Robert Bosch GmbHDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 8, 202015081000 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2020) 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. 15/081,000 03/25/2016 Matthias Mayr 2178-1513 3854 10800 7590 04/08/2020 Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 2200 Indianapolis, IN 46204 EXAMINER FOX, JOHN C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3753 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/08/2020 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 MATTHIAS MAYR, DIETER PFLAUM, and ANDREAS WEH Appeal 2019-005770 Application 15/081,000 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 17, and 18.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The term “Appellant” is used herein to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Robert Bosch GmbH. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-005770 Application 15/081,000 2 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention relates to a hydraulic block for a hydraulic unit of a brake controller. Claim 9 is illustrative, and is reproduced below: 9. A hydraulic block for a hydraulic unit of a brake controller of a hydraulic vehicle brake system, comprising: a hydraulic block body formed as a homogeneous single piece structure; a plurality of receptacles defined in the hydraulic block body and configured for hydraulic components of the brake controller; and a plurality of lines defined in the hydraulic block body and configured to at least one of (i) port the hydraulic components and (ii) connect the hydraulic components, wherein the hydraulic block is formed by casting, die casting, sintering, or 3D printing, wherein at least one line of the plurality of lines includes a straight portion having a central axis that runs in an axial direction of the straight portion of the at least one line, and wherein linear extensions of the central axis of the straight portion pass, in both directions along the axial direction, through portions of the homogeneous single piece structure of the hydraulic block body. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects: (i) claims 9, 2, 6, 8, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Weh (US 2013/0306180 A1, published Nov. 21, 2013); Appeal 2019-005770 Application 15/081,000 3 (ii) claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fischbach-Borazio (US 2011/0062776 A1, published Mar. 17, 2011) in view of Weh; and (iii) claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fischbach-Borazio in view of Weh and Blackman (US 2005/0133102 A1, published June 23, 2005). Rejections of all claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a) and (b) were withdrawn in the Answer. Ans. 3. ANALYSIS Claims 9, 2, 6, 8, and 17--Anticipation by Weh The Examiner finds that Weh discloses a hydraulic block for a brake system having lines and receptacles for components, and that the block may be formed by casting. Final Act. 5. The last two limitations appearing in claim 9 require at least one of the lines defined in the hydraulic block body to have a straight portion with a central axis, with linear extensions of the central axis passing, in both directions along the axial direction, through portions of the homogeneous single piece structure of the hydraulic block body. See Claim 9, infra. The Examiner, discussing the Weh disclosure, finds that: The three vertical lines above receptacle 13 have central axes the extensions of which “pass, in both directions, through portions of the homogenous single piece structure of the hydraulic block body”. In other words, receptacle 13 is part of the block body and the structure of the block body. Final Act. 5–6 (emphasis added). Appellant maintains that the Examiner improperly construes claim 9 by taking the position that receptacle 13 is part of the block body and the Appeal 2019-005770 Application 15/081,000 4 structure of the block body. Appellant provides (Appeal Br. 7) an annotated version of a lower portion of the drawing figure in Weh, illustrating the Examiner’s position regarding Weh’s purported disclosure of the limitations in the above-quoted claim language, which we reproduce below: Depicted above is an Appellant-annotated version of a lower portion of the drawing figure in Weh, which is a perspective view of a hydraulic block, illustrated in a transparent manner. Weh ¶ 14. Appellant argues: the receptacles (13) are void spaces in the block, as the structure of the block body has been removed by milling and/or drilling so as to form the receptacles (13). . . . Weh’s receptacles cannot therefore be considered to be part of the homogenous single piece structure of the hydraulic body, since the voids of the receptacles are not “of uniform construction” as the metal block body. Appeal Br. 6–7 (citations omitted). The Examiner counters that paragraph 13 of the Specification states that “[t]he hydraulic block 1 comprises receptacles,” that “[t]he word Appeal 2019-005770 Application 15/081,000 5 ‘structure’ does not appear anywhere in the original written description,” and that there is “no disclosure that the claimed structure means only the solid portions of the block and excludes the void portions.” Ans. 5. The Examiner further avers that Claim 9 requires a block body that has receptacles and lines, which are voids. In the Examiner’s opinion it is entirely reasonable to read the block as including solid portions and void portions . . . In which case the axis extensions of the Prior Art pass, in both directions, “through portions of the homogeneous single piece structure of the hydraulic block body. Ans. 5–6. Appellant cites to the above portions of the Answer, and argues that the Examiner’s interpretation of claim 9 “conflates the distinction in the claim between the hydraulic block and the hydraulic block body.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant points out that claim 9 recites “a hydraulic block” that comprises “a hydraulic block body,” in addition to “a plurality of receptacles” and “a plurality of lines.” Id. at 3, quoting claim 9. It can be seen in reading the excerpts from the Examiner’s claim interpretation quoted above, that no distinction is made between the claimed hydraulic block, which includes the receptacles and lines, and the hydraulic block body, which is a separately recited component of the hydraulic block. Contrary to the Examiner’s position set forth above, claim 9 does not “require[] a block body that has receptacles and lines.” Rather, claim 9 requires a block that has receptacles and lines, as well as a block body. We additionally note that, if we were to read the claimed “block” and “block body” as being one and the same element as does the Examiner, the interpretation would render one of those terms superfluous. Our reviewing Appeal 2019-005770 Application 15/081,000 6 court has advised that such constructions are to be avoided. See Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions that render phrases in claims superfluous). Thus, when properly construed, the recitations in claim 9 directed to a block body are referring to the solid structure, and not receptacles or lines. Accordingly, the Examiner’s findings directed to linear extensions of straight portions of lines in Weh extending through receptacles, and not solid structure, are not adequate to show anticipation of Claim 9 by Weh. The rejection of claim 9, and of claims 2, 6, 8, and 17 depending therefrom, as anticipated by Weh, is not sustained. Claim 4--Unpatentability over Fischbach-Borazio and Weh In applying Fischbach-Borazio as a principal reference, the Examiner finds that “[t]he line between elements 3 and 7 meet[s] the language of claim 9, as does the line labeled 4f, in that the receptacles are part of the block body and the structure of the block body.” Final Act. 6. As we determined above, applying this claim construction is in error. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 4 as being unpatentable over Fischbach-Borazio and Weh is not sustained. Claim 18--Unpatentability over Fischbach-Borazio, Weh, and Blackman The Examiner does not rely on Blackman in any manner that would cure the basic deficiency in Fischbach-Borazio noted above. The rejection of claim 18 is therefore not sustained. Appeal 2019-005770 Application 15/081,000 7 DECISION The rejection of claims 9, 2, 6, 8, and 17 as being anticipated by Weh is reversed. The rejection of claim 4 as being unpatentable over Fischbach- Borazio and Weh is reversed. The rejection of claim 18 as being unpatentable over Fischbach- Borazio, Weh, and Blackman is reversed. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 2, 6, 8, 9, 17 102(a)(1), (a)(2) Weh 2, 6, 8, 9, 17 4 103 Fischbach-Borazio, Weh 4 18 103 Fischbach-Borazio, Weh, Blackman 18 Overall Outcome 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 17, 18 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation