Ex Parte Blueml et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 14, 2018

13011982 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/011,982 01/24/2011 76799 7590 12/18/2018 FAURECIA c/o Carlson, Gaskey & Olds, P.C. 400 W. Maple Road, Ste. 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Alfred Blueml 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. 67341-2918US2; 04ARM0356 5863 EXAMINER HEWITT, JAMES M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3679 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/18/2018 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): Silke.Hertzsch@faurecia.com ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALFRED BLUEML and HONGJIANG CUL Appeal 2018-005150 Application 13/011,982 Technology Center 3600 Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8 and 15-35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is "FAURECIA EMISSIONS CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES GERMANY GMBH." Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2018-005150 Application 13/011,982 According to Appellants, "[ t ]he invention relates to an exhaust gas system, in particular for a motor vehicle, as well as to a method of connecting two components of an exhaust gas system[,] in particular for a motor vehicle." Spec. ,r 2. Claims 1, 17, 26, and 32 are the independent claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as representative of the appealed claims. 1. An exhaust component assembly comprising: a first exhaust component and a second exhaust component having first and second generally tubular openings; wherein the second exhaust component is positioned relative to said first exhaust component to form an annular solder gap between said first and said second generally tubular openings, the annular solder gap having a radial dimension that can be as great as 1.20 mm; and a soldered joint formed between said first and said second generally tubular openings at said annular solder gap, said soldered joint formed by inducing eddy currents from an induction coil into a ring of solder material placed near said annular solder gap to heat and melt said ring of solder material without said induction coil making contact with said solder material, and to fill said annular solder gap. REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART Although the Examiner withdraws a number of indefiniteness, anticipation, and obviousness rejections of the claims 2, the Examiner maintains the following claim rejections: I. Claims 15 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that Appellants regard as the invention; 2 See Answer 3. 2 Appeal 2018-005150 Application 13/011,982 II. Claims 1-6, 15-21, 24--26, 30-32, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(b) as anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2003/0196307 Al, pub. Oct. 23, 2003) ("Chen"); III. Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Chen and Gaudin (US 4,847,967, iss. July 18, 1989); IV. Claims 1-7, 15-21, and 23-35 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Steenackers et al. (US 5,593,645, iss. Jan. 14, 1997) ("Steenackers") and Chen; and V. Claims 1-7, 15-22, and 24--35 as unpatentable over JP 2002- 138830 A (pub. May 17, 2002) and Chen. ANALYSIS Rejection I The Examiner rejects claims 15 and 25 as indefinite (see, e.g., Answer 4--5). Based on our review, we agree with Appellants that each of these claims conveys, in a definite manner, that the claimed exhaust component assembly requires the recited structural components, but does not require exhaust gas to be actually running through the assembly. See, e.g., Reply Br. 2. Therefore, the claims are definite, and we do not sustain the rejection. Rejection II The Examiner rejects independent claims 1, 17, 26, and 32, as well as dependent claims 2-6, 15, 16, 18-21, 24, 25, 30, 31, and 35, as anticipated by Chen. In the rejection, the Examiner relies on Chen to "disclose[] first and second exhaust components (10, 14) with generally tubular openings, 3 Appeal 2018-005150 Application 13/011,982 wherein a solder gap is formed between the two components." Non-Final Action 5 ( emphasis omitted). This finding is not supported adequately, and, thus, we do not sustain the rejection. See Appeal Br. 6-8. Specifically, we agree with Appellants that "Chen does not disclose first and second exhaust components[, but] instead discloses tubular members [10 and 14] that are used for a vehicle frame." Id. at 6. Although the Examiner finds that "Chen's tubes (10, 14) can be reasonably considered as the claimed first and second exhaust components since they are able to be used in an exhaust system, or as exhaust components; they can pass waste material or gases" (Answer 6), Appellants offer technical reasoning to the contrary: Exhaust components are subject to strict regulations regarding emission, noise, etc. Exhaust components are also subject to extremely high temperatures and corrosive environments. There simply is nothing found in Chen to suggest that the frame members are suitable for emissions components that operate under high temperatures and/or corrosive environments. Similarly, there is nothing to suggest that exhaust components are suitable to be used as vehicle frame members. The Examiner argues that Chen discloses that the tubes are made from steel and steel is suited for high temperature and corrosive environments. Contrary to the Examiner's [finding], Chen's tubes and the claimed exhaust components are not interchangeable. There are many different types of steel. Not all steels are suitable for exhaust components and not all steels are suitable for structural frame members. Reply Br. 4. There is nothing in the record challenging this technical reasoning; and, in fact, Appellants' line of technical reasoning is consistent with the Examiner's proffered dictionary definition of exhaust. See Answer 5. In view of the foregoing, Appellants persuade us that the 4 Appeal 2018-005150 Application 13/011,982 Examiner fails to support adequately that Chen's tubes 10 and 14 disclose the claimed "exhaust components." Rejection III Claim 8 depends from claim 1. The Examiner does not rely on Gaudin to remedy the above-discussed deficiency in claim 1 's anticipation rejection. Thus, for the same reasons we do not sustain claim 1 's rejection based on Chen, we do not sustain dependent claim 8's obviousness rejection based on Chen and Gaudin. Rejection IV The Examiner rejects independent claims 1, 17, 26, and 32, as well as dependent claims 2-7, 15, 16, 18-21, 23-25, 27-31, and 33-35, as obvious based on Steenackers and Chen. The Examiner finds that "it would have been obvious ... to modify Steenackers," based on Chen, to provide the claimed solder gap and solder joint, within the solder gap, formed by an induction coil, as recited in the claims. Non-Final Action 22. This finding is not supported adequately, and, thus, we do not sustain the rejection. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 16-17. Specifically, although each independent claim recites first and second exhaust components (id. at Claims App.), as we discuss supra, "Chen does not disclose exhaust components" (id. at 16). Thus, Appellants persuade us that the Examiner does not support adequately that "one of ordinary skill in the art would ... look to Chen to improve upon a connection interface between exhaust components" (id. at 16), as there is no apparent reason to look to Chen, which discloses, for example, connecting vehicle body frame 5 Appeal 2018-005150 Application 13/011,982 members with a lap joint (Chen ,r 19), to join components of Steenackers exhaust system (Steenackers col. 1, 11. 8-9). Rejection V The Examiner rejects independent claims 1, 17, 26, and 32, as well as dependent claims 2-7, 15, 16, 18-22, 24, 25, 27-31, and 33-35, as obvious based on JP 2002-138830 A and Chen. The Examiner finds that "it would have been obvious ... to modify JP 2002[-]138830 [A]," based on Chen, to provide the claimed solder gap and solder joint, within the solder gap, formed by an induction coil, as recited in the claims. Non-Final Action 39. This finding is not supported adequately, and, thus, we do not sustain the rejection. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 20-22. Specifically, although each independent claim recites first and second exhaust components (id. at Claims App.), as we discuss supra, "Chen does not disclose exhaust components" (id. at 20). Thus, Appellants persuade us that the Examiner does not support adequately that "one of ordinary skill in the art would ... look to Chen to improve upon a connection interface between exhaust components" (id. at 20), as there is no apparent reason to look to Chen, which discloses, for example, connecting vehicle body frame members with a lap joint (Chen ,r 19), to join components of the exhaust system disclosed in JP 2002-138830 A (JP 2002-138830 A, Abstract). DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's indefiniteness, anticipation, and obviousness rejections of claims 1-8 and 15-35. REVERSED 6