Ex Parte Zuge et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 3, 2014

12010930 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
12/010,930 01/31/2008 Frank Zuge 8369.074.US0000 1196
77176 7590 12/03/2014
Novak Druce Connolly Bove + Quigg LLP
Novak Druce LLP
1875 Eye Street
Eleventh Floor
Washington, DC 20006
EXAMINER
DICKSON, PAUL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3616
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/03/2014 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 FRANK ZUGE, ACHIM GLAS,
HANS-JURGEN LANGHOFF, and CHRISTIAN BSCHIERL
____________________

Appeal 2012-007127
Application 12/010,930
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Frank Zuge et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s Final decision rejecting claims 13–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Hajtó (DE 3,843,613, pub. December 23, 1988), Kuhn
(US 5,782,484, iss. July 21, 1998), and Brümmer (US 4,448,441, iss. May
15, 1984). Claims 1–12 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2012-007127
Application 12/010,930
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a wheel suspension for motor vehicles.
Claim 13, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
13. A wheel suspension for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a wheel carrier;
a forward, lower arm pivotally connectable to said wheel
carrier and pivotally connectable to a body of said vehicle,
having a longitudinal centerline displaced from said wheel
carrier at an angle of 4° relative to a transverse line of said
vehicle, disposed perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of said
vehicle;
a rearward, lower arm pivotally connectable to said
wheel carrier and pivotally connectable to said body, spaced
45° from said centerline of said forward, lower arm;
an upper arm pivotally connectable to said wheel carrier
and pivotally connectable to said body; and
a McPherson strut connected to said forward, lower arm
for pivotal displacement about a longitudinal axis relative to
said vehicle, and connectable to said body,
wherein said McPherson strut is disposed relative to said
forward, lower arm so that when said suspension is mounted on
said vehicle and said wheel carrier deflects, a center point of the
pivotal connection of said McPherson strut and said forward,
lower arm, would be caused to displace along a line of travel
disposed substantially parallel to the longitudinal centerline of
said McPherson strut.

OPINION
Appellants argue claims 13–15 together. See Appeal Br. 4. We select
independent claim 13 as the representative claim and claims 14 and 15 stand
or fall with claim 13. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Appellants argue that “[a]lthough the cited references might be
construed to disclose comparable assemblies, taken individually or in
combination, they fail to recognize or appreciate the desirability of the
Appeal 2012-007127
Application 12/010,930
3
condition to [be] effected, disclose or teach any means effecting such
condition or inherently embody such condition.” App. Br. 4. Where an
appellant’s remarks do not point to any specific language within the claims
to distinguish over the prior art, those remarks amount to a general allegation
that the claims define a patentable invention. Such general allegations will
not be considered an argument for patentability. See In re Baxter Travenol
Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this
court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant,
looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”)).
Appellants further argue that “none of the cited references disclose
any motivation [or teaching] for any such skilled person to make such an
adjustment [of the parameters of the prior art systems].” Reply Br. 2. This
argument is foreclosed by KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398
(2007), in which the Court rejected the rigid requirement of a teaching or
suggestion or motivation to combine known elements in order to show
obviousness. Id. at 415. The Court noted that an obviousness analysis
“need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at
418. Here, the Examiner explains in detail the reasons for the proposed
modification. See e.g., Ans. 7. Appellants do not identify any fault in the
Examiner’s reasoning and thus do not apprise us of error.
Appellants then argue that “[t]he diversity of the objectives of the
claimed system and the system of the principal reference relied upon, i.e.,
DE ‘613, further militates against a finding of obviousness.” Reply Br. 2.
We are unaware of any requirement that the references relied upon to reject
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) have the same objectives as the claimed
Appeal 2012-007127
Application 12/010,930
4
invention. Rather, it is not necessary for the prior art to serve the same
purpose as that disclosed in Appellants’ Specification in order to support the
conclusion that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious. See
KSR, 550 U.S. at 419 (“In determining whether the subject matter of a patent
claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose
of the [Appellants] controls.”); see also In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016
(CCPA 1972).
Appellants conclude by arguing that “[w]ith respect to the . . .
assertion that the systems of the cited references, presumably inherently,
cooperate in the same manner as the claimed system, clearly, there is no
such evidence and any conclusion to such effect is simply speculative.”
Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner finds that Hajtó discloses:
a wheel suspension (see at least Fig. 3) with 2 lower separate
arms (20,22), which are arranged at a defined angle (appearing
to be about 45 degrees). The arms are articulated to a wheel
carrier (3) at one end and to the vehicle body at the other end.
There is a MacPherson strut pivoted at the lower end thereof on
one of the lower arms. There is an upper control arm (10)
pivotally connected at ends thereof to the vehicle body and the
wheel carrier. During deflection of the wheel carrier, the
(center of the) lower pivot connection of the strut would be
displaced along a line of travel substantially parallel to the
longitudinal centerline of the strut.
Ans. 4. The Examiner explains that “[i]t appears that the strut (lower
connection) and the arm would move as claimed.” Id. at 4–5. The Examiner
further explains that:
Furthermore, due to the inboard pivotal connection of the lower
arm, the connection of the strut with the lower arm would move
in an arced path, at least a portion of which would be
Appeal 2012-007127
Application 12/010,930
5
considered substantially parallel with the centerline of the strut
(as Applicant’s moves).
It is not clearly shown in DE ‘613 which is the forward
of the 2 lower arms, although it would appear that the forward
arm would be arm (22) due to the positioning of the steering tie
rod. This arm is positioned essentially in the transverse
direction. Furthermore, the other lower arm is angularly
displaced substantially 45 degrees relative to the forward lower
control arm.
Id. at 5.
In addition, the Examiner finds that:
Kuhn Jr. teaches a similar wheel suspension arrangement
with the mounting of a MacPherson strut to one of the lower
arms. In this arrangement the strut is mounted to the forward
lower arm with the lower arm extending transverse and the
rearward lower arm positioned substantially at 45 degrees with
respect to the forward lower arm and the operation would be as
Applicant has claimed.
In both DE ‘613 and Kuhn Jr. it is considered that the
pivoting points of the lower arms are disposed in a horizontal
plane.
Id. The Examiner explains that “[i]t is Examiner’s position that the slight
adjustment of the lower control arms of DE ‘613 and Kuhn Jr. could be
adjusted and be within the claimed relation.” Id.
The Examiner further finds that:
Brummer et al. shows a lower control arm having one leg of the
control arm extending slightly offset from a transverse line that
is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle and the
legs of the arm also appear to be arranged at about 45 degrees
with respect to each other.
Ans. 5–6. Then the Examiner explains that:
Due to the orientation of the strut and operation of the
strut when the wheel is deflected, the wheel suspension of DE
Appeal 2012-007127
Application 12/010,930
6
‘613 in view of Kuhn Jr. and Brummer et al. would react in
Applicant’s claimed manner.
With respect to the particular degrees of inclination, the
strut of DE ‘613 shows a tilt, and furthermore, the nominal
tilting of the strut in a wheel suspension would be within the
scope of one of ordinary skill in the art to position for any
desired force and operational/positional relationship and a 5-10
degree tilt is a common tilting relation.
Id. at 6. Thus, the Examiner finds all of the elements of the claimed system
in the prior art and explains how and why it would have been obvious to
arrange them, to the extent that they may not already be so arranged in
Hajtó, so that they would cooperate in the same manner as the claimed
system. Id. Appellants provide no evidence or persuasive argument to the
contrary. Accordingly, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s findings or reasoning.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim
13, and claims 14 and 15 which depend therefrom.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 13–15 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).

AFFIRMED

rvb