Ex Parte Fieber

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 17, 2018

12674970 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/674,970 02/24/2010 10037 7590 05/18/2018 ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC U.S. STEEL TOWER 600 GRANT STREET PITTSBURGH, PA 15219-2788 Dieter Fieber 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. 300721-00020 (GRIMM 248) CONFIRMATION NO. 1860 EXAMINER LINFORD, JAMES ALBERT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3679 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/18/2018 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 DIETER FIBBER Appeal2016-004873 Application 12/674,970 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-10. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant identifies FLEXA GmbH & Co. Produktion und Vertrieb KG as the real party in interest. Br. 2. Appeal2016-004873 Application 12/674,970 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter "relates to a connection and attachment component for a corrugated hose." Spec. ,r 1. Apparatus claim 1 is the sole independent claim, is illustrative of the claims on appeal, and is reproduced below with paragraphs added. 1. A connection and attachment component for a corrugated hose, having a cylindrical base body and an associated tube-like sleeve which is inserted into the base body, said base body and said sleeve being adapted and dimensioned to receive an end of the corrugated hose, said sleeve comprising at least two resilient arms each arranged within a correspondingly shaped window- like opening in the base body for coupling with both the base body and the corrugated hose, with each such arm being resiliently secured at a base end to the sleeve and exhibiting at least one radially progressing engagement protrusion at its other, unattached free end, which protrusion extends inward beyond an inner circumference of the sleeve and can be brought into engagement with corrugations of the corrugated hose such that it arrests the hose, wherein the base end relative to the free end of each arm points away from the corrugated hose connection end of the sleeve, the improvement wherein said at least two resilient arms are shaped as isosceles trapazoids and are dimensioned such that the sum total of their engagement protrusions extend around at least 50% of the inner circumference of the base body, wherein each respective resilient arm, viewed in the circumferential direction of the base body, exhibits a width (Be) of its free end, which corresponds to at least 1. 5 times the width (Bb) of its base end, and wherein each respective resilient arm exhibits a length (Ln) from the base end to the free end, which is greater than a width (Bb) of its base end. 2 Appeal2016-004873 Application 12/674,970 Gruber et al. Fieber2 REFERENCES us 5,112,086 DE 102 20 482 Cl THE REJECTION ON APPEAL May 12, 1992 Dec. 11, 2003 Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Gruber and Fieber. ANALYSIS Appellant argues claims 1-10 together. Br. 8-15. We select independent claim 1 for review, with the remaining claims (i.e., claims 2-10) standing or falling therewith. 3 See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner relies on the teachings of Gruber regarding the structural items recited, but, as regarding the specific dimensions and relationships thereof, the Examiner relies on Fieber for such teachings. Final Act. 4--5. Appellant identifies three features that claim 1 recites and identifies them as follows (we adopt this nomenclature herein). Feature A. wherein said at least two resilient arms ... are dimensioned such that the sum total of their engagement protrusions extend around at least 5 0% of the inner circumference of the base body. Feature B. wherein each respective resilient arm, viewed in the circumferential direction of the base body, exhibits a width (Be) 2 "Dieter Fieber, the patentee in the 'Fieber' reference cited above, is the applicant herein." Br. 7. 3 Appellant's discussion regarding dependent claims 2-10 consists solely of a claim chart indicating whether Gruber or Fieber disclose the additional limitation. See Appendix C; Br. 10. The mere listing of these indicators (i.e., either "yes," "no," or "maybe") is not deemed to be a separate argument because no explanation is provided in association with such indicators. 3 Appeal2016-004873 Application 12/674,970 of its free end, which corresponds to at least 1. 5 times the width (Bb) of its base end. Feature C. wherein each respective resilient arm exhibits a length (Ln) from the base end to the free end, which is greater than a width (Bb) of its base end. Br. 4. Appellant contends, "[a]n examination of Gruber reveals that it fails to disclose any one of the above-noted Features A, Band C of claim 1." Br. 9. Appellant's contention is not persuasive because, regarding Feature A, the Examiner relied on "design choice" (Final Act. 7; Ans. 3, 7, 10-11), and, regarding Features Band C, the Examiner relied on the teachings of Fieber, not Gruber (Final Act. 5-6). With respect to Feature A, the Examiner states, "[i]t would have been [an] obvious matter of design choice to have had the resilient arms dimensioned such that the sum total of their engagement protrusions extend around at least 50% of the inner circumference of the base body." Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 7, 10-11. The Examiner reasons that this is for the purpose of providing additional contacting area between the corrugated member and the engagement member, to reduce the stress on each of the engagement members, to increase the contact area in order to enhance the engagement between the corrugated member and the engagement member, for the purpose of insuring an appropriate fit and for having a structural connection that would yield the same predicable result of being able to connect two structures together. Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 8, 9. The Examiner also states, "such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and/or proportion of a component" and that "[a] change is size and/or proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art." Final Act. 7 (reference omitted); see also Ans. 7. 4 Appeal2016-004873 Application 12/674,970 In support of Appellant's argument, Appellant states, "[a]ttached to this Brief, as Appendix C, is a chart showing the presence or absence of the claimed features in both Gruber and Fieber." Br. 10. The portion of Appendix C relating to claim 1 is replicated below. APPENDIX C CtA!M CHART :AeÂ£lic.ant's Claim: Gruber 1 Inne,r sl.,s,.,s,ve yes JP'eat.u.:r:e A no Featur,e :a no Featur