Ex Parte Starz

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 22, 2017

13985597 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 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.
13/985,597 08/15/2013 Reiner Starz OST-131050 4179
22876 7590 05/24/2017
FACTOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, LTD.
1327 W. WASHINGTON BLVD.
SUITE 5G/H
CHICAGO, IL 60607
EXAMINER
PUIG, GABRIELA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2017 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):
jmerritt@factoriplg.com
ysolis @factoriplg.com
c schroeder @ factoriplg .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte REINER STARZ
Appeal 2016-001651
Application 13/985,5971
Technology Center 3600
Before HUNG H. BUI, ADAM J. PYONIN, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Office Action rejecting claims 1—9, all of which are
pending on appeal. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Eisenmann AG. App.
Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed May 27, 2015
(“App. Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed September 3, 2015 (“Ans.”); Final
Office Action mailed September 29, 2014 (“Final Act.”); and original
Specification filed August 15, 2013 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2016-001651
Application 13/985,597
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to “a handling module [shown in Figure
5] for handling vehicle wheels, in a system for the surface treatment thereof,
having at least two gripping units which are carried by a frame structure and
whereof each includes a plurality of contact pressure elements which may be
pressed against one or more counter-surfaces of an individual vehicle
wheel.” Spec. 1:2—6.
Appellant’s Figure 5 is reproduced below with additional markings
for illustration:
inIN
N. /7
ouo / i {y J ^7 P# / R
f • f N-WW.--' 1 -
/ / -Ns // \
^y.
HQh f \ \ \ \x*.u , \ \ cc>01 «.*)■* i \ fihn
0 l/o
! Vh I
i.5
AN & C(
Appellant’s Figure 5 shows handling module 10 for handling vehicle
wheels 12.
2
Appeal 2016-001651
Application 13/985,597
As shown in Appellant’s Figure 5, the handling module 10 includes
front and rear gripping units 32a—32b for gripping vehicle wheels 12. Each
gripping unit 32a or 32b includes bearing cheeks 56a having rod 58a and
contact pressure plate 60a. Spec. 9:14—16. The contact pressure plate 60a
may act as a contact pressure element, pressing against the wheel outer face
62, which serves as a counter surface, of vehicle wheel 12. Spec. 8:27—9:3.
According to Appellant,
the bearing cheeks 56a with the rods 58a with contact pressure
plate 60a and the electric motors 64a form a translational device
66a by means of which the vehicle wheel 12 gripped by the
gripping unit 32a is movable in relation to the frame structure 16
by a motion component parallel to the axis of rotation R of the
gripped vehicle wheel 12.
Spec. 10:1-6.
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal and is illustrative of
Appellant’s invention, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in
italics:
1. A handling module for handling vehicle wheels in a
system for the surface treatment thereof, the handling module
comprising:
at least two gripping units which are carried by a frame
structure, each gripping unit being capable of gripping one
single vehicle wheel, and whereof each includes a plurality of
contact pressure elements which are capable of being pressed
against one or more counter-surfaces of an individual vehicle
wheel, and
wherein at least one of the gripping units has a
translational device by which the contact pressure elements are
moved in relation to the frame structure by a motion component
parallel to an axis of rotation of the vehicle wheel.
App. Br. 15 (Claims App.).
3
Appeal 2016-001651
Application 13/985,597
Examiner’s Rejection and References
Claims 1—9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (JP 06-170658; published June 21, 1994;
“Tanaka”) and Duran et al. (US Publication 2009/0035107 Al; published
Feb. 5, 2009; “Duran”). Final Act. 2—5.
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Tanaka
teaches Appellant’s claimed “handling module” for handling vehicle wheels,
shown in Figures 1—4, including:
(1) “at least two gripping units which are carried by a frame
structure . . . each includes a plurality of contact pressure
elements which are capable of being pressed against one or more
counter-surfaces of an individual vehicle wheel” (Figs. 1—4,
Abstract);
(2) “wherein at least one of the gripping units has a
translational device by which the contact pressure elements are
moved in relation to the frame structure by a motion component
parallel to an axis of rotation of the vehicle wheel” (Figs. 1,3,4
125).
Final Act. 2—3 (citing Tanaka 125, Figs. 1 4).
Tanaka’s Figure 1 shows a handling module for handling vehicle
wheels, as reproduced below with additional markings for illustration.
4
Appeal 2016-001651
Application 13/985,597
c
\
4 \
t V \/
""TT
oda—h. no 44-AA'w, ■_!hteir U~ a
y9 tmmm
/* y-ft
+ri
• \y\
41
"+
<_
■*— ife
\,
'V-,. ?!
\.
1 ?•' 1.-■ > 1
a \\ r k i
a
£2fe
Tanaka’s Figure 1 shows a handling module for handling vehicle wheels.
As shown in Tanaka’s Figure 1, the handling module includes at least
two gripping units (3, 8) supported by a frame structure (1, 2, 6) with contact
pressure elements (3a, 8a) capable of being pressed against one or more
counter surfaces of an individual vehicle wheel (W). According to Tanaka,
at least one of the gripping units (3, 8) has a translational device in the form
of coil springs (3c, 8c), cylinder (4, 9), rods (4a, 9a), and movable carriages
(7) by which the contact pressure elements (3, 3a, 8, 8a) are moved in
relation to the frame structure by a motion component parallel to an axis of
rotation of the vehicle wheel (W). Tanaka H 25—28, Fig. 2. As such, each
of Tanaka’s gripping units (3, 8) is not only capable of gripping within the
meaning of the claim, but also functions to grip onto a single vehicle wheel.
