Ex Parte Kleber et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2016

12135458 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/135,458 06/09/2008 Richard M. Kleber
104102 7590 03/22/2016
BrooksGroup
48685 Hayes
Shelby Township, MI 48315
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.
P001544-RD-JMC 3763
EXAMINER
KOTTER, KIP T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3617
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2016 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 RICHARD M. KLEBER and RA VI VERMA
Appeal2014-000941
Application 12/135,458 1
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1
and 3-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, "[t]he field to which the disclosure generally
relates includes wheels used with motor vehicles. More specifically, the
invention relates to wheels having a barrier to prevent the wheels from
corroding." Spec. i-f 2.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is General Motors LLC.
App. Br. 4.
Appeal2014-000941
Application 12/135,458
CLAHvIS
Claims 1 and 3-11 are on appeal. Claim 1 is the only independent
claim and recites:
1. A wheel barrier assembly for creating a physical barrier
between a wheel hub, a wheel and a plurality of lugs securing the
wheel to the wheel hub, said wheel barrier assembly comprising:
a one-piece plate constructed and arranged to extend
between the wheel hub and the wheel to insulate the wheel from
the wheel hub, wherein said plate extends in a radial outward
direction for a distance beyond a confrontation region between
the wheel hub and the wheel, said confrontation region defined
as a region in which surfaces of the wheel hub and the wheel
oppose each other by the shortest distance separating the wheel
hub and the wheel, and wherein a free end portion of said plate
defined by the terminal portion of said plate extending in the
radial outward direction beyond the confrontation region does
not make direct contact with the wheel hub or the wheel and is
spaced from the wheel on an axial side of said free end portion
to define a first space between the wheel and said free end portion
in the axial outboard direction, and wherein said free end portion
is constructed and arranged to prevent the creation of a galvanic
cell, and wherein said plate includes an inner ring constructed
and arranged to be press fit into the wheel for positioning said
plate with respect to the wheel; and
a plurality of collets constructed and arranged to extend
through the wheel and secured to said plate to insulate the wheel
from the lugs.
App. Br. 28.
2
Appeal2014-000941
Application 12/135,458
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yoshimura2 in view ofYunes3 and
Puczkus.4
2. The Examiner rejects claims 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yoshimura in view of Yunes, Puczkus, and
Maiworm. 5
DISCUSSION
Yoshimura in view of Yunes and Puczkus
With respect to this rejection, Appellants raise arguments only with
respect to claim 1. See App. Br. 13-19. Thus, we discuss only claim 1
below.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Yoshimura discloses
a wheel barrier assembly for creating a barrier between a wheel and a hub
and a plurality of lugs. Final Action 2-3. The Examiner finds that
Yoshimura discloses a plurality of collets as claimed as well as a one-piece
plate. Id. at 3--4.
The Examiner acknowledges that:
Yoshimura fails to disclose the plate extending in a radial
outward direction for a distance beyond a confrontation region
so that a free end portion defined by the portion of the plate that
extends in the radial outward direction beyond the confrontation
region does not make direct contact with the wheel hub or the
wheel and is spaced from the wheel on an axial side of the free
2 Yoshimura, US 2001/0048241 Al, pub. Dec. 6, 2001.
3 Yunes, US 6,796,406 Bl, iss. Sept. 28, 2004.
4 Puczkus, DE 4306484 Cl, pub. Apr. 7, 1994.
5 Maiworm et al., US 5,454,628, iss. Oct. 3, 1995.
3
Appeal2014-000941
Application 12/135,458
end portion to define a first space between the wheel and the free
end portion in the axial outboard direction constructed and
arranged to prevent the creation of a galvanic cell.
Id. at 4. The Examiner finds that Yunes teaches a wheel barrier assembly
with a portion of the plate extending in a radial outward direction as claimed
and that extending the plate in this manner "provides the benefit of shielding
its brake from view to provide a desired appearance." Id. The Examiner
thus finds that it would have been obvious to modify Yoshimura's wheel
barrier assembly as taught by Yunes, which would prevent "the creation of a
galvanic cell while facilitating assembly of the plate and to shield the brake
from view through openings in the wheel." Id. at 5. The Examiner also
finds that Yunes provides additional motivation for the combination by
teaching that the plate configuration will provide shielding "from damage by
road water, pebbles, or other foreign matter." Ans. 4.
The Examiner also acknowledges that Yoshimura does not expressly
disclose that the inner ring is press fit into the wheel as required by claim 1.
