Ex Parte Molitor

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2013

10757897 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013)

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.
10/757,897 01/15/2004 Mark Molitor HOL001 P445 4738
277 7590 02/26/2013
PRICE HENEVELD LLP
695 KENMOOR SE
P O BOX 2567
GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49501
EXAMINER
WILHELM, TIMOTHY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3616
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2013 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 MARK MOLITOR
____________________

Appeal 2010-007103
Application 10/757,897
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before GAY ANN SPAHN, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
NEIL A. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 2-14 and 32. Claims 1, 21, and 36 are cancelled. Br. 2; Ans. 2. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Holland Group, Inc.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2010-007103
Application 10/757,897

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to “a heavy-duty suspension
system with increased roll stability and resistance to lateral deflection.”
Spec. 1, para. [0001]. Claims 2 and 32 are the independent claims on
appeal. Claim 2, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
2. A vehicle suspension assembly, comprising:
a first control arm having a first end and a second
end, wherein the first end of the first control arm includes
a first bushing adapted to pivotally couple the first control
arm to a first frame member of a vehicle, and wherein the
second end of the first control arm is adapted to be
pivotally coupled to an axle of a vehicle;
a second control arm having a first end and a second
end, wherein the first end of the second control arm
includes a second bushing adapted to pivotally couple the
second control arm to a second frame member of the
vehicle, and wherein the second end of the second control
arm is adapted to be pivotally coupled to an axle of the
vehicle;
a rigid first torsional member coupled to the first
control arm along a length of the first control arm
rearward of the first bushing and forward of an axle, and
coupled to the second control arm along a length of the
second control arm rearward of the second bushing and
forward of an axle, wherein the first torsional member is
fixedly coupled to the first control arm proximate the first
end of the first control arm, and wherein the torsional
member is fixedly coupled to the second control arm
proximate the first end of the second control arm; and
a third control arm having a first end and a second
end, wherein the first end of the third control arm is
adapted to be pivotally coupled to a third frame member of
a vehicle, and wherein the second end of the third control
arm is adapted to be pivotally coupled to at least a select
one of the second frame members and an axle of a vehicle.
Appeal 2010-007103
Application 10/757,897

3
EVIDENCE RELIED UPON
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
VanDenberg US 5,718,445 Feb. 17, 1998
Mair US 6,409,280 B1 Jun. 25, 2002

REJECTIONS2
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
(1) the rejection of claims 2-9, 11-14, and 323 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by VanDenberg (Ans. 3-5); and
(2) the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over VanDenberg and Mair (Ans. 5).

2 The Examiner withdrew: (i) the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over VanDenberg and Goby (US 2,823,927, iss.
Feb. 18, 1958)(Ans. 2); (ii) the rejection of claims 18-20 and 29-35 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over VanDenberg and Conover (US
6,832,772 B2, iss. Dec. 21, 2004)(Ans. 3); and (iii) the rejection of claims 2,
18-20, and 22-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Buhl (US
5,711,544, iss. Jan. 27, 1998) and VanDenberg (Ans. 3).
3 Although the Examiner’s ground of rejection also identifies claim 36 as
being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by VanDenberg,
claim 36 has been cancelled. Br. 2; Ans. 2 (indicating that “[t]he statement
of the status of claims contained in the brief is correct”); see also
Amendment filed Apr. 10, 2009 cancelling claim 36.
Appeal 2010-007103
Application 10/757,897

4
ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 2-9, 11-14, and 32
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by VanDenberg
Claims 2-9 and 11-14
The Examiner found that VanDenberg discloses all of the limitations
of independent claim 2. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner found in particular that
“[t]he torsional member 31 [of VanDenberg] is situated such that it is
proximate the first end 35 of the first control arm 14.” Id. at 4. However,
the Examiner’s finding that VanDenberg discloses this claimed subject
matter is unreasonably broad for the reasons that follow.
The Examiner interprets the term “proximate” as used in claim 2 as “a
relative description” lacking a “fully define[d] . . .relationship of the
torsional member with respect to the control arm.” Ans. 6. Appellant points
out that “the stabilizer bar [of VanDenberg] is affixed to associated control
arms at nearly a midpoint of the control arms,” rather than near the ends of
the control arms. Br. 9 (emphasis added). The Examiner explains that “in
comparison with respect to a more distal part of the vehicle, such as the
bumper, the torsional member is deemed to be very near the specified end of
the control arm” and, thus, “proximate” the end of the control arm. Ans. 6.
Under the Examiner’s interpretation, fixing of the first torsional member to
any location on the control arm would be “proximate the . . . end of the
control arm” because the torsional member would be closer to the control
arm than one or more other vehicle parts. Therefore, the Examiner’s
interpretation of the term “proximate” encompasses essentially any
attachment to the control arm. The term so interpreted does not limit claim 2
in any practical sense, and such an interpretation would render essentially
superfluous the limitation of claim 2 that “the first torsional member is
Appeal 2010-007103
Application 10/757,897

5
fixedly coupled to the first control arm proximate the first end of the control
arm, and . . . fixedly coupled to the second control arm proximate the first
end of the second control arm.” Claims App’x. (emphasis added); see also
Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(denouncing claim constructions which render phrases in claims
superfluous). Since the Appellant suggests that the ordinary and customary
meaning of the claim term “proximate” is “very near” (see Br. 9 (citing
MERRIAM-WEBSTER, copyright 2007)), we conclude the Examiner’s
interpretation that would cover attachment of the torsional bar even at the
approximate midpoint of each control arm is not reasonable in this context.
Under Appellant’s interpretation of claim 2, the term “proximate the first
end” is limited to where the torsional member is fixed very near to the end of
each control arm, as opposed to being fixed at the approximate midpoint or
very near to the midpoint of each control arm. Accordingly, the Examiner’s
finding that VanDenberg discloses a torsional member fixedly coupled to
the first control arm proximate the first end of the first control arm and
fixedly coupled to the second control arm proximate the first end of the
control arm as recited in the claims is unreasonably broad.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the Examiner erred in finding
that VanDenberg discloses all of the limitations recited in independent claim
2, and we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 2 and its
dependent claims 3-9 and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
VanDenberg.

Appeal 2010-007103
Application 10/757,897

6
Claim 32
The Examiner also found that VanDenberg discloses all of the
limitations of independent claim 32. Ans. 3-4. Appellant does not present
any arguments with respect to independent claim 32 under heading A listing
the claims rejected as anticipated by VanDenberg and instead only
specifically addresses claims 2 and 8. App. Br. 8-9. To the extent that
Appellant is relying on arguments presented for claim 2 relating to the
failure of VanDenberg to disclose a torsional member fixedly coupled to the
first and second control arms proximate the first ends of the first and second
control arms (Br. 8-9) for claim 32, these arguments are not persuasive with
respect to claim 32, since claim 32 does not require that the torsional
member be coupled to the first and second control arms proximate the first
ends. Unclaimed features cannot impart patentability to claims. In re
Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Arguments must be
commensurate in scope with the actual claim language. In re Self, 671 F.2d
1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Further, Appellant makes no additional
arguments regarding the failure of VanDenberg to disclose any claim
limitations recited in independent claim 32. See Br. 8-16; Cf. Br. 14
(Appellant contends that the purported combination of Buhl and
VanDenberg is improper, but does not identify any limitations that are
missing from either reference).
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the Examiner did not err in
finding that VanDenberg discloses all of the limitations recited in
independent claim 32, and we sustain the rejection of independent claim 32
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by VanDenberg.

Appeal 2010-007103
Application 10/757,897

7
Rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over VanDenberg and Mair

The Examiner articulates no persuasive reason why the teachings of
Mair might have remedied the deficiencies of VanDenberg as applied to
parent claim 2 and as discussed hereinabove. For the foregoing reason, we
find that the Examiner erred in concluding that the subject matter of claim
10 would have been obvious from the combination of VanDenberg and
Mair; and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-9 and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is REVERSED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
REVERSED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Klh