Nevertheless, the Examiner relies on Duran for teaching the feature
“each gripping unit being capable of gripping one single vehicle wheel” to
5
Appeal 2016-001651
Application 13/985,597
support the conclusion of obviousness. Final Act. 3 (citing Duran 138, Figs.
1-12).
Appellant presents several arguments against the combination of
Tanaka and Duran. First, Appellant argues “Tanaka and Duran teach
devices having gripping elements designed to grip and move a tire” that are
different from Appellant’s claimed “gripping unit. . . gripping one single
vehicle wheel” and, as such, “the contact pressure elements of Tanaka and
Duran designed for holding tires are not appropriate to hold vehicle wheels”
because “the amount of pressure and type of pressure elements required to
grip and move vehicle wheels and tires are different, as what works for
vehicle wheels would damage tires.” App. Br. 9—10, 15.
Second, Appellant argues “Tanaka also does not address the problem
of structural tolerances required for vehicle wheels” especially, “if two
vehicle wheels are gripped by the handling module at the same time having
different overall heights” and, as such, “[djamage to the device may result if
the transfer from one operating region to the next is not performed
precisely.” Id. at 10-11. Appellant also argues “Duran fails to remedy
Tanaka’s lack of teaching” because “Duran teaches curved pressure
elements that are adapted to be pressed on the curved surface of a tire” and
“[s]uch [curve pressure elements] would not work when attempting to grip a
steel/aluminum vehicle wheel.” Id. at 11.
Third, Appellant argues both Tanaka’s gripping device and Duran’s
gripping device are designed to move multiple tires (i.e., two tires W are
simultaneously gripped, lifted and transported in Tanaka Fig. 1) and not a
single vehicle wheel and, as such, these gripping devices are “not capable of
6
Appeal 2016-001651
Application 13/985,597
gripping only one single vehicle wheel” as recited in Appellant’s claim 1.
Id. at 11—12.
Lastly, Appellant argues the combination of Tanaka and Duran fails to
teach or suggest any structure pertaining to ‘“a translational device by which
the contact pressure elements are moved in relation to the frame structure by
a motion component parallel to an axis of rotation of the vehicle wheel’” as
recited in claim 1. Id. at 12. According to Appellant, Tanaka’s “frame
structure can be lifted or lowered only as a whole structure” and, as such, “a
single wheel cannot be picked up and moved independently by each holding
element.” Id. Duran does not teach “the tire grips are capable of being
moved in a direction parallel to an axis of rotation of the tires” because
“[ajctivators 30 and tire grips 32 in Duran are clearly designed to move in a
direction which would intersect the axis of rotation of the tire in the
unnumbered channels located at the end of activators 30 distant from the
tire.” Id.
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. Nor do we find
these arguments commensurate with the scope of Appellant’s claim 1.
Claim 1 is broadly worded and does not differentiate (1) the distinction
between a vehicle wheel with a (rubber) tire and a vehicle wheel without a
tire, (2) the amount of pressure and type of pressure elements required to
grip and move vehicle wheels and tires, (3) structural tolerances required for
vehicle wheels having different overall heights, or (4) the gripping units
(which Appellant alleges) designed to move multiple (single) tires or a
single vehicle wheel. As such, Appellant’s claim 1 does not distinguish over
Tanaka alone or the Examiner’s combination of Tanaka and Duran.
7
Appeal 2016-001651
Application 13/985,597
For example, Tanaka teaches a conveying machine (i.e., handling
module), shown in Figure 1, including multiple gripping units (3, 8)
supported by a frame structure (1, 2, 6) with contact pressure elements (3a,
8a) capable of being pressed against one or more counter surfaces of an
individual vehicle wheel (W). According to Tanaka, the conveying machine
is used in an assembly plan to assemble a vehicle tire and a vehicle wheel
and, as such, the gripping units (3, 8) are capable of handing the vehicle tire
as well as the vehicle wheel as shown in Tanaka’s Figure 1. Tanaka 11.
Obviousness need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific
subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The knowledge to be
taken into account includes knowledge generally available to a person
having ordinary skill in the art. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed.
Cir. 1994) (“[A] prior art reference must be ‘considered together with the
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.”’ (citation omitted)).
A skilled artisan would recognize that Tanaka’s gripping units are capable of
handing the vehicle tire as well as the vehicle wheelas shown in Tanaka’s
Figure 1.
Moreover, and contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the term
“translational device” can be broadly interpreted to encompass Tanaka’s
disclosure of coil springs (3c, 8c), cylinder (4, 9), rods (4a, 9a), and movable
carriages (7), shown in Figure 2 because these components can cause the
contact pressure elements (3, 3a, 8, 8a) to move in relation to the frame
structure (1, 2, 6) by a motion component parallel to an axis of rotation of
the vehicle wheel. See Tanaka 25—28, Fig. 2.
8
Appeal 2016-001651
Application 13/985,597
For the reasons set forth above, Appellant has not persuaded us of
Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2—9, which
Appellant does not argue separately. App. Br. 13.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellant has not demonstrated
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—9.
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
9