Ex Parte Dorr

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 24, 2010

10864170 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 24, 2010)

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