Robert Bosch GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 28, 2020

2020003708 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2020)

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.
14/747,449 06/23/2015 Oliver Hennig 2178-1418 1085
10800 7590 12/28/2020
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
SOSKI, FREDERICK D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2020 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 OLIVER HENNIG, PATRICK SCHELLNEGGER, and
OLIVER GAERTNER
Appeal 2020-003708
Application 14/747,449
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, DANIEL S. SONG, and
BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s August 23, 2018 Final Action rejecting claims 1–8. See Final
Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 “Appellant” refers to the 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 2020-003708
Application 14/747,449

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an outlet valve of a piston pump having a
two-part closing body. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A valve of a piston pump for a vehicle brake system, the valve
comprising:
a cylinder having a circular outflow opening at a first end
thereof, the outflow opening being surrounded by a sealing seat;
a pump cover which encloses the first end, the pump cover
forming a cylindrical piston guide;
a closing body resiliently preloaded against the sealing
seat, the closing body formed in two parts with a damping piston
and a closing element inserted in the damping piston,
wherein the damping piston is axially displaceably guided
in the cylindrical piston guide,
wherein at least one flow channel is provided between an
outer circumferential surface of the damping piston and the
piston guide, and
wherein the at least one flow channel is configured to
enable fluid to flow around the damping piston in a longitudinal
direction of the damping piston through the at least one flow
channel.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Keller US 5,186,021 Feb. 16, 1993
Watanabe US 5,433,135 July 18, 1995
Zimmermann US 2013/0240773 A1 Sept. 19, 2013

Appeal 2020-003708
Application 14/747,449

3
REJECTIONS2
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–4, 8 103 Zimmermann, Keller
1, 5–7, 8 103 Zimmermann,
Watanabe
OPINION
Claims 1–4 and 8: Rejected as Unpatentable over Zimmermann and Keller
The Examiner finds that Zimmermann teaches all of the limitations of
sole independent claim 1, except for “at least one flow channel . . . between
an outer circumferential surface of the damping piston and the piston guide.”
Final Act. 7; Ans. 3 (citing Zimmermann, abstract, Figs. 4, 5). The
Examiner therefore relies on Keller to teach the missing limitation.
According to the Examiner, “Keller teaches (figures 3–5) a free floating
piston (58) having 4 radial cutouts/slots (62) in uniformly distributed manner
over a circumference of the piston (58).” Final Act. 7. The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
“to utilize 4 radial/cutouts/slots on a damping piston as taught by Keller on
the outer circumference of the damping piston of Zimmermann for the
purpose of governing (Keller, column 6 lines 32–53) fluid flow past the
damping piston.” Id.
Appellant disputes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
combined Zimmermann and Keller as the Examiner proposes. Appellant
asserts that “Keller does not disclose a damping piston for [a] piston pump,”
and the Examiner “does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art

2 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as anticipated by Zimmermann. Ans. 6.
Appeal 2020-003708
Application 14/747,449

4
would modify a damping piston of a piston pump based on a free floating
piston of a refrigerant expansion device,” particularly since, in the Keller
device, “fluid flow is not reduced by the channels 62 in the piston as the
Examiner asserted.” Appeal Br. 6.
The Examiner responds that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not
look to merely piston pumps to create flow paths, rather one [of] ordinary
skill in the art would look to fluid handling in general to create a flow path.”
Ans. 7. The Examiner further notes that Zimmermann teaches that
governing fluid flow past a damping piston is desired because
Zimmermann’s device has “channel 46 leading to a central passage 38” that
permits fluid flow that “contributes to a damping of the movement of the
damping piston 30 which can be adjusted in a targeted manner for different
operating pressures.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Zimmermann ¶ 34). In the Reply
Brief, Appellant asserts that there is no teaching in either Zimmermann or
Keller “of how peripheral flow paths would affect the operation of a
damping piston of a closing body.” Reply Br. 1.
We are not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
combined Zimmermann and Keller in the manner proposed by the Examiner.
First, it is not entirely clear what the Examiner means by stating that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have used Keller’s four radial cutouts/slots 62
on Zimmermann’s damping piston “for the purpose of governing . . . fluid
flow past the damping piston.” The flow channels 62 located on the
periphery of Keller’s free-floating piston 58 do not “govern” fluid flow, in
the sense of controlling or regulating it. The flow channels simply permit
refrigerant to flow freely past the piston when the heat pump in which it is
installed is in heating mode. Keller, 4:9–14, 38–40, 6:6–13, 43–53, Fig. 3.
Appeal 2020-003708
Application 14/747,449

5
Second, the Examiner does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have considered Keller’s flow channels relevant to Zimmermann’s
damping piston. Although, as the Examiner points out, Zimmerman teaches
structure that permits fluid flow behind the damping piston to dampen its
movement, this damping structure does not include peripheral flow paths
between an outer circumferential surface of the damping piston and the
piston guide. Neither Zimmermann nor Keller teaches how permitting fluid
flow around a damping piston using such peripheral flow paths would affect
the movement of the damping piston so as to establish that it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to provide such peripheral flow
paths.
For the above reasons, we are not persuaded that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have combined Zimmermann and Keller in the manner
proposed, and therefore do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 2–4 and 8, which depend from claim 1, as unpatentable over
Zimmermann and Keller.
Claims 1, 5–7, and 8: Rejected as
Unpatentable over Zimmermann and Watanabe
As with the previous rejection, the Examiner finds that Zimmermann
teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 except for “at least one flow channel
. . . between an outer circumferential surface of the damping piston and the
piston guide,” and therefore relies on Watanabe for this limitation. Final
Act. 8. According to the Examiner, “Watanabe teaches (figures 1–2) a
plunger/piston (17) and a plunger/piston guide (6), wherein the
plunger/piston guide (6) has 4 radial cutouts/slots (figure 2, 6d) in uniformly
distributed manner over a circumference of the plunger/piston guide (6).”
Appeal 2020-003708
Application 14/747,449

6
Id. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use Watanabe’s four “radial cutouts/slots on a
piston guide as taught by Watanabe on the inner circumference of the piston
guide of Zimmermann for the purpose of governing . . . fluid flow past the
damping piston.” Final Act. 8–9 (citing Watanabe, 4:14–28).
Appellant responds that (1) “Watanabe is directed to a brake booster,
not a piston pump”; (2) “element (6) in Watanabe is a valve body, not a
damping piston”; (3) “[t]here is no evidence in the cited prior art that such
passages would be of any use for a damping piston of a piston pump”; and
(4) “there is no disclosure in Watanabe that the axial grooves 6d restrict fluid
flow.” Appeal Br. 8.
We do not sustain this rejection for reasons similar to those discussed
above with respect to the Zimmermann/Keller rejection. The Examiner
finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Zimmerman
and Watanabe for the same reason that the skilled artisan would have
combined Zimmermann and Keller: “for the purpose of governing . . . fluid
flow past the damping piston.” Final Act. 9. But the Examiner has not
provided evidence or persuasive reasoning that Watanabe’s grooves 6d
actually “govern” fluid flow; thus, it is unclear why one of ordinary skill in
the art would consider using these grooves in Zimmermann’s device for that
purpose. Second, the Examiner does not satisfactorily explain why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have considered Watanabe’s grooves relevant
to Zimmermann’s damping piston.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
Appeal 2020-003708
Application 14/747,449

7
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 8 103 Zimmermann,
Keller
1–4, 8
1, 5–7, 8 103 Zimmermann,
Watanabe
1, 5–7, 8
Overall
Outcome
1–8

REVERSED