Ex Parte StarzDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 22, 201713985597 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation