Ex Parte Yagyu

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 31, 2008

10020275 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte WALTER TAKEO YAGYU
_____________

Appeal 2008-0144
Application 10/020,275
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: March 31, 2008

Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, TERRY J. OWENS, and
JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant appeals from a rejection of claims 1-3, which are all of
the pending claims.
THE INVENTION
The Appellant claims a tie rod comprising a fiber-reinforced polymer
composite stem attached at each of its ends to a ball joint having a metallic
ball joint box. Claim 1 is illustrative:

Appeal 2008-0144
Application 10/020,275

2
1. Tie rod with application of polymer composite with fiber
reinforcement, comprising a stem provided at its ends with ball
joints each composed of a metallic ball joint box, a bearing, a
protection cover and a ball pin, said tie rod having the function
of fixing pieces and components of a mechanical system
between themselves, providing to them angular and rotational
movement, supporting the strains concentrated therein, wherein
the stem of the tie rod is made of material comprising a polymer
composite with fiber reinforcements, and combined with
components of the metallic ball joint box.

THE REFERENCES
Kobayashi US 5,092,703 Mar. 3, 1992
Shimizu US 5,368,408 Nov. 29, 1994
Pazdirek US 6,398,446 B1 Jun. 4, 2002
(effective filing date on or before Feb. 23, 1999)

THE REJECTION
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under Shimizu in view of Pazdirek and
Kobayashi.
OPINION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection.
Claim 1
The Examiner relies upon Shimizu’s figure 6 as showing a metallic
ball joint box having a variable length stem threadedly attached thereto using
a nut (Ans. 3-4).
Pazdirek discloses a ball joint assembly (10) comprising a link
(22), each end of which has a ball joint (12) attached thereto (col. 2, ll. 3-6;
fig. 1). Preferably the ball joint 12 housing (14) is injected molded from a

Appeal 2008-0144
Application 10/020,275

3
high strength thermoplastic material such as 30% glass filled nylon 6/6 (col.
2, ll. 21-23; col. 4, ll. 6-8). Link 22 preferably is tubular, but can be solid,
and can be formed of an aluminum alloy (col. 2, ll. 59-60; col. 4, ll. 15-16,
41-43). Preferably link 22 is attached to the ball joint housings 14 by
heating the ends of link 22 to melt the plastic housing 14 partially such that
the plastic flows into the knurled tube surface of link 22 for a strong
mechanical joint after the parts cool (col. 4, ll. 22-25). Alternatively, link 22
can be a composite rod and can be adhesively secured to ball joint housings
14 (col. 4, ll. 43-45).
Kobayashi discloses a ball joint comprising a housing (1) having two
ball joint chambers and a connecting portion that are integrally formed of a
composite of a synthetic resin such as polypropylene and, for strength
improvement, an inorganic filler such as glass fiber (col. 1, ll. 8-9; col. 7, ll.
35-44; fig. 2).
The Appellant argues that Pazdirek’s disclosure that the attachment of
a metal link to the housing preferably is by partially melting the housing
material, whereas the attachment of a composite link to the housing is by
adhesive, indicates that the physical characteristics of metal and composite
materials are very different (Br. 5; Reply Br. 2).
That difference in physical properties is the apparent reason why
Pazdirek attaches the composite link using adhesive instead of partially
melting the housing material. Regardless, Pazdirek discloses attaching a
composite link to a composite housing using adhesive (col. 4, ll. 6-8,
43-45).

Appeal 2008-0144
Application 10/020,275

4
The Appellant argues that “Pazdirek fails to disclose the housing
made of metal material, hence the combination of the tie rod made of a
polymer composite material with fiber reinforcements and the metallic ball
joint box” (Br. 5; Reply Br. 2).
The Appellant is arguing that Pazdirek fails to anticipate the claimed
invention. That argument is not relevant to the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection.
The Appellant argues that Kobayashi fails to disclose a stem and ball
joint box made of different materials (Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 3).
Kobayashi discloses that “[c]onventional ball joints are
disadvantageous in terms of weight and the problem of rust because they are
formed of metals” (col. 1, ll. 26-28), whereas synthetic resin ball joints
“entail various problems relating to coming-off of the ball stud, the rigidity
of the housing, the durability and the manufacturing cost of the ball joint,
and the sealing properties and the attachment of the dust cover, and so on”
(col. 1, ll. 52-57). Although Pazdirek discloses only a synthetic resin
housing, this disclosure by Kobayashi would have led one of ordinary skill
in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, to select for use with
Pazdirek’s composite rod, based upon the desired balance of the advantages
and disadvantages of metal and synthetic resin as disclosed by Kobayashi,
either Pazdirek’s disclosed synthetic resin housing or a metal housing. See
KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) (In making the
obviousness determination one “can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”). For

Appeal 2008-0144
Application 10/020,275

5
example, one of ordinary skill in the art who desired to reduce the ball joint
assembly’s weight but have a metal housing’s benefits of secure connection
of the ball stud to the housing, high housing rigidity, high durability, low
manufacturing cost, and good sealing properties and dust cover attachment
would have used in Pazdirek’s ball joint a composite link 22 adhesively
secured to a metallic housing 14.
We therefore are not convinced of reversible error in the rejection of
claim 1.
Claim 2
The Appellant argues that “none of the prior art references applied by
the Examiner teaches the composite tie rod attached to the metallic ball joint
box by chemical fixing” (Br. 7).
If the Appellant is arguing that none of the prior art references
discloses the combination of a composite stem and a metallic housing, that
argument is not persuasive for the reasons given above regarding the
rejection of claim 1.
If the Appellant is arguing that Pazdirek fails to disclose chemical
fixing, Pazdirek’s adhesively securing a composite rod to a composite
housing (col. 4, ll. 6-8, 44-46) is chemical fixing. Pazdirek would have led
one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, to
likewise use adhesive to attach the composite rod to a metal housing.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection
of claim 2.

Appeal 2008-0144
Application 10/020,275

6
Claim 3
The Appellant argues that “none of the prior art references applied by
the Examiner teaches the composite tie rod threadedly and adjustably
connected to the metallic ball joint box” (Br. 7).
If the Appellant is arguing that none of the prior art references
discloses the combination of a composite stem and a metallic housing, that
argument is not persuasive for the reasons given above regarding the
rejection of claim 1.
If the Appellant is arguing that none of the prior art references
discloses a tie rod threadedly and adjustably connected to a housing, the
Examiner finds that such a combination is disclosed in Shimizu’s figure 6
(Ans. 6). The Appellant has not addressed the Examiner’s finding and
explained why it is in error. Because the Examiner’s finding is reasonable
and has not been challenged by the Appellants, we accept it as fact. See In
re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424, 425 n.3 (CCPA 1964). Shimizu would have
led one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity,
to use a threaded connection and nut to attach Pazdirek’s stem and housing
to provide the readily apparent benefit of variable length of the ball joint
assembly.
Hence, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of
claim 3.

Appeal 2008-0144
Application 10/020,275

7
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-3 under Shimizu in view of Pazdirek and
Kobayashi 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)(1)(iv) (2007).

AFFIRMED

vsh

LINIAK, BERENATO, LONGACRE & WHITE
STE. 240
6550 ROCK SPRING DRIVE
BETHESDA MD 20817