Ex Parte Lepre

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2016

13911357 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/911,357 06/06/2013
29973 7590 11/23/2016
CRGOLAW
ATTN: STEVEN M. GREENBERG, ESQ.
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stefano Lepre
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.
1083-108PUSCON 4826
EXAMINER
BROWN, DREW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2016 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEP ANO LEPRE
Appeal2014-007811
Application 13/911,357
Technology Center 3600
Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-14, and 27-30. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-007811
Application 13/911,357
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a twist-axle with longitudinally-varying
wall thickness. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A unitary, tubular cross-beam member for use in a twist-
axle of a vehicle, the twist-axle being provided with two trailing
arms, the cross-beam member extending between and joining the
trailing arms at two connection regions of the cross-beam
member, the connection regions being disposed inwardly of the
respective trailing arms to form an integral axle, the cross-beam
member comprising a central section formed between the two
connection regions, the central section being torsionally elastic
and each of the connection regions being torsionally stiff
adjacent at least a portion of the connection region joining each
of the trailing arms, the cross-beam member having a wall
thickness that is generally uniform circumferentially and varying
longitudinally from the torsionally elastic central section to each
of the torsionally stiff connection regions.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.).
REJECTION 1
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-14, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Opel (EP 681932 A2; pub. Nov. 15, 1995).
1 The Examiner indicated that the Terminal Disclaimer filed February 14,
2014, overcomes the rejections in the Final Action made on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting relying on various claims in US 8,490,990.
Advisory Act. 1 (dated February 25, 2014). Accordingly, these double
patenting rejections are not before us for review as part of the present
appeal.
2
Appeal2014-007811
Application 13/911,357
OPINION
Appellant argues claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-14, and 27-30 as a group.
Appeal Br. 5, 17. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Opel discloses all of the features recited in
claim 1, including (i) two torsionally stiff connection regions, (ii) a tubular
cross beam with a torsionally elastic central section, and (iii) that the wall
thickness of the cross beam member varies smoothly from the torsionally
elastic central section to each of the torsionally stiff connection regions.
Final Act. 4.
Appellant asserts that claim 1 "requires a variation in wall thickness
between the central section and the connection regions, and a variation in
wall thickness within the connection regions would not meet this limitation."
Appeal Br. 12. Appellant contends that the variation in wall thickness
disclosed by Opel is within the connection region of Opel's structure. See,
e.g., Appeal Br. 13-17. In this regard, Appellant asserts that the Examiner
improperly construed claim 1 's connection regions as "only the precise point
of contact between the cross-beam member and the trailing arms, and as not
including any portion of the cross-beam member extending inwardly from
that point of contact." Appeal Br. 5.
In response, the Examiner indicates that the rejection of claim 1 does
not rely on an interpretation of the connection region as a single point. Ans.
4. Further, the Examiner provides an annotated copy of Figure 9 of Opel
indicating where the Examiner finds Opel to provide a connection region as
recited in claim 1. Ans. 5. Discussing the marked up copy of Figure 9, the
Examiner states "only a portion of the cross-member shown in Figures 8 and
9 is being considered as the 'connection region,' and therefore, the varying
3
Appeal2014-007811
Application 13/911,357
wall thickness is not within the connection region but rather between the
central section and the connection regions." Ans. 5---6. We reproduce the
Examiner's annotated copy of Figure 9 of Opel below.
CGfWHB{::t~ \) n re: bi f 0 n.
i-. ~ .. '".~~ . ,f' f ,'#
,. ·~ >l'·· .
' . . • . ',......,..,._, ·,,.,'."""w~\.~~-"'-.;:1; , ,-..;.,.>;.. ,-.._~.;-.. :..,,;· . "\-: .,, "'':-;•;.."".~i$l~"•~;:.. . . ~ ,· . . . ·. ···1ti.~~--·. . .. ·~· .·~.· \' . . . '~""".....:,~..;.~,~~;-~: .-- .~'<'t·•r·.:~'1· .
. ·, '~< ~ ·'. . .
...-!I>, ~ ~· .....
t. ·vt • ~ :;
. ·:~ f'i:'. ~·.··~ < . /' . . 1-:~ ~· :; \ . ~· :..f ~ ~ j
. .1., ".;.,, .. ; ,:. ;:, .. 'l.; > ·~-::, .. '-''''''·" ~ .,{ .•• ,,,,.,,.,, .. , ' ........ , .. , • ,·,' ·'··:·~' ,,,,,' '.'} .
