Ex Parte Oezkan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 29, 2013

12276680 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2013)

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. 12/276,680 11/24/2008 Ali Oezkan BK20/US/Pg 4581 1218 7590 08/30/2013 HESPOS & PORCO LLP 110 West 40th Street Suite 2501 NEW YORK, NY 10018 EXAMINER PEDDER, DENNIS H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3612 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2013 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 ALI OEZKAN, KLAUS BOHNERT, and GERNOT JENISCH ____________________ Appeal 2011-010710 Application 12/276,680 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, RICHARD E. RICE, and MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, and 13. Claims 2, 5, and 11 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2011-010710 Application 12/276,680 2 The claims are directed to motor vehicle bodywork. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim and representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A motor vehicle bodywork, comprising: a floor assembly having a driver side and a passenger side, the floor assembly containing: an upwardly convex and downwardly open longitudinal center tunnel; two-side sills disposed parallel to said longitudinal center tunnel; floor elements disposed between said longitudinal center tunnel and said side sills; seat cross-members, including at least one front and one rear seat cross-member disposed on each of said driver side and said passenger side, and as seen in a direction of travel, said seat cross-members extending in a transverse direction of the motor vehicle and resting on an associated one of said floor elements; plate-shaped thrust elements, said seat cross- members on said driver side and said passenger side are each stiffened by one of said plate-shape thrust elements resting on said front seat cross-member and said rear seat cross-member, said front and rear seat cross-members extending in the transverse direction of the motor vehicle, said plate-shaