Ex Parte B¿ning et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2017

12812499 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2017)

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