Ex Parte Diez

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

13374889 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/374,889 01/20/2012 Armin Diez
47359 7590 09/29/2016
EDWARDJ, TIMMER
526 W. 14th Street
STE 311
TRAVERSE CITY, MI 49684
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
HOG998C 3440
EXAMINER
DIAZ, THOMAS C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3656
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 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
Exparte ARMIN DIEZ
Appeal2014-007855
Application 13/374,889
Technology Center 3600
Before CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, BRADLEY B. BAY AT, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-11, and 13-19. We have jurisdiction over
this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as "ElringKlinger AG."
(Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal2014-007855
Application 13/374,889
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant's invention "relates to a housing cover for fixing to a
housing, in particular to a gear housing or a steering gear housing."
(Spec. 1.)
Illustrative Claim2
1. Housing cover for fixing to a housing,
wherein the housing cover is configured as a sheet metal
formed part having a closed central region,
wherein the housing cover is provided with a plurality of
fastening means through-apertures at an edge region
surrounding the closed central region and with a sealing bead,
which comprises an elastomeric material,
wherein the housing cover includes at least one contact region
portion located between two fastening means through-apertures
and carrying a portion of the sealing bead and further projects,
at least in a section thereof, over the inside edges of the two
adjacent fastening means through-apertures when the housing
.. . "t.. t.t.. cover iS m a rest state pnor to tigutenmg tue uousmg cover
against the housing in a fitted state thereof by means of the
fastening means, said at least one contact region portion of the
inside of the housing cover facing the housing when the
housing cover is in said fitted state,
wherein the housing cover is provided with an impressed
groove in which the sealing bead is received, the impressed
groove extending along the longitudinal direction of the sealing
bead,
wherein the sealing bead is arranged on a groove base of the
groove and projects, when the housing cover is in the rest state,
2 This illustrative claim is quoted from the Claims Appendix ("Claims
App.") set forth on page 18-21 of the Appeal Brief, with some paragraphing
added.
2
Appeal2014-007855
Application 13/374,889
beyond regions of the housing cover adjoining the groove in the
direction pointing toward the housing, in the fitted state,
wherein the sealing bead is connected by a substance-to-
substance bond to a base plate of the housing cover,
wherein the base plate is made of metal, and
wherein the width of the sealing bead is smaller than the width
of the groove.
Rosell
Deuring
Ang
Beutler
Ruthy
References
us 4, 128,046
us 4,484, 7 51
us 5,513,603
US 2003/0110885 Al
US 6,997,238 Bl
Rejections
Dec. 5, 1978
Nov. 27, 1984
May 7, 1996
June 19, 2003
Feb. 14,2006
The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 17, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ruthy, Beutler, and Deuring. (Final
Action 2.)
The Examiner rejects claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ruthy, Beutler, Deuring, and Rosell. (Id. at 7.)
The Examiner rejects claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ruthy, Beutler, Deuring, and Ang. (Id.)
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal with the rest of the
claims on appeal depending therefrom. (See Claims App.) Independent
claim 1 is directed to a "[h]ousing cover for fixing to a housing." (Id.)
3
Appeal2014-007855
Application 13/374,889
Independent Claim 1
Independent claim 1 recites "a base plate," "a sealing bead," and "an
impressed groove in which the sealing bead is received." (Claims App.)
The Examiner finds that Ruthy discloses a housing cover 20 comprising a
metal base plate 22, a sealing bead 36, and an impressed groove 34 in which
sealing bead 36 is received. (See Final Action 2-3; see also Ruthy Figs. 1
and 2.)
Independent claim 1 further requires the sealing bead to be arranged,
connected, and dimensioned in a certain manner. (Claims App.) Namely,
the sealing bead is arranged on a "base" of the groove; the sealing bead is
connected "by a substance-to-substance bond" to the base plate; the sealing
bead projects "beyond" adjoining regions of the housing; and the sealing
bead has a width "smaller" than the width of the groove. (Claims App.) The
Examiner finds that Deuring teaches a sealing bead that is arranged,
connected, and dimensioned as required by independent claim 1. (See Final
Action 4; see also Deuring col. 3, lines 36-43, Fig. 4.) And the Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious, in view of the teachings of
Deuring, to modify Ruthy's sealing bead 3 6 to be arranged, connected, and
dimensioned in this manner. (See Final Action 5.)
