Ex Parte Haertl et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2013

12181130 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte THOMAS HAERTL and JOSEF TREIPL
____________________

Appeal 2011-005491
Application 12/181,130
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-005491
Application 12/181,130
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Thomas Haertl and Josef Treipl (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baumgartner (US 6,684,985, iss.
Feb. 3, 2004) and Oowaki (JP P2003-232328 A, pub. Aug. 22, 2003), and
rejecting claims 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Baumgartner, Oowaki, and Stoka (US 4,494,630, iss. Jan. 22, 1985).
The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 13-16. Ans. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing in accordance with
37 C.F.R. § 41.47 was held on February 13, 2013.
We REVERSE.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, with emphasis added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter.
1. A commercial vehicle disc brake for use with a brake disc,
comprising:
a caliper, which, in use, straddles the brake disc, the
caliper having a housing compartment for housing a brake
application device of the disc brake;
a closure cover operatively configured to close-off and
bear against in a sealed manner an opening of the housing
compartment that faces the brake disc, the closure covering
including at least one opening through which the brake
application device applies the disc brake;
wherein elastically deformable latching tongues are
arranged on a peripheral edge region of the closure cover
extending from the closure cover in a direction toward the brake
disc, said latching tongues corresponding with a positive
locking mechanism of the caliper.

Appeal 2011-005491
Application 12/181,130
3
OPINION
A dispositive issue presented in this appeal is whether Baumgartner’s
flange opening 15 sealed off by the covering cap 16 is an opening that faces
the brake disc, as required in claim 1. See App. Br. 10-11; Ans. 3, 6.
As illustrated in Baumgartner’s figure 4, the cover cap 16 seals a
flange opening 15 in the flange 11 by which the caliper 10 is connected to a
compressed-air cylinder 12. Col. 3, ll. 34-36. Baumgartner’s flange 11, and
thus the flange opening 15 therein, face the cylinder 12 to be coupled to the
caliper 10; the flange and flange opening do not face a brake disc.
The Examiner’s finding that Baumgartner’s flange opening 15 faces a
brake disc ostensibly is predicated on an analogy to the relationship between
the back door of the kitchen (KIT), located on the right side of the room
layout illustrated on page 6 of the Answer, and the living room (LR) located
on the left side of the room layout, i.e., the front of the house. The Examiner
considers the back door to be facing the living room (LR) by way of the
dining room (DR), and, by analogy, considers Baumgartner’s opening 15 to
be facing the brake disc by way of an intervening cavity that accommodates
the rotary lever 13. Ans. 6. The Examiner’s position is untenable. The back
door of the kitchen (KIT) in the Examiner’s layout faces the rear of the
house, not the dining room (DR), and certainly not the living room (LR).
Likewise, Baumgartner’s flange opening 15 (disposed at the right of the
cavity alluded to, as illustrated in figure 4) faces the cylinder 12, not a brake
disc disposed to the left of the cavity.
Thus, the Examiner erred in finding that Baumgartner’s flange
opening 15 faces the brake disc. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1
and of its dependent claims 3, 6, and 7 as unpatentable over Baumgartner
and Oowaki.
Appeal 2011-005491
Application 12/181,130
4
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims
17, 18, and 20 as unpatentable over Baumgartner, Oowaki, and Stoka, which
is predicated in part on the flawed finding that Baumgartner’s flange
opening 15 faces the brake disc.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 17, 18, and 20 is
reversed.
REVERSED

mls