Figure 9 of Opel depicts one embodiment of a connection between
longitudinal control arm 2 and transverse strut 5 of a vehicle (Opel 5) and
the Examiner's annotation identifies a portion of the length of profiled tube
end 19 as a "connection region" (Ans. 5).
In reply, Appellant asserts that the Examiner's interpretation of the
term "connection region" as it is used in claim 1 is incorrect, and the portion
of profiled tube end 19 identified by the Examiner in annotated Figure 9
cannot correspond to the recited connection region. Reply Br. 4--5.
Regarding the proper interpretation of claim 1, Appellant states that, "as read
by one skilled in the art consistent with the specification, the 'connection
regions' include at least the parts of the cross-beam member that are
torsionally stiff because of their transverse cross-sectional shape." Reply Br.
6; see also Spec. i-fi-129, 31, 34. Further with regard to the scope of claim 1,
Appellant states:
4
Appeal2014-007811
Application 13/911,357
Upon review of paragraph [0034], since at least part of the
"connection region" is torsionally stiff and the torsional stiffness
results from the transverse cross-sectional shape, it follows that
the longitudinal extent of the "connection region" corresponds
to at least the longitudinal extent of the transverse cross-
sectional shape that imparts the torsional stiffness.
Reply Br. 6 (emphasis added).
Appellant contends that Opel describes the portion of strut 5 between
section lines A-A and B-B as a "transition zone," and Appellant asserts that
what is to the left of section line A-A is a torsion-proof zone corresponding
to the recited "connection region." Reply Br. 10-12. Appellant further
asserts that Figure 9 of Opel shows portions of strut 5 to the left of line A-A,
and "the 'profiled tube end' denoted by reference numeral 19 in Figure 2 is
the 'connection region' of Opel." Reply Br. 11-12. Thus, asserts Appellant,
the portion of Opel where the wall thickness varies is within the connection
region of Opel instead of between the connection region and a central
section as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 13.
Appellant's Specification states:
As can be seen in Figure 6, the end section 204 has an end
cross-sectional shape that may be circular, oval, or some other
non-circular shape. Such a shape is suitable for attaching the
end section to a side trailing arm. Such a transverse cross-
sectional shape also provides a torsionally stiff end section,
which as noted earlier, is a connection region. The transverse
cross-sectional shape of the transition section 206 transitions
from that of the mid-section 202 to that of the end section 204.
An example is shown in Figure 5. Preferably, such transition is
smooth and gradual. When the cross-beam member is twisted by
opposite torsional forces exerted on opposite ends 104, the
transition sections transmit the torsional forces to the midsection.
Smooth transition helps avoiding any concentrated build-up of
stress in the transition section when the mid-section is twisted by
5
Appeal2014-007811
Application 13/911,357
the twisting forces exerted at the end sections and transmitted
through the transition sections.
Spec. i-f 34 (emphasis added). Thus, the connection region is defined in
terms of stiffness provided by a shape, but the connection region is not
limited to any particular shape. Further, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of claim 1 does not preclude the presence of a transition zone
as taught by Opel. Although claim 1 recites that the cross-beam member has
a wall thickness "varying longitudinally from the torsionally elastic central
section to each of the torsionally stiff connection regions," claim 1 does not
limit the torsionally elastic central section in any way that would exclude
Opel's transition zone.
Assuming, for the purpose of argument, that profiled end tube 19 in
Figure 9 of Opel is located to the left of section line A-A, 2 we do not agree
that it is necessary to consider the entire structure depicted in Figure 9 to be
a connection region and to then discount the varying wall thickness depicted
in Figure 9 as something within such a connection region. The fact that
Opel does not label the region identified by the Examiner (see annotated
Figure 9 of Opel; see also Ans. 5) as a "connection region" is outweighed by
the fact that the structure depicted in Figure 9 and set forth in Opel's
discussion thereof satisfies the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
connection region recited in claim 1. Specifically, the finding that the wall
thickness of the component in question varies between the connection region
and the central section is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by
Opel. Claims 2, 3, 5-9, 12-14, and 27-30 fall with claim 1.
2 Opel states, Figures 6-11 "show alternative embodiments of the connection
point between the longitudinal control arm and the transverse strut." Opel 4.
6
Appeal2014-007811
Application 13/911,357
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-14, and 27-30 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7