The Appellant argues that "[t]here is no motivation whatsoever for the
person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Deuring with any reference
disclosing a housing cover that does not have an opening through which a
shaft-like member projects." (Appeal Br. 11.) We are not persuaded by this
argument because it overlooks the pertinent teachings in Deuring. Although
Deuring does indeed disclose "a dynamic sealing zone 6 for sealing the area
4
Appeal2014-007855
Application 13/374,889
where the crankshaft passes through the cover," Deuring also discloses "two
static sealing zones 7 and 8." (Deuring, col. 3, lines 11-13.) The
Examiner's rejection relies upon Deuring's teachings with respect to the
static sealing zones 6 and 7 wherein "[ t ]he sealing elements 10 and 11 are
rubber members of rectangular profile vulcanized into grooves provided in
the main body." (Deuring, col. 3, lines 19-21; see also Deuring Fig. 4.)
Insofar as the Appellant is alleging non-analogous art, we agree with the
Examiner that Deuring's teachings "would be readily applicable to Ruthy."
(Answer 8.)
The Appellant also argues that "[t]here is no motivation whatsoever
for the person of ordinary skill in the art to combine [Ruthy] with other
references dealing with sealing beads that are connected by a substance-to-
substance bond." (Appeal Br. 9.) The Appellant does not, however, point
with particularity to flaws in the Examiner's explanation for the proposed
modification to Ruthy's sealing ring. In this regard, the Examiner explains
that this modification would be done "in order to simplify the manufacturing
process by providing the seal via an injection molding process instead of
having to manufacture the seal separately." (Final Action 5.) The Appellant
does not adequately address why this explanation is unreasonable or without
rational underpinnings.
The Appellant also advances arguments premised upon the other prior
art references (i.e., Ruthy and Beutler) not disclosing the arrangement, the
connection, and/or the dimensioning of the sealing bead recited in
independent claim 1. (See Appeal Br. 9-11.) We are not persuaded by these
5
Appeal2014-007855
Application 13/374,889
arguments because the Examiner relies upon Deuring to teach these features.
(See Answer 6-7.)
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by the Appellant's position that the
Examiner errs in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ruthy, Beutler, and Deuring; and thus, we sustain this
rejection.
Dependent Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 17, and 19
With respect to these dependent claims, the Appellant does not
present any new issues for analysis beyond those discussed above for
independent claim 1. (See Appeal Br. 12.) Thus, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 17, and 19.
Dependent Claim 16
The Appellant argues only that the additional reference introduced for
this rejection (Rosell) does not compensate for alleged deficiencies of Ruthy,
Beutler, and Deuring. (See Appeal Br. 13.) We are not persuaded by this
argument because, as discussed above, the Appellant does not establish that
the prior art references relied upon by the Examiner to reject independent
claim 1 are deficient. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
dependent claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ruthy,
Beutler, Deuring, and Rosell.
Dependent Claim 18
Dependent claim 18 recites that the "sealing bead branches before at
least one fastening means through-aperture and runs together again after
passing the fastening means through-aperture so that the fastening means
through-aperture is enclosed about its periphery by the sealing bead."
6
Appeal2014-007855
Application 13/374,889
(Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Ang teaches "the concept of
providing a sealing groove that surrounds the bolt holes which is also well
known in the art." (Final Action 10.) And the Examiner determines that it
would have been obvious to modify Ruthy's groove to include such a
branched configuration. (See id. at 8.)
The Appellant argues that Ang' s disclosed seal is not arranged,
connected or dimensioned in the claimed manner. (See Appeal Br. 14--15.)
The Appellant also argues that Ang's cover is formed from a thermoplastic
material. (See id. at 15.) We are not persuaded by these arguments because
the Examiner's rejection does not rely upon Ang to show or suggest these
features. (See Answer 8.) Ang is only relied upon to teach the concept of a
groove having branched configuration. (See Final Action 8.)
The Appellant also argues that "[t]here is no motivation whatsoever
for the person of ordinary skill in the art to combine [Ang] with a reference
disclosing a housing cover ... that is made of metal or with a reference
disclosing a sealing bead [having the claimed dimensions]." (Appeal
Br. 14.) We are not persuaded by this argument because the Appellant does
not point, with particularity to flaws in the Examiner's explanation for the
proposed modification to Ruthy's groove configuration. In this regard, the
Examiner explains that this modification would yield the predictable result
of "better sealing characteristics" and would help protect "the fasteners from
the conditions outside the housing cover thereby increasing the reliability
and lifetime of the housing." (Final Action 8.) The Appellant does not
adequately address why this explanation is unreasonable or without rational
underpinnings.
7
Appeal2014-007855
Application 13/374,889
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by the Appellant's position that the
Examiner errs in rejecting dependent claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ruthy, Beutler, Deuring, and Ang; and thus, we sustain
this rejection.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-11, and
13-19.
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