Ex Parte Geibel

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 28, 2019

13524372 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/524,372 06/15/2012
53609 7590 07/02/2019
REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C.
2215 PERRYGREEN WAY
ROCKFORD, IL 61107
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andreas Geibel
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.
509192 5162
EXAMINER
RASHID, FAZLE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1774
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2019 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
RockMail@reinhartlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHENG-WEI HUANG and
HSIANG-YUEH WANG 1
Appeal2018-004432
Application 13/524,372
Technology Center 2800
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and LILAN
REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Robert Bosch GmbH.
Appeal2018-004432
Application 13/524,372
Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 4--16. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants' subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below ( emphasis added to highlight key disputed limitation):
1. A static mixer for installation in an exhaust line of a
combustion engine, with an annular body, comprising at least one
blade row with a plurality of guide blades standing away from the
annular body to an inside,
wherein,
the annular body defines an outer periphery of the static
mixer and in a circumferential direction consists of at least two part
bodies,
- part bodies adjacent in the circumferential direction are
fastened to one another,
- each part body comprises a plurality of guide blades;
wherein, the part bodies adjacent in the circuniferential
direction inter-engage into one another in a protrusion-receptacle
configuration in a region of circuniferential ends of the part bodies
and are pressed together in the region of the circuniferential ends
with plastic deformation; and
wherein, the part bodies adjacent in the circumferential
direction are arranged in the circumferential direction abutting with
their circumferential ends;
wherein the region of circumferential ends is on the outer
periphery; and
wherein the plurality of guide blades are formed at an axial
extent of the annular body and radially converge to a central region
of the annular body.
2
Appeal2018-004432
Application 13/524,372
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Archer
Speer
Ogasawara
us 3,751,009
us 4,316,673
us 6,109,781
THE REJECTIONS
Aug. 7, 1973
Feb.23, 1982
Aug. 29, 2000
1. Claims 1, 7-13, and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Speer in view of Archer
(hereinafter referred to as Speer and Archer, respectively).
2. Claims 1, 4---6, and 8-16 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ogasawara et al. in view of Archer,
(hereinafter referred to as Ogasawara and Archer, respectively).
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[I]t
has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the
alleged error in the examiner's rejections."). After considering the evidence
presented in this Appeal (including the Examiner's Answer (filed Jan. 22,
2018), the Appeal Brief (filed Nov. 20, 2017), and the Reply Brief), we are
persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. Thus, we reverse the
3
Appeal2018-004432
Application 13/524,372
Examiner's rejections for the reasons provided in the record by Appellants,
and add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants' Figure 2 illustrates static mixer 9 having, inter alia,
annularbody 10, blade row 11, 11', 11, 11", and guide blades 12,
reproduced below:
Fig. 2
It is the Examiner's position that Speer teaches the claimed elements
of claim 1 ( except for the plastic deformation aspects whereby the Examiner
relies upon Archer). Ans. 4--5.
Figure 5 of Speer is provided below, for comparison, and show one
half of a two-part mixing device having a tube-like shape with an open
internal passage 41. The internal passage 41 including baffles 42 with
4
Appeal2018-004432
Application 13/524,372
circular openings 43 to permit fluid flow, which essentially provides a
plurality of mixing chambers 44 within the internal passage 41 when the two
parts of the mixing device are assembled together. Speer, col. 5, 11. 16-30.
FIG. 5 From Speer Reference
Appellants argue the Examiner erred by concluding that Speer teaches
a blade row at reference numeral 42, let alone, a blade row having
multiple guide blades as recited in independent claims 1 and 16. Appeal Br.
7. Appellants submit that, rather, Speer teaches baffles 42 having circular
openings 43 that form various mixing chambers 44 within the
internal chamber passage 41 of the mixing device taught by Speer. Appeal
Br. 7; Speer, Figure 5, col. 5, 11. 16-30. We agree. We also refer to
Appellants' reply made on page 8 of the Reply Brief. Therein, Appellants
5
Appeal2018-004432
Application 13/524,372
correctly state that the Examiner's position does not point to evidence
showing that one skilled in the art would understand that the baffle plates 42
of Speer teach the claimed blade row having a plurality or multitude of guide
blades.
Furthermore, on page 5 of the Answer, the Examiner relies upon
Archer for teaching the claim limitation pertaining to part bodies being inter-
engaged by plastic deformation. 2 The Examiner states that Archer teaches
(col. 5, lines 38-42) a static mixer comprising an annular body 22 and
interconnected part bodies 25, and that the alleged interconnected body parts
25 are made from a plastically deforming metal. However, we agree with
Appellants that Archer, at col. 5, 11. 3 8-42, does not teach part bodies inter-
engaged by plastic deformation. This cited portion of Archer merely states
that "the mixing device may be easily manufactured from any suitable
material such as steel, metal alloys or heavy duty plastics, and may be
coated with various materials such as rubber for use with highly corrosive or
reactive materials." As Appellants further point out on page 12 of the Reply
Brief, Archer teaches that "[t]he mixing elements [25] are fixed within the
tube 22 either individually as by welding or pinning through the wall of the
tube 22, or preferably, the mixing elements [25] are welded or fastened
together to form a unitary string of elements." Archer, col. 3, 11. 34-38.
Archer also teaches that " . . . in a preferred arrangement in which the
individual mixing elements 25 are unitarily fixed to each other, each end of
the completed assembly of mixing elements may be pinned, welded or
otherwise affixed to the inner walls or ends of the tube 22, thus also
2 We note In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276,279 (CCPA 1969) (holding that
"interbonded one to another by interfusion" connotes structure).
6
Appeal2018-004432
Application 13/524,372
providing a unitary combination of the tube and the mixing elements."
Archer, col. 3, 11. 43-49. None of these teachings indicate part bodies inter-
engaged by plastic deformation. The disputed language provides specific
structural features as set forth by Appellants in the record ( see also footnote
2, supra).
In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 1. We also reverse
Rejection 2 because this rejection suffers the same deficiencies regarding the
Examiner's reliance upon Archer for teaching part bodies inter-engaged by
plastic deformation.
DECISION
Each rejection is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
7