Ex Parte Fieber

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 17, 2018

12674970 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/674,970 02/24/2010
10037 7590 05/18/2018
ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
U.S. STEEL TOWER
600 GRANT STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15219-2788
Dieter Fieber
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.
300721-00020 (GRIMM
248)
CONFIRMATION NO.
1860
EXAMINER
LINFORD, JAMES ALBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/18/2018 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
Ex parte DIETER FIBBER
Appeal2016-004873
Application 12/674,970
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-10. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies FLEXA GmbH & Co. Produktion und Vertrieb KG as
the real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal2016-004873
Application 12/674,970
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter "relates to a connection and attachment
component for a corrugated hose." Spec. ,r 1. Apparatus claim 1 is the sole
independent claim, is illustrative of the claims on appeal, and is reproduced
below with paragraphs added.
1. A connection and attachment component for a corrugated
hose, having a cylindrical base body and an associated tube-like
sleeve which is inserted into the base body, said base body and
said sleeve being adapted and dimensioned to receive an end of
the corrugated hose, said sleeve comprising at least two resilient
arms each arranged within a correspondingly shaped window-
like opening in the base body for coupling with both the base
body and the corrugated hose, with each such arm being
resiliently secured at a base end to the sleeve and exhibiting at
least one radially progressing engagement protrusion at its other,
unattached free end, which protrusion extends inward beyond an
inner circumference of the sleeve and can be brought into
engagement with corrugations of the corrugated hose such that it
arrests the hose, wherein the base end relative to the free end of
each arm points away from the corrugated hose connection end
of the sleeve, the improvement wherein
said at least two resilient arms are shaped as isosceles
trapazoids and are dimensioned such that the sum total of their
engagement protrusions extend around at least 50% of the inner
circumference of the base body,
wherein each respective resilient arm, viewed in the
circumferential direction of the base body, exhibits a width (Be)
of its free end, which corresponds to at least 1. 5 times the width
(Bb) of its base end, and
wherein each respective resilient arm exhibits a length
(Ln) from the base end to the free end, which is greater than a
width (Bb) of its base end.
2
Appeal2016-004873
Application 12/674,970
Gruber et al.
Fieber2
REFERENCES
us 5,112,086
DE 102 20 482 Cl
THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
May 12, 1992
Dec. 11, 2003
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Gruber and Fieber.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues claims 1-10 together. Br. 8-15. We select
independent claim 1 for review, with the remaining claims (i.e., claims
2-10) standing or falling therewith. 3 See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner relies on the teachings of Gruber regarding the
structural items recited, but, as regarding the specific dimensions and
relationships thereof, the Examiner relies on Fieber for such teachings. Final
Act. 4--5. Appellant identifies three features that claim 1 recites and
identifies them as follows (we adopt this nomenclature herein).
Feature A. wherein said at least two resilient arms ... are
dimensioned such that the sum total of their engagement
protrusions extend around at least 5 0% of the inner
circumference of the base body.
Feature B. wherein each respective resilient arm, viewed in the
circumferential direction of the base body, exhibits a width (Be)
2 "Dieter Fieber, the patentee in the 'Fieber' reference cited above, is the
applicant herein." Br. 7.
3 Appellant's discussion regarding dependent claims 2-10 consists solely of
a claim chart indicating whether Gruber or Fieber disclose the additional
limitation. See Appendix C; Br. 10. The mere listing of these indicators
(i.e., either "yes," "no," or "maybe") is not deemed to be a separate
argument because no explanation is provided in association with such
indicators.
3
Appeal2016-004873
Application 12/674,970
of its free end, which corresponds to at least 1. 5 times the width
(Bb) of its base end.
Feature C. wherein each respective resilient arm exhibits a
length (Ln) from the base end to the free end, which is greater
than a width (Bb) of its base end.
Br. 4. Appellant contends, "[a]n examination of Gruber reveals that it fails
to disclose any one of the above-noted Features A, Band C of claim 1." Br.
9. Appellant's contention is not persuasive because, regarding Feature A,
the Examiner relied on "design choice" (Final Act. 7; Ans. 3, 7, 10-11), and,
regarding Features Band C, the Examiner relied on the teachings of Fieber,
not Gruber (Final Act. 5-6).
With respect to Feature A, the Examiner states, "[i]t would have been
[an] obvious matter of design choice to have had the resilient arms
dimensioned such that the sum total of their engagement protrusions extend
around at least 50% of the inner circumference of the base body." Final Act.
7; see also Ans. 7, 10-11. The Examiner reasons that this is
for the purpose of providing additional contacting area between
the corrugated member and the engagement member, to reduce
the stress on each of the engagement members, to increase the
contact area in order to enhance the engagement between the
corrugated member and the engagement member, for the purpose
of insuring an appropriate fit and for having a structural
connection that would yield the same predicable result of being
able to connect two structures together.
Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 8, 9. The Examiner also states, "such a
modification would have involved a mere change in the size and/or
proportion of a component" and that "[a] change is size and/or proportion is
generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art."
Final Act. 7 (reference omitted); see also Ans. 7.
4
Appeal2016-004873
Application 12/674,970
In support of Appellant's argument, Appellant states, "[a]ttached to
this Brief, as Appendix C, is a chart showing the presence or absence of the
claimed features in both Gruber and Fieber." Br. 10. The portion of
Appendix C relating to claim 1 is replicated below.
APPENDIX C
CtA!M CHART
:Ae£lic.ant's Claim: Gruber
1
Inne,r sl.,s,.,s,ve yes
JP'eat.u.:r:e A no
Featur,e :a no
Featur