Ex Parte Hartmann

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 3, 2016

13134634 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/134,634 06/06/2011 27956 7590 10/03/2016 KLAUS J, BACH 4407 TWIN OAKS DRIVE MURRYSVILLE, PA 15668 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Michael Hartmann 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. MTU 138 3209 EXAMINER AMICK, JACOB M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3747 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 10/03/2016 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 MICHAEL HARTMANN Appeal2014-009466 Application 13/134,634 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Michael Hartmann ("Appellant") appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-15. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant submits the real parties in interest are Michael Hartmann and MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2014-009466 Application 13/134,634 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. An internal combustion engine (100) including a motor block (10) with a charge fluid cooler (1) mounted thereon, -the motor block ( 10) comprising a crankcase with a cylinder block (3) and a cylinder head (2) mounted onto the cylinder. block (3) and the charge fluid cooler (1) comprising a. cooler block and a cooler housing (5) with an outlet manifold ( 9), - the cooler housing ( 5) having a first support part for supporting the charge fluid cooler (1) on the cylinder head (2) by means of a first screw connection ( 30), the first support part including a support flange with an opening (31) and the outlet manifold (9) including an outlet manifold-side flange connecting surface (20.1) for forming a flange connection (20) with a cylinder head-side flange connecting surface (20.2), -the flange connection (20) between the outlet manifold (9) and the cylinder head (2) being held together by the first screw connection ( 30), which is disposed at the side of a cross-section of a charge fluid inlet passage (12) extending through the flange connection (20) and - the cooler housing (5) having a second support part (72) for mounting the charge fluid cooler (1) to the cylinder block (3) by means of a second screw connection (60), - the support opening (31) being arranged at the cooler housing ( 5) in spaced relationship from the outlet manifold side flange connecting surface (20.1) so that an accommodation space ( 40) is formed between the outlet manifold side flange connecting surface (20.1) and the flange opening (31) which accommodation space ( 40) has a length (A) exceeding a length (B) of the flange opening (31 ), with a load accommodating spacer sleeve (34) being disposed in the accommodation space ( 40) and having a length slightly greater than the length (A) of the accommodation space ( 40) with the first screw connection (30) extending through the spacer sleeve (34), so that 2 Appeal2014-009466 Application 13/134,634 - the flange connection (20) is established with a relief gap (22) remaining between the manifold-side (20.1) and the cylinder head-side (20. 2) flange connecting surfaces with a seal. (21) disposed in a flange groove (23) for sealing the relief gap (22), and the second support part (72) being formed by an, in one direction, rigid and, in another direction, elastic support disposed between the second support part (72) and the second screw connection (60). REJECTIONS 1) Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Malik (US 4,470,378, iss. Sept. 11, 1984). 2) Claims 3-7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Malik. DISCUSSION Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 13, and 14 Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 13, and 14 as a group. Reply Br. 4. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we select claim 1 as representative of this group, and the remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1. Appellant submits that "[t]he invention resides in the mounting of the cooler housing to the cylinder head, that is, to the first support part as shown specifically in Fig. 5." Reply Br. 2. Appellant's argument begins with Appellant's summary of the disclosure in Malik followed by a recitation of Appellant's claim 1. Appeal Br. 4---6. In so doing, Appellant does not direct us to any alleged errors in the Examiner's factual findings or otherwise direct us to any structural differences between Malik and claim 1. Id. 3 Appeal2014-009466 Application 13/134,634 Appellant contends that "the mounting arrangement according to the invention differs from that of Malik in very important ways as apparent in particular from [Malik's] Fig. 6." Id. at 5. Appellant's argument for patentability is that with the claimed invention: the charger fluid cooler is always directly and firmly fixed to the cylinder head, not bay[ sic] way of elastic insulators or seals. In fact, it is ensured that the seals are not overly compressed but remain resilient, that is they are not fully compressed. Furthermore, the arrangement can accommodate some thermal expansion or contraction, in particular if the screw bolt 32.3 is for example a tension bolt. Neither the engagement force with which the cooler housing is in contact with the cylinder head nor the compression pressure on the seal 21 (Fig. 4B) depend on the force with which the cooler housing is mounted by the bolt 32.3 to the cylinder head 2 via the spacer sleeve 34. It remains essentially unchanged ensuring a long service live and high reliability. Id. at 6. In comparing Appellant's Figure 5 to Malik's Figure 6, the only difference we can discern between the two is that Malik's item 78, which the Examiner finds to be part of the recited support flange, is made of a compressible material while Appellant's support flange is not disclosed in the Specification as being compressible. However, claim 1 does not recite any properties of the material of the support flange nor does claim 1 contain any recitations concerning engagement forces or compression pressure on the seal. As Appellant has not apprised us of error in the Examiner's findings regarding claim 1, which are supported by the disclosure of Malik, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 13, and 14 as anticipated by Malik. 4 Appeal2014-009466 Application 13/134,634 15: Claim 15 Appellant submits the following argument for patentability of claim Claim 15 defines a second support part 72 for mounting the charge fluid cooler (1) to the cylinder block by means of a second screw connection ( 60) providing for a part-side rigid and part-side elastic support member disposed at the bottom of the charge fluid cooler 1, which permit relative movement in a direction parallel to the engine side walls but not normal thereto as shown in Fig. 6. claim 15 should be patentable as it combines with the cylinder head mounting arrangement a cylinder block mounting arrangement of the charge fluid cooler allowing a certain relative movement in directions parallel to the engine side wall. Appeal Br. 6-7. Appellant does not direct us to any alleged errors in the Examiner's factual findings or otherwise direct us to any structural differences between Malik and claim 15. Claim 15 does not contain any recitations concerning relative movement or lack of relative movement of the charge fluid cooler in any direction. As Appellant has not apprised us of any error in the rejection of claim 15, we sustain the rejection of claim 15 as anticipated by Malik. Claims 3-7 and 10--12 In contesting the rejection of claims 3-7 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Malik, Appellant does not present any argument, aside from pointing out that these claims depend from claim 1, and, thus, incorporate the features of claim 1. Appeal Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 4 (stating that these claims stand or fall with claim 1 ). As such, Appellant has not apprised us of any error in the rejection of claims 3-7 and 10-12, which we, therefore, sustain. 5 Appeal2014-009466 Application 13/134,634 DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6