With respect to this requirement, the Examiner finds that Puczkus teaches a
wheel barrier assembly with an inner ring attached in a variety of ways,
including being press fit. Final Action 5. The Examiner thus finds that it
would have been obvious to modify Yoshimura's assembly to include
attaching the inner ring via a press fit because Puczkus teaches that press-
fitting is "a well-known alternative securing means that would provide
predictable results for securing the inner ring in a desired position with
respect to the wheel." Id.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions
regarding the scope and content of the prior art with respect to claim 1. See
4
Appeal2014-000941
Application 12/135,458
Final Action 2-10; Ans. 4--10. As discussed below, we are not persuaded of
error by Appellants' arguments.
Appellants first argue that "[t]he Examiner has failed to articulate a
reason supported by some rational underpinning that would have prompted a
skilled artisan to combine Yoshimura and Yunes in the proposed manner."
App. Br. 13 (emphasis omitted). In support, Appellants assert that the
rejection is based on impermissible hindsight and that the Examiner's
support for the rejection is conclusory. Id. at 14--15. Further, Appellants
assert that Yoshimura and Yunes have different purposes and each reference
does not suggest a motivation to achieve the purpose of the other. Id. at 15-
16.
We disagree for the reasons provided by the Examiner. See Ans. 4--8.
Specifically, the Examiner's conclusion relies upon a specific teaching in
Yunes that a plate extending outwardly, as claimed and as disclosed by
Yunes, would shield the brake from view and prevent damage. We find that
this satisfied the Examiner's burden of providing a sufficient reason with
rational underpinning to support the Examiner's conclusion regarding
obviousness. KSR Int'!. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(quoting In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Further, the
Examiner need not find specific motivation in Yoshimura to support this
conclusion. Id.
Finally, we are not persuaded that the combination of Yoshimura and
Yunes relies on impermissible hindsight because the Examiner made a
reasoned analysis supported by the cited references that does not rely on
information found only in Appellants' disclosure. See In re McLaughlin,
443 F.2d 1392, 1395, (CCPA 1971).
5
Appeal2014-000941
Application 12/135,458
Appellants similarly argue that the Examiner did not "articulate a
reason supported by some rational underpinning that would have prompted a
skilled artisan to combine Yoshimura, Yunes, and Puczkus in the proposed
manner." App. Br. 16-19 (emphasis omitted). In support, Appellants assert
that the combination with Puczkus relies on impermissible hindsight; that it
is not clear whether press-fitting would have the same advantages as the
attaching means used in Yoshimura; and that the Examiner's motivation for
the combination is conclusory. Id.
We disagree for similar reasons as those discussed above and for the
reasons provided by the Examiner. See Ans. 8-10. Specifically, Puczkus
suggests that a variety of attachment methods, including press fitting, may
be used interchangeably for holding an inner ring in place. See Puczkus,
Abstract. Thus, we find that the Examiner's conclusion regarding
obviousness is adequately supported by an articulated reason with rational
underpinning and does not rely upon information found only in Appellants'
disclosure.
Based on the foregoing, we find that the Examiner established a prima
facie showing of obviousness with respect to claim 1 without error.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 3, 4, and 9-11 fall
with claim 1.
Yoshimura in view of Yunes, Puczkus, and Maiworm
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and further requires that "each of said
lug ends defines a relief engagable with said plate." App. Br. 29. The
Examiner finds that Maiworm "teaches a wheel barrier assembly that
includes a collet 13 with a lug end defining a relief at 14 engageable with the
plate." Final Action 6 (citing Maiworm, Fig 2; col. 3, 11. 28-34, 50-55).
6
Appeal2014-000941
Application 12/135,458
The Examiner thus finds that it would have been obvious to modify
Yoshimura, Yunes, and Puczkus with Maiworm's lug end configuration "for
centering and facilitating assembly of the wheel barrier assembly to the
wheel." Id.
Appellants argue that the combination of Yoshimura, Yunes, Puczkus,
and Mai worm does not teach or suggest lug ends including a relief as
required by claim 5. App. Br. 20. Specifically, Appellants assert that the
Examiner erred in finding that Maiworm teaches a collet with a lug end
defining a relief. Id. Rather, Appellants assert that "Maiworm discloses a
cylindrical centering bush 13 which 'has a central, radially projecting
collar 14, which engages in a depression 18 formed in a wheel-side end
surface of the spacer 10.' (Maiworm: column 3, lines 28-32, FIGS. 2-3)."
Id.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions
regarding claim 5, and we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument based
on the Examiner's findings and those which follow. See Final Action 5---6;
Ans. 10-11. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that under the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, Mai worm's "radially
projecting collar" may be "considered to be a relief inasmuch as it ...
projects from the remainder of the collet 13 on which it is formed." Ans. 10.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 5. Claims 6-8 fall with claim
5.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejections of claims 1
and 3-11.
7
Appeal2014-000941
Application 12/135,458
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8