Ex Parte DorrDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 24, 201010864170 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 24, 2010) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte CHRISTOPH DORR ____________ Appeal 2009-001691 Application 10/864,170 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Decided: June 24, 2010 ____________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY and MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Christoph Dorr (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 26, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Littman (US 6,010,272, issued Jan. 4, 2000) in Appeal No. 2009-001691 Application No. 10/864,170 2 view of Herbenar (US 3,813,178, issued May 28, 1974) and claims 26 and 29-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kraps (US 5,758,986, issued Jun. 2, 1998) in view of Herbenar. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The Invention The claims on appeal relate to a ball-and-socket joint preferably used in motor vehicles. Spec. 1:1 and 4. Claim 26, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 26. A ball-and-socket joint comprising: a joint housing having first and second axial ends; a ball head provided with a ball stud extending from the ball head; a bearing shell having elastic properties and being receivable in the joint housing for supporting the ball head in the joint housing for pivotal movement relative to the joint housing, the bearing shell supporting the ball head so that the ball stud extends out of the first axial end of the joint housing; a housing cover for closing the second axial end of the joint housing; and a spring element interposed between the housing cover and a circumferential collar of the bearing shell, the spring element urging a portion of the bearing shell toward the first axial end of the joint housing and, as wear to the portion of the bearing shell occurs, wedging the portion of the bearing shell into a gap formed between the ball head and the joint housing adjacent the first axial end of the joint housing so as to compensate for the wear, Appeal No. 2009-001691 Application No. 10/864,170 3 the portion of the bearing shell, prior to being assembled into the joint housing, having a cylindrical contour and, upon being assembled into the joint housing and being subjected to a preloading force, plastically deforming into a ball- shaped contour. OPINION Issue The determinative issue in this appeal is: Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Littman or Kraps disclose a bearing shell having elastic properties. Pertinent Facts FF1. Littman discloses that outer bearing element 130 is a split bearing having a slot 131. Col. 3, ll. 29-30. Littman’s slot 131 within ball- and-socket joint construction permits the split outer bearing element 130 to collapse-in on the inner bearing element 110. Col. 5, ll. 9-18. FF2. Kraps discloses that the bearing shell is manufactured from a synthetic material. Col. 2, ll. 13-15. Polyacetylene is the preferred synthetic material. Id. Kraps fails to disclose polyacetalene has elastomeric properties. Analysis Claim 26 recites that the “bearing shell have elastic properties.” Neither Littman nor Kraps expressly discloses their respective bearing shells as having elastic properties. Slot 131 in Littman permits the outer bearing to collapse-in on to the inner bearing. FF1. The Examiner provides neither a cogent explanation nor a citation to Littman for the Examiner’s position that Littman’s “bearing Appeal No. 2009-001691 Application No. 10/864,170 4 shell expands and returns to its normal operating state.” Ans. 9. Nor does the Examiner provide a technical reason or explanation for the Examiner’s position that the plastic material depicted by the cross-hatching in Littman’s figures in combination with the express disclosure of a slot in the bearing element (shell) would logically lead to a finding that Littman’s bearing shell has elastic properties. Kraps discloses that the bearing shell is made from polyacetylene. FF2. Kraps does not disclose that polyacetalene has elastomeric properties. Id. As the Appellant correctly urges to the Examiner (see Reply Br. 10), a bearing shell made from polyacetalene does not necessarily have elastomeric properties. The Examiner provides no persuasive technical reason or explanation for the position that the polyacetalene material used for the bearing shell has elastomeric properties. The Examiner’s position is that Kraps’ bearing shell has elastic properties because 1) the bearing shell in Kraps “is made of plastic and the plastic gives as the ball is inserted” or 2) is “definitely elastic since the ball expands the bearing shell as the ball of the pivot is inserted,” see Ans. 6 and 10. Neither contention has definitive support within Kraps. In fact, when Kraps utilizes a structure having elastomeric properties, Kraps expressly discloses such usage. See e.g., Col. 1, ll. 26-30. Accordingly, the Examiner’s findings, without more cogent explanation and analysis, appear to be based upon unfounded assumptions concerning the properties of the bearing shell disclosed in Kraps. Appeal No. 2009-001691 Application No. 10/864,170 5 CONCLUSION In view of the foregoing, the Examiner erred in finding that Littman or Kraps discloses a bearing shell having elastic properties. The Examiner does not rely on Herbenar to cure this deficiency. As such, we are constrained not to sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 26, 29, 30, and 31. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 26, 29, 30, and 31 as obvious is reversed. REVERSED Klh TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. 1300 EAST NINTH STREET, SUITE 1700 CLEVELAND, OH 44114 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation