Ex Parte Salvermoser et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 7, 2017

11770855 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 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.
11/770,855 06/29/2007 Markus Salvermoser 02581-P0948A 7042
131672 7590
Whitmyer IP Group LLC
600 Summer Street
3rd Floor
Stamford, CT 06901
EXAMINER
HENDERSON, RYAN N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3779
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/07/2017 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 MARKUS SALVERMOSER and EWALD STIHL
Appeal 2014-008867
Application 11/770,855
Technology Center 3700
Before: EDWARD A. BROWN, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 10 and 12—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Francis (US 5,954,637, iss. Sept. 21, 1999). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on January 23, 2017.
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2014-008867
Application 11/770,855
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ invention relates to an endoscope. Claim 10, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
10. An endoscope, comprising:
an endoscope head having a proximal end area and a distal
end area, and
an optic tube having a proximal end area and a distal end
area, the optic tube having a constant outer diameter along a
length of the optic tube from the distal end area of the optic tube
to the distal end area of the endoscope head,
wherein the proximal end area of said optic tube is directly
press-fit with the distal end area of said endoscope head, and
wherein said distal end area of said endoscope head has,
on an inner side of said endoscope head, a circumferential recess
into which material of said optic tube engages with a form fit.
OPINION
Appellants argue that independent claim 10 is not anticipated because
“Francis does not teach tube 150 being press-fit within housing 102.”
Appeal Br. 6. Appellants argue that the term “press-fit” is a term of art
meaning “an interference or force fit assembled through the use of a press,”
where “‘[interference fit’ means ‘a fit wherein one of the mating parts of an
assembly is forced into a space provided by the other part in such a wav that
the condition of maximum metal overlap is achieved.’” Id. (citing McGraw-
Hill Dictionary of Engineering (1984 edition)) (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner does not agree that “press-fit” should be construed in
accordance with Appellants’ definition, but finds that consistent with
Appellants’ definition and Specification, Francis Figure 4 shows a “form fit
between the flange (172) and the first groove of the parallel grooves (166)”
that meets the limitations of the claimed “press-fit.” Ans. 5 and 7.
2
Appeal 2014-008867
Application 11/770,855
Appellants appear to argue that the flange and grooves of Francis do
not form a form or interference fit, but rather the tube 150 is held in place by
cement between the tube and head housing and because “tongue 120 and
groove 118” of the housing halves 110a, 110b “fixedly secur[e] the half
sections together.” Reply Br. 3.
Though it is true that Francis’s tongue 120 and groove 118 are used to
secure the two halves 110a, 110b of the head housing together, this does not
counter the Examiner’s determination that the tube and housing are
connected by an interference fit created by the flange 172 and groove 166.
We agree with the Examiner that Francis Figure 4 shows a form or
interference fit because the flange 172 not only fits within the first groove
166, but it is larger than the opening 116 and therefore is held in place
because of material overlap. The resulting contact and friction between the
flange 172 and the first groove 166 prevents removal of the tube from the
head, once the product is assembled. Appellants have not identified any
other structural limitations required by the claim term “press-fit” other than
those taught by Francis and discussed above. Thus, we are not informed of
error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Appellants also argue that Francis does not have the claimed
circumferential recess because in Francis “the parallel grooves 166 do not
extend about the full circumference of the endoscope head.” Appeal
Br. 9-10.
Francis states “[i]n the assembled condition, flange 172 (FIG. 4) of
outer fiber tube 150 is accommodated within the first groove of parallel
grooves 166.” Francis col. 7:55—57. The flange 172 appears to extend
circumferentially around the outer fiber tube 150, and the grooves 166
3
Appeal 2014-008867
Application 11/770,855
appear to extend circumferentially around the head 110a, 110b. Id. at
Figures 2-4. At the same time, Appellants are correct that both sides of the
flange and grooves are not clearly shown. However, based on the teachings
in Francis, including the teaching that the flange 172 “is accommodated
within the first groove” and based on the apparent circumferential nature of
the features in the figures, we determine that one of skill in the art would
understand Francis to teach a circumferential flange received in a
circumferential groove. Thus, “when the housing halves (110a, 110b) are
pressed together, the parallel grooves (166) would form a recess that extends
about the entire circumference of the inner surface of the endoscope head as
illustrated in Figs. 2 and 4.” Ans. 7. For this reason, we are not informed of
error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Claims 12—14 depend from claim 10 and are not argued separately.
Thus, claims 12—14 fall with claim 10. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 12—14 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
4