Ex Parte Lampe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 8, 2017

13602862 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/602,862 09/04/2012 Holger Lampe 67341-2962US1;
11FECT042
5299
759076799
FAURECIA
c/o Carlson, Gaskey & Olds, P.C.
400 W. Maple Road, Ste. 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
06/26/2017 EXAMINER
DOLAK, JAMES M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2017 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):
Silke.Hertzsch@faurecia.com
ptodocket @ cgolaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HOLGER LAMPE, BEMHARD MAYEREDER, and
JULIAN RAPHAEL OLM
Appeal 2016-003501
Application 13/602,862
Technology Center 3600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, SHARON FENICK, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-003501
Application 13/602,862
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—4, 6, and 18—20, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to “[a]n exhaust pipe assembly [that]
comprises an exhaust pipe extending along a pipe axis and a fastening panel
that is mounted to the exhaust pipe.” (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced
below, exemplifies the subject matter on appeal:
1. An exhaust pipe assembly comprising:
an exhaust pipe extending along a pipe axis;
a fastening panel mounted to the exhaust pipe, the fastening
panel including two contact surfaces that are substantially
parallel to each other, and wherein a cross-section of the
fastening panel is configured in a curved manner, and wherein
the two contact surfaces of the fastening panel are spaced apart
in a circumferential direction and are soldered to the exhaust
pipe; and
a support connected with the fastening panel and arranged
between the two contact surfaces of the fastening panel.
1 Appellants identify Faurecia Emissions Control Technologies, Germany
GmbH as the real party in interest. (See App. Br. 1.)
2
Appeal 2016-003501
Application 13/602,862
THE REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hubbell US 3,960,232 June 1, 1976
Kromis et al. US 6,758,300 B2 July 6, 2004
Grimm US 8,100,438 B2 Jan. 24,2012
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1—4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kromis and Grimm. (See Final Act. 4—6.)
2. Claims 18—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kromis, Grimm, and Hubbell. (See Final Act. 6—8.)
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Kromis teaches all of the limitations of claim
1, except that Kromis fails to explicitly disclose that the two contact surfaces
of the fastening panel are “soldered to the exhaust pipe.” (See Final Act. 4—
5.) The Examiner further finds, however, that “Grimm teaches that it is well
known in the art of exhaust systems to provide for fastening of components
by soldering” and that it would have been obvious to apply Grimm’s
soldering in a system like that of Kromis as a secure and inexpensive method
of fastening the components together. (Id. at 5.)
Appellants argue the Examiner’s combination does not teach or
suggest the claimed “two contact surfaces that are substantially parallel to
each other.” (See App. Br. 3.) Appellants assert that these claimed parallel
3
Appeal 2016-003501
Application 13/602,862
contact surfaces are indicated by reference letter “B” in Figure 2 of their
application, which is reproduced below.
Excerpt from Appellants ’ Figure 2
Showing Assembly in Cross-Section
The Examiner finds this feature in Figure 4 of Kromis, where “V-
shaped bracket 272” (Kromis 5:11) connects to tailpipe 26, as shown below.
Excerpt from Kromis ’ Figure 4
Showing a Perspective View
4
Appeal 2016-003501
Application 13/602,862
Appellants argue that “[i]f the surfaces of Kromis are extended, it is
clear that they would intersect” and “[a]s such, the surfaces themselves
cannot be considered to be parallel to each other.” (App. Br. 3.)
The Examiner responds “that while Figure 4 of Kromis does not
specifically illustrate the second leg contact surface since the view of this
contact surface is obstructed by the exhaust pipe 26, one of ordinary skill in
the art would understand that both legs of element 272 would be attached
across from one another at a point on the exhaust pipe 26 substantially
parallel to one another based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
claims, based on the Kromis figures in light of the Kromis disclosure.”
(Ans. 7, citing Kromis 5:10—19.) The Examiner further finds “Applicant
does not define the limitation ‘substantially parallel’ in the original
disclosure, thus the broadest reasonable interpretation allows for a claim
construction in line with the figures of Kromis as best understood.” (Id.)
While we agree with the Examiner that “both legs of element 272
would be attached across from one another at a point on the exhaust pipe,”
we do not agree that Kromis teaches or suggests “a fastening panel” with
two contact surfaces that are “substantially parallel to each other.” The
fastening panel the Examiner identifies in Kromis (item 272) is “V-shaped,”
and, in light of that V-shape, to the extent that Kromis teaches two contact
surfaces on its fastening panel, we do not agree that these two contact
surfaces, one on each “leg” of the V-shape element 272, would reasonably
be considered “substantially parallel.”
5
Appeal 2016-003501
Application 13/602,862
We accordingly decline to sustain the Section 103(a) rejections of
claims 1—4, 6, and 18—20, all of which include the subject limitation.2
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1—4, 6, and 18—20 are reversed.
REVERSED
2 We do not consider, because the issue is not before us, whether the claimed
subject matter would have been obvious in view of Kromis’ teachings.
6