Ex Parte Junge et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 27, 2007

10147320 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 27, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication in and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
___________

Ex parte DIETER JUNGE and ARMIN SEGELER
___________

Appeal No. 2006-1289
Application No. 10/473,320
Technology Center 3600
___________

ON BRIEF
___________

Decided: February 27, 2007
___________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JENNIFER D. BAHR, ROBERT E. NAPPI,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. §134 from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 4 to 7, which are all of the claims pending in this application.
Claims 1 to 3 and 8 have been cancelled.
1
Appeal Number: 2006-1289
Application Number: 10/147,320
The appellants’ invention relates to a gear-changing device for a motor-vehicle.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of the claims
which are appended to the brief.
PRIOR ART
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Brock 5,400,673 Mar. 28, 1995
Neubert et al. (Neubert) 5,529,424 Jun. 25, 1996
Hager DE 29703980 May 28, 1997
REJECTIONS
Claims 4, 5, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Brock in view of Hager.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Brock in view of Hager and further in view of Neubert.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the
examiner's answer (mailed November 22, 2004) for the reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to appellants’ brief (filed July 21, 2004) for the arguments
thereagainst.

OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
2
Appeal Number: 2006-1289
Application Number: 10/147,320
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations that follow.
The rejections in this case are made pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103. We
initially note that the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955,
1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993), which is established when the teachings of the prior art
itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary
skill in the art See In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
The examiner finds that Brock discloses the invention as claimed except that
Brock does not disclose a bolt having a catch and lattice structure. The examiner
relies on Hager for teaching a bolt having a catch and lattice structure and
concludes:
. . . it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to replace the
bolt of Brock with the bolt of Hager so as to provide a
more secure bolt connection, while allowing for the bolt
to be easily removed for repairs or maintenance [final
rejection at page 2].

We find that Hager relates to distribution devices installed on a
meter panel with interlocking parts placed at opposite sides of a cover
hood for the snap fastening of the cover hood to the carrier frame
(page 3).
We find that Brock discloses an automotive gear changing
device including a pivot bolt 110 around which an automotive gear
shifting subassembly pivots (Figure 1).
3
Appeal Number: 2006-1289
Application Number: 10/147,320
We agree with the appellants that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would not have been motivated to substitute the bolt of Hager
which includes a catch and lattice structure with the bolt 110 of
Brock. As Hager teaches that the therein disclosed bolt is used to
connect a cover of a meter box to the box itself, a person of ordinary
skill would not be motivated by the teachings of Hager to use the
Hager bolt instead of the Brock bolt 110 around which an automotive
gear shifting subassembly pivots. The technical requirements for a
bolt to connect a cover to a meter box are totally different from the
technical requirements of a bolt around which an automotive gear
shifting subassembly rotates. Therefore, any motivation to combine
the teachings of Hager and Brock in the manner suggested by the
examiner could only be acquired through impermissible hindsight
reconstruction using the appellants’ claimed invention as a guide.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 1-5, 7 and 8 as unpatentable over Brock in view of Hager. We
likewise will not sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 because this rejection also relies on the combination of Brock
and Hager and the disclosure of Neubert does not cure the deficiencies
of the Brock/Hager combination.

4
Appeal Number: 2006-1289
Application Number: 10/147,320

The decision of the examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JENNIFER D. BAHR ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ROBERT E. NAPPI )
Administrative Patent Judge )

5
Appeal Number: 2006-1289
Application Number: 10/147,320
Crowell & Moring, LLP
Intellectual Property Group
P.O. Box 14300
Washington, DC 20044-4300

MEC/ki
6