11047308 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 25, 2010)

Ex Parte Doornbos

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 25, 2010

11047308 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 25, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1 ___________ 2 3 BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4 AND INTERFERENCES 5 ___________ 6 7 Ex parte DAVID A. DOORNBOS 8 ___________ 9 10 Appeal 2008-005952 11 Application 11/047,308 12 Technology Center 3600 13 ___________ 14 15 Decided: March 25, 2010 16 ___________ 17 18 Before LINDA E. HORNER, WILLIAM F. PATE, III, and JOHN C. KERINS, 19 Administrative Patent Judges. 20 PATE, Administrative Patent Judge. 21 DECISION ON APPEAL22 Appeal 2008-005952 Application 11/047,308 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-6 and 9-17. These are the 2 only claims in the application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 3 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6(b) (2002). 4 THE INVENTION 5 The claimed subject matter is a damper for use in automobiles to dampen the 6 movement of grab handles, glove box doors, cup holders, and the like. The 7 claimed damper is characterized by a seal chamber between the rotor and the 8 housing, wherein the seal chamber has an elongated dimension greater than the 9 elongated dimension of the seal placed therein. 10 Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 11 1. A damper, comprising: 12 a housing having walls defining a well; 13 14 a rotor positioned in the housing within the well, the rotor positioned 15 to define a space between the rotor and the walls, the rotor positioned 16 for rotation within the housing; 17 18 a seal chamber defined at least in part by the rotor and the housing 19 contiguous with the space between the rotor and the housing, the seal 20 chamber being elongated in a longitudinal direction; 21 22 at least one seal positioned in the seal chamber, between the housing 23 and the rotor to isolate the space from the environment, the seal 24 having a dimension less than the elongated dimension of the seal 25 chamber, and extending less than the elongated dimension of the seal 26 chamber; and 27 28 Appeal 2008-005952 Application 11/047,308 3 a damping fluid in the well between the rotor and the housing for 1 damping rotation of the rotor relative to the housing, 2 3 wherein the housing, the rotor and the at least one seal are formed 4 from a silicone containing or silicone impregnated material and 5 wherein the damping fluid is a silicone based fluid. 6 7 The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 8 Schultz US 4,432,254 February 21,1984 Kurihara US 6,604,614 B2 August 12, 2003 Takahashi US 6,662,683 B1 December 16, 2003 Bivens US 6,726,219 B2 April 27, 2004 9 Claims 1-6 and 9-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 10 over Kurihara et al. in view of Schultz or Takahashi et al. and Bivens. 11 12 13 ISSUE 14 The Appellant argues that none of the references disclose the feature of a seal 15 chamber with at least one elongated dimension with an associated seal extending 16 less than the elongated dimension of the seal chamber. Accordingly, the issue for 17 our consideration is whether the Examiner has established that it would have been 18 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a seal chamber with an 19 elongated dimension that is greater than the elongated dimension of the seal. 20 Appeal 2008-005952 Application 11/047,308 4 1 FINDINGS OF FACT 2 Kurihara 3 We agree with the Examiner that Kurihara discloses the general structure of 4 the claimed subject matter. See Kurihara, Fig. 7. However, Kurihara does 5 not disclose an elongated seal chamber wherein the seal extends less than 6 the elongated dimension of the seal chamber. 7 Schultz 8 Schultz discloses a viscous damper comprised of a housing 7 and a member 9 8 moveable in a working chamber 9 defined by the housing. The working 10 chamber 9 is of annular shape, and is filled with viscous damping fluid. 11 Two O-ring seals 43 are provided in circumferential grooves 44 on the 12 housing. See Schultz, col. 4, ll. 5-19 and col. 5, ll. 51-67. While Figures 2 13 and 4 show the seals 43 and the seal chambers 44 in a very small size, it 14 does not appear that the seal is of a less elongated extent than the seal 15 chamber, nor does it appear that the seal extends less than the second 16 transverse dimension of the seal chamber. We further note that Schultz 17 handles fluid expansion by a different technique than the technique utilized 18 by Appellant. Schultz provides a block 48, of closed-cell elastomer foam to 19 act as an accumulator. See Schultz, Col. 6, ll. 33-47. The accumulator 48 20 will compress upon heat expansion of the damping medium and thus avoid 21 excessive internal pressure build-up within the damper. 22 23 24 Appeal 2008-005952 Application 11/047,308 5 Takahashi 1 Takahashi discloses a similar damper, housing and rotor, and O-ring seals. 2 The Examiner directs our attention to the embodiment of Figure 7 and seal 3 154. With reference to Figure 7A, it appears that the seal chamber 4 containing seal 154 is unbounded on the lower side. However, with respect 5 to member 121, as shown in the exploded view of Figure 8, it is clear that 6 the seal 154 rests on the step portion outside the upward cylinder 122. The 7 reason seal 154 looks as if it is unbounded in Figure 7A is that the Figure 8 7A cross section is cut through the crenels or downward notches 125. See 9 Takahashi, col. 7, l. 61- col. 8, l. 16. Figure 7B gives a true representation 10 of the size of the seal chamber and the fit of the O-ring 154 therein. We do 11 not find that Takahashi teaches a seal extending less than the elongated 12 dimension of the seal chamber or a seal which extends the entire first 13 dimension of the seal chamber but less than the entire second transverse 14 dimension thereof. 15 Bivens 16 Bivens has been cited to show a housing of a damper made with a minimum 17 of 2% silicone impregnated thermoplastic. See Bivens, col. 1, ll. 54-55 and 18 col. 2, ll. 47-49. 19 20 ANALYSIS 21 We agree with the Appellant that none of the applied prior art references shows 22 the seal extending less than the elongated dimension of the seal chamber or a seal 23 extending the entire first dimension of a seal well but less than the entire transverse 24 Appeal 2008-005952 Application 11/047,308 6 dimension of the seal well. The Examiner states that, “The seal chamber of 1 Kurihara et al. could be slightly modified as taught by either Schultz or Takahashi 2 et al. to extend further than any dimension of the seal simply to accommodate more 3 fluid capacity.” (Answer 4) However, as noted above, the prior art does not 4 include such a teaching. Therefore, we, like Appellant, must conclude that the 5 conclusion of the Examiner lacks an articulated reason with rational underpinning 6 and is based on a hindsight reconstruction of the claimed subject matter. 7 We note the Examiner’s enlargement of Figure 1 of Kurihara on page 6 of the 8 Examiner’s Answer. However, Kurihara does not indicate that the drawings are to 9 scale, and arguments based on the enlargement are of little value. See In re 10 Wright, 569 F2d. 1124, 1127 (CCPA 1977) (Absent any written description in the 11 specification of quantitative values, arguments based on measurement of a drawing 12 are of little value). Thus we disagree that the Figure in Kurihara shows the 13 dimensional relationship claimed, and we further disagree that the drawings can be 14 enlarged and treated as if they were to scale. 15 16 CONCLUSION 17 The Examiner has failed to establish the obviousness of the claimed subject 18 matter. Therefore the rejection of all claims on appeal is reversed. 19 DECISION 20 REVERSED 21 22 23 mev 24 25 Appeal 2008-005952 Application 11/047,308 7 ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. 1 3600 WEST LAKE AVENUE 2 PATENT DEPARTMENT 3 GLENVIEW IL 60025 4