of the plurality of
the passenger seats, compared with sections above and below
the first section, and
wherein an inside surface of each side wall is hollowed
out in the first section adjacent to the arm rests of each
passenger seat, wherein sections of each side wall directly
above and below the first section adjacent to the arm rests
comprise a thickness which is greater than the thickness of the
first section of each side wall.
References and Rejections
Reddy US 4,583,466 Apr. 22, 1986
Tegeler US 5,431,111 July 11, 1995
Budnick US 2012/0024188 A1 Feb. 2, 2012
Claims 1—3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tegeler and Budnick.
2
Appeal 2017-000999
Application 13/036,324
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Tegeler, Budnick, and Reddy.
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this
appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our
analysis below.1
On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
I
Appellants contend Tegeler and Budnick do not collectively teach
wherein an inside surface of each side wall is hollowed out in
the first section adjacent to the arm rests of each passenger seat,
wherein sections of each side wall directly above and below the
first section adjacent to the arm rests comprise a thickness
which is greater than the thickness of the first section of each
side wall,
as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 3—7. In particular, Appellants assert:
As can be seen, in Tegeler, the inside surface of each side wall
adjacent to the arm rests of each passenger seat is the same
thickness as each side wall directly above and below the
section of side wall adjacent to the arm rests of Tegeler.
Consequently, Tegeler does not teach or suggest, among other
things, the hollowing out of the inside surface of the side
wall adjacent to the arm rests of each passenger seat, with a
greater thickness of side wall directly above and below the
hollowed out area adjacent to the arm rest.
App. Br. 6—7.
1 To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments. See
37 C.F.R. §41.41 (b)(2).
3
Appeal 2017-000999
Application 13/036,324
Appellants’ argument is not directed to the Examiner’s mapping. The
Examiner maps the claimed “the first section” to Tegeler’s side walls 14—
not merely the middle portion of Tegeler’s side walls 14. See Final Act. 2;
Ans. 4—5. Further, the Examiner finds—and Appellants do not dispute—in
Tegeler, sections of each side wall directly above and below the side walls
14 have a thickness that is greater than the thickness of side walls 14. See
Final Act. 2; Ans. 4—5.
II
Appellants contend Tegeler and Budnick do not collectively teach “[a]
coach body for a multiple-unit railway vehicle of a high-speed train,
comprising: . . . wherein the coach body of the high-speed train has a length
of at least 27.5 m,” as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 8—11. In particular,
Appellants assert:
Budnick clearly only discloses using a flatcar of a freight
train (see, for example, paragraph [0019] of Budnick) onto
which is fixed a “multi-level convertible rack framing structure
113”. A flatcar is not a coach body.
According to page 1 of the Specification of the instant
application, the present invention relates to so-called TSI trains
which are trans-regional trains used within the European Union
(EU). . . . According to TSI regulations, an increasing coach
body length entails a reduced coach body width, so that an
increasing length makes it more and more difficult to
ensure a sufficient inside width of the coach body. Because
of this corresponding reduction in width of the coach body, a
person of skill in the art would not increase the coach body
length when starting out with trains according to the prior art.
App. Br. 9-10.
4
Appeal 2017-000999
Application 13/036,324
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner provides further
findings showing Tegeler and Budnick collectively teach the disputed claim
limitation. See Ans. 5—6. In particular, the Examiner finds—and Appellants
do not dispute—Tegeler teaches “[a] coach body.” See Final Act. 2.
Further, the Examiner finds:
The prior art of Budnick was utilized as a teaching reference
that a rail car, regardless of its intended use being for
passengers or freight, can be constructed to a length of 27.5
meters (90 ft.). It is well known in the rail industry that both
freight and passenger cars can use the same tracks and can be
coupled together in to a mixed consist of both passenger and
freight cars pulled by common locomotives. As stated above, a
rail car, like that of Budnick, can be utilized by one of ordinary
skill in the art as a teaching to show that railcars can be built to
varying lengths and widths to allow for efficient
accommodations and room for passengers using the transit
system.
Ans. 5—6.
Appellants fail to persuasively respond to such findings and therefore,
fail to show error in the Examiner’s findings. See In re Baxter Travenol
Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this
court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by
an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”).
In addition, it is well established that during examination, claims are
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification and should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, but without importing
limitations from the specification. See In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted); SuperGuide Corp. v.
DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
5
Appeal 2017-000999
Application 13/036,324
Here, the claim is not restricted to TSI trains. See Claim 1. Nor does
the Specification place such a restriction. Contrary to Appellants’ assertion
that “the present invention relates to so-called TSI trains which are trans-
regional trains used within the European Union (EU)” (App. Br. 10), the
Specification broadly states “[t]he invention relates to a coach body for a
multiple-unit railway vehicle having two bogies at each end and to a train set
composed of such coach bodies.” Spec. 1. That broad statement is further
confirmed by the Specification’s description of “[f]or the example of a so-
called ‘TSI train’ . . . .” Id.
Further, Appellants have not submitted any evidence to substantiate
their assertion about TSI regulations. In any event, even if Appellants’
assertion about TSI regulations are true (but unsubstantiated because
Appellants have not submitted any supporting evidence), Appellants have
not persuasively explained why “a person of skill in the art would not
increase the coach body length when starting out with trains according to
the prior art” (App. Br. 10). In particular, the skilled artisan would “be able
to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since
the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420-21 (2007). Appellants do
not present adequate evidence that the resulting arrangements would have
been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or
“represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550
U.S. at 418-19).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that applying Budnick’s
length technique in the Tegeler system would have predictably used prior art
6
Appeal 2017-000999
Application 13/036,324
elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement.
See KSR, 550 U.S. a 417.
Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2, 3, and 5—9, as Appellants do not advance separate substantive
arguments about those claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—3 and 5—9.
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
7