Ex Parte B¿ning et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 20, 201712812499 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2017) 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. 12/812,499 07/12/2010 Ralf Boning 2007P25763 8070 24131 7590 12/22/2017 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP P O BOX 2480 HOLLYWOOD, EL 33022-2480 EXAMINER BROWN, ADAM WAYNE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2017 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): boxoa@patentusa.com docket @ paten tusa. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RALF BONING, TOBIAS DETTMANN, HOLGER FATH, and ANDRE KAUFMANN Appeal 2017-0003991 Application 12/812,499 Technology Center 3700 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 11, 14, 16, 20, 21, and 23-27. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6. 1 The Appellants identify Continental Automotive GmbH of Hannover, Germany as the real party in interest. Br. 1. Appeal 2017-000399 Application 12/812,499 The invention “relates to a guide vane for a variable turbine geometry of a turbocharger.” Spec. 1, lines 5-6. Claim 11 is illustrative: 11. A turbocharger, comprising: a variable turbine geometry having at least one turbocharger guide vane having a profile with a top side, a bottom side, a head radius with a center point, and an end radius with a center point and having a shape described by a line of curvature; the line of curvature running between said center point of said head radius and said center point of said end radius and being produced in that tangential circles are assumed within the profile and are on the top and bottom sides of the profile, wherein a line connecting centers of the tangential circles describes the line of curvature; said line of curvature being a centerline of the guide vane; said line of curvature including first, second and third sectors; said line of curvature having first, second, third and fourth sections; said first sector being formed by said first and second sections transitioning continuously into each other at a connecting point; said third sector being formed by said third and fourth sections transitioning continuously into each other at a connecting point; said second sector being formed by said second and third sections transitioning discontinuously into each other to thereby form a kink at a connecting point between said second and third sections; and said second and third sections being non-moveably connected together. 2 Appeal 2017-000399 Application 12/812,499 Claims 11, 14, 16, 20, 21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Castan (WO 2005/064121 Al, pub. July 14, 2005). Claim 11 is rejected, in the alternative, and claims 26 and 27 are rejected, solely, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Karamavruc (US 8,162,599 B2, iss. Apr. 24, 2012) and Castan. We AFFIRM. ANALYSIS Anticipation We are unpersuaded by the Appellants’ arguments that the identified bend in the curve in Castan is “gradual,” not “sudden,” and, thus, does not meet the claim language of a “kink” or discontinuous transition. Br. 7-8. With regard to the transitioning discontinuously language, the Appellants direct us for support to page 11, line 7, of the Specification, and for the “kink” language, to page 10, line 3 and page 12, lines 24-25, and element 24 of Figure 4. Br. 4. For independent claim 23, we are directed to the same locations for the corresponding claim language. Id. at 6. The cited portion of page 11 states “the second sector b2 has a discontinuous course.” Spec. 11, line 7. The cited portion of page 10 states “the second sector b2, rather than forming a continuous course as in the prior art, forms a discontinuous course or, as the case may be, has a sharp bend 24 at the connecting point 22 of the two sections a2, a3.” Id. at 10, lines 1—4. The cited portion of page 12 states “the line of curvature 12 can have one, two, three, four or more of these so-called kinks or bends 24 or, as the case may be, non-tangential transitions, wherein the bends 24 can be provided at 3 Appeal 2017-000399 Application 12/812,499 arbitrary positions on the line of curvature 12, according to function or application.” Id. at 12, lines 23-27. The Appellants have, thus, not lexicographically defined the terms “discontinuous” or “kink,” but do relate “kink” to “a sharp bend.” The Appellants further refer to a definition at “Cambridge Dictionaries Online [that] defines ‘kink’ as: A sharp twist or bend.” Br. 7. The Appellants further cite that “Cambridge Dictionaries Online defines ‘sharp’ as: sudden and immediately noticeable.” Id. Based on this input, we construe “discontinuously” and “kink” broadly as a sudden and immediately noticeable bend. The Examiner finds that Figure 7A of Castan discloses a discontinuous transition, which amounts to a kink, along line 76 in the left portion of the structure, where the contour of line 76 changes from an arc with a centerpoint essentially above the line, to an arc where the centerpoint is beneath the line. Ans. 3. The Examiner further explains [t]he vane of Castan has just such an irregularity in the form of the transition from the flat bottom portion at 80 to the curved bottom portion at 82. This produces the change in curvature of line 76 which can be seen in the annotated figure in the rejection of claims 11 and 23 to comprise a relatively flat first sector and curved second and third sectors. This transition is immediately noticeable, meeting Appellant’s definition of a kink. Ans. 9. In our review of Figure 7A of Castan, we immediately notice the change in the nature of line 76 on the left portion of the drawing, and because the change in the line shape is noticeable, consider to be reasonable the Examiner’s finding that the transition is sharp. The Appellants’ arguments have not demonstrated error in what the Examiner perceives from the drawing. 4 Appeal 2017-000399 Application 12/812,499 For this reason, we sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Castan. We also sustain the rejection of claims 14, 16, 20, 21, and 23-25, which were rejected along with claims 11 and 23, and were not argued separately. Obviousness We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that “[njeither the line of curvature of the upper surface nor the line of curvature of the lower surface of the guide vane show any kind of discontinuous transition forming a kink as required by claim 11.” Br. 9. The Examiner finds that Figure 2 of Karamavruc discloses, at element 104, a discontinuous transition amounting to a kink. Ans. 6. The Examiner further explains: because the line of curvature is an imaginary line, all that is needed to form a kink in the line is an abrupt change in one or both of the top and bottom sides. As can be seen in the annotated portion of Fig. 2 from Karamavruc below, the vane features a curved forward end (122) and a curved back end (124) with an abrupt transition between the two (104). The abrupt transition would result in an abrupt change in the line of curvature as illustrated below, creating a kink in the line on either side of transition 104. Ans. 12. In our review of Figure 2 of Karamavruc, we immediately notice the change in the nature of the bottom profile of the structure, and because the change in the line shape is noticeable, consider to be reasonable the Examiner’s finding that the transition is sharp. The Appellants’ arguments have not demonstrated error in what the Examiner perceives from the drawing. For this reason, we sustain the rejection of claim 11 under 35 5 Appeal 2017-000399 Application 12/812,499 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the rejection of claims 26 and 27, which were not argued separately. Br. 9. DECISION We affirm the rejection of claims 11, 14, 16, 20, 21, and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We affirm the rejection of claims 11, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation