Ex Parte Hufenbach et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 22, 2017

14362693 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 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. 14/362,693 06/04/2014 Werner Hufenbach 6560-P50138 8133 13897 7590 ( Abel Law Group, LLP 8911 N. Capital of Texas Hwy Bldg 4, Suite 4200 Austin, TX 78759 EXAMINER VANAMAN, FRANK BENNETT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3618 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/24/2017 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): mail @ Abel-IP.com hmuensterer @ abel-ip. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex Parte WERNER HUFENBACH, MARTIN LEPPER, JENS WERNER, and CHRISTIAN KOEHLER Appeal 2017-003518 Application 14/362,693 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHAEL A. STRAUSS, LARRY HUME, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 11—30, which represent all the pending claims. Notice of Appeal. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief filed September 26, 2016 (“App. Br.”), the Reply Brief filed Jan. 2, 2017 (“Reply Br.”), the Specification filed June 4, 2014 (“Spec.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 25, 2016 (“Ans.”) and the Final Rejection mailed April 28, 2016 (“Final Act.”). Appeal 2017-003518 Application 14/362,693 INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to “a wheel rim having a rim base made of fiber composite material and a wheel disk, wherein the wheel disk is connected to a radial marginal area with the rim base.” Spec. p. 1, 11:8-9. Claim 11, the only pending independent claim, is illustrative and reproduced below: 11. A wheel rim, wherein the wheel rim comprises a rim base of fiber composite material and a wheel disk, the wheel disk being connected to the rim base at a radial marginal area, and wherein (a) the wheel disk is present as a single piece and only the marginal area of the wheel disk comprises at least two partial layers on each of which a substantially axially extending, contoured joint zone is formed, the joint zone being connected to the rim base in an area of a drop center of the rim base and conforming to a contour of the rim base in the area of the drop center, or (b) the wheel disk comprises at least two partial layers which are arranged close together in certain areas and on each of which in a marginal area thereof a substantially axially extending, contoured joint zone is formed, the joint zone being connected to the rim base in an area of a drop center of the rim base and conforming to a contour of the rim base in the area of the drop center. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, and 22—26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Spoelstra (US 2003/0189373 Al, Oct. 9, 2003). Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner rejected claims 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, and 24—30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Spoelstra. Final Act. 3—7.2 2 In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the §§102 and 103 rejections of claims 24—26. Ans. 3, 13. 2 Appeal 2017-003518 Application 14/362,693 ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’ arguments. We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of the claims. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and explanations provided in the Final Rejection and Answer. Final Act. 2—7; Ans. 3—13. Section 102 Rejection Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Spoelstra anticipates claim 11. In particular, Appellants argue that Spoelstra’s preforms 2 and 3 are not connected to the preform 1 in the area of the drop center but rather are connected to the preform 1 over substantially the entire width of the preform 1 with the exception of the area of the drop center. App Br. 8. The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, Spoelstra’s disc preforms 2 and 3 are illustrated in Figure 3 as being in abutting contact with the flatted drop center in at least the regions circled in the Answer. Ans. 4—5. The Examiner notes, and we agree, that the claims do not require contact with the entirety of the drop center. Id. at 5. In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue Spoelstra’s preforms do not represent a joint zone which conforms to the “flattened section of the rim that has the closest proximity to the wheel center.” Reply Br. 3. However, we find this argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 11, which does not recite conforming to a “section of the rim that has the closest proximity to the drop center,” but rather merely recites “conforming to a contour of the rim base in the area of the drop center” (emphasis added). Accordingly we are not persuaded by this argument. Appellants also argue the Examiner interprets contour to merely mean “shape” and this interpretation renders the claim term meaningless. We do 3 Appeal 2017-003518 Application 14/362,693 not agree. The Examiner explains that contour is construed as referring to a shape of interface between the named elements, and this interpretation is not inconsistent with the Specification. Ans. 6. Appellants do not direct our attention to a more specific definition of “contour” in the Specification, and we find the Examiners’ interpretation is reasonable in light of the Specification. We therefore are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 as anticipated by Spoelstra. Appellants also argue that Spoelstra does not anticipate dependent claim 23 because Spoelstra does not disclose fiber composites formed from textile fiber layers. App. Br. 11. The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, Spoelstra discloses “compressing mats of oriented fibers into each of the respective preforms.” Ans. 7 (citing Spoelstra Tflf 3, 8). The Examiner finds “textile” is understood to include a woven or knit cloth, or a fiber, filament, or yam used in making cloth, and because Spoelstra’s mats are described as including oriented fibers, the Examiner finds this conveys the use of textile as claimed. Id. Appellants do not respond to this finding in the Reply Brief. Absent persuasive rebuttal, we are not persuaded of error, and we therefore sustain the rejection of claim 23 as anticipated by Spoelstra. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Spoelstra, and claims 13, 15, 17, 19, and 22, which were argued together with claim 11. Section 103 Rejection Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Spoelstra renders obvious claims 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, and 27—30. App. Br. 14— 16. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Spoelstra teaches the “single 4 Appeal 2017-003518 Application 14/362,693 piece.” App. Br. 14. Appellants also argue Spoelstra fails to teach the two partial layers of the marginal area of the wheel disk are produced by splicing an outer circumference of the wheel disk (claim 27) or by adding another layer at the marginal area of the wheel disk, which layer is glued at an extension of a material of the wheel disk (claim 28). App. Br. 15. The Examiner provides a comprehensive response in the Answer, with which we agree, explaining how Spoelstra teaches the limitations of these claims. Ans. 10-11. Appellants do not persuasively rebut these findings and conclusions. Reply Br 2—6. Appellants also argue Spoelstra fails to teach the limitations of dependent claims 29 and 30. App Br. 16. In particular, Appellants argue Spoelstra does not teach the preforms can be combined to make a disk in the appearance of a spoked construction. Id. The Examiner responds that “the appearance of a spoked wheel is notoriously old and well known,” and provides a comprehensive response explaining how these claims are obvious. Ans. 12—13. Appellants do not respond to these findings and conclusions in the Reply Brief. Reply Br 2—6. Absent persuasive rebuttal or evidence to the contrary, we are not persuaded of error, and we therefore sustain the rejection of dependent claims 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, and 27—30. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments with respect to claims 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, and 27—30 for the reasons identified by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and Answer. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, and 27—30. 5 Appeal 2017-003518 Application 14/362,693 DECISION We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 11—23 and 27—30. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 6