Ex Parte Winkler et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 23, 201914907414 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/907,414 01/25/2016 23122 7590 RATNERPRESTIA 2200 Renaissance Blvd Suite 350 King of Prussia, PA 19406 05/28/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Thomas Winkler 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. 2013P02261 WOUS 5557 EXAMINER TORRES WILLIAMS, MELANIE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3657 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/28/2019 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): PCorrespondence@ratnerprestia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THOMAS WINKLER, DIETER FULLER, THOMAS HESS, PATRICK WALTER, JURGEN BAUER, and JURGEN VOLKEL Appeal 2018-007344 Application 14/907,414 Technology Center 3600 Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, BRETT C. MARTIN, and MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant, Continental Teves AG & Co. OHG, 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-5 and 7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellant is the applicant and identifies itself as the sole real party in interest as Continental Teves AG & Co. OHG. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2018-007344 Application 14/907,414 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Specification The claimed invention "concerns a combined vehicle brake with a ball screw drive comprising a hydraulically operated operating brake and an electromechanically operated parking brake." Spec. 1 :4-6. According to Appellant, the purpose of the invention is "to improve both the operating function and also the process reliability during the assembly of a generic multi-part ball screw drive, to enable simple automated assembly and at the same time to open up the possibility of increasing cycle times." Id. at 1 :29- 32. The Rejected Claims Claims 1-5 and 7 are pending and rejected. Final Act. 1. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative and reproduced below. 1. A combined vehicle brake with a ball screw drive, comprising a hydraulically actuated operating brake and an electromechanically actuated parking brake device, wherein a hydraulic operating pressure chamber in a brake housing is bounded by a brake piston that is acted upon by a hydraulic pressure medium for performing operating braking so that the brake piston can be actuated along a piston longitudinal axis to achieve a braking effect, and wherein the parking brake device acts on the brake piston by a gearbox, the gearbox converting a rotational movement of an electromechanical actuator into a translational movement and causes operation of the brake piston for performing parking brake processes and holds it in the operated position, wherein the gearbox comprises a threaded spindle and a threaded nut that are in contact with each other by a plurality of roller bodies, wherein a spring element is provided that enables sliding of the roller bodies in the event of a no-load operation of the gearbox and causes rolling of the roller bodies in the event of the operation of the gearbox under load, the spring element having segments of different pitches, such that a central 2 Appeal 2018-007344 Application 14/907,414 segment in the gearbox thread does not significantly hinder an elastically yielding adaptation of the spring element to the helically wound gearbox thread, and a contact segment provided on at least one end of the spring element has increased lateral rigidity compared to the central segment, or has increased lateral rigidity imparted thereto. Appeal Br. 9 ( emphasis added). The Appealed Rejections The following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are before us for review: 1. claims 1-3 and 7 over Winkler2 and Dickinson3 (Final Act. 2); 2. claim 4 over Winkler, Dickinson, and Takamura4 (id. at 4); and 3. claim 5 over Winkler, Dickinson, and Zingel5 (id. at 5). DISCUSSION Rejection 1 Winkler is a published German patent application by Thomas Winkler, who is listed as co-inventor in the instant application. Winkler 1; see also Declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 by Thomas Winkler dated Sept. 27, 2017 ("Winkler Deel.") ,-JlO. Like the instant application, Winkler "relates to a combined vehicle brake which has a hydraulically actuable service brake and an electromechanically actuable parking brake device." Winkler ,-Jl; Spec., Abstract (identical statement). Figure 1 of Winkler is reproduced below. 2 DE 102009019793 Al, published Oct. 7, 2010 ("Winkler"). 3 US 3,160,406, issued Dec. 8, 1964 ("Dickinson"). 4 US 5,246,215, issued Sept. 21, 1993 ("Takamura"). 5 US 5,839,963, issued Nov. 24, 1998 ("Zingel"). 3 Appeal 2018-007344 Application 14/907,414 Fig.1 Figure 1 of Winkler, reproduced above, "shows a sectional view of a vehicle brake with hydraulically actuated service brake and electromechanical actuated parking brake." Winkler ,-Jl 1. The Examiner found that Winkler discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 1 except for particular features of the claimed spring element. Final Act. 2-3. In that regard, Winkler discloses "a spring element" only generally (see, e.g., Winkler ,-Jl ), whereas claim 1 recites a spring element having specific features as follows: the spring element having segments of different pitches, such that a central segment in the gearbox thread does not significantly hinder an elastically yielding adaptation of the spring element to the helically wound gearbox thread, and a contact segment provided on at least one end of the spring element has increased lateral rigidity compared to the central segment, or has increased lateral rigidity imparted thereto. Appeal Br. 9. We agree with the Examiner's findings. Compare Winkler Fig. 1, with Spec. Fig. 1. 4 Appeal 2018-007344 Application 14/907,414 The Examiner found that Dickinson teaches a spring element of different pitches wherein an end or contact segment has increased lateral rigidity compared to a central segment. Final Act. 3 ( citing Dickinson Fig. 1 (ref. 24, 32)). We agree with this finding as well. See Dickinson Fig. 1. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to provide a contact segment on at least one end of Winkler' s spring element as taught by Dickinson "to establish a desired progressive spring rate and maintain spring rigidity to resist bowing." Final Act. 3. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's findings regarding what Winkler and Dickinson each individually teach. Appeal Br. 5-7. Rather, Appellant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have made the proposed combination. Id. at 6. In that regard, Appellant challenges the Examiner's two obviousness rationales, as follows: Mr. Winkler explained that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified spring element 10 of Winkler based on the Examiner's reasoning. Regarding the alleged motivation of establishing a progressive spring rate, Mr. Winkler explained that there was no need to use multiple different pitches to establish a desired spring rate for spring element 10 of Winkler. (See Winkler Declaration at ,-J 14.) Regarding the alleged motivation of resisting bowing, Mr. Winkler explained that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized any need to resist bowing in spring element 10 of Winkler, since spring element 10 is received in the threading of threaded nut 3. (See Winkler Declaration at ,-J 15.) Appeal Br. 6. We are persuaded by Appellant's argument with respect to resistance to bowing but not with respect to desired spring rate. 5 Appeal 2018-007344 Application 14/907,414 The Examiner has not sufficiently explained why resistance to bowing would have been a motivating factor to modify Winkler because, as Appellant correctly points out, the Winkler spring is enclosed within a physical space that would restrict such bowing. See Appeal Br. 7 ( citing Winkler Fig. 1 (ref. 10)). However, the Examiner's rationale with respect to desired spring rate is sufficient. Appellant's argument to the contrary is not supported by the cited evidence. Appellant cites Mr. Winkler' s testimony that "it is not necessary to form a spring with multiple segments of different pitches in order to establish a desired spring rate" and that "the desired spring rate of the spring element of the Winkler reference could have been established using a single pitch for the spring element." Winkler Deel. ,-Jl4 (cited at Appeal Br. 6). This testimony, on its face, does not rebut the Examiner's stated rationale; rather, it is merely probative that there was more than one way to obtain a desired spring rate. Notably, Appellant does not rebut the Examiner's assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would seek a "desired spring rate" and would know that one way to do so would be by employing a spring with multiple segments of different pitches. Appellant also argues, albeit implicitly, that Dickinson is non- analogous art. Dickerson is directed to a vehicle suspension, which is an entirely different structure than the vehicle brake in Winkler. Consequently, the spring element of Dickerson is directed to an entirely different use than the spring element in Winkler. Appellant submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason to rely on teachings relating to vehicle suspensions to modify the spring of a vehicle brake. 6 Appeal 2018-007344 Application 14/907,414 Appeal Br. 6. This argument is not persuasive. Appellant has not applied the correct legal standard to the prior art references at issue. In that regard, Appellant argues that Dickinson is directed to a "different structure" and to "different use" of a spring than Winkler. Id. However, a prior art reference is deemed non-analogous if it is both (1) not "from the same field of endeavor" as the inventor and (2) not "reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved." In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Appellant has not argued, let alone shown, that Dickinson is non-analogous prior art under governing law. For the forgoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Winkler and Dickinson. Because claims 2, 3, and 7 were not separately argued, we also affirm their rejection over the same references. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Re} ections 2 and 3 The Examiner rejected claim 4 over Winkler, Dickinson, and Takamura and claim 5 over Winkler, Dickinson, and Zingel. Final Act. 4-5. Claims 4 and 5 depend from claim 1. Appellant argues against their rejection solely on the basis that the additional references (Takamura and Zingel) fail to cure the alleged deficiency in the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 7. As discussed above, however, Appellant has not shown such a deficiency. Thus, we likewise affirm the rejections of claims 4 and 5. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5 and 7 is affirmed. 7 Appeal 2018-007344 Application 14/907,414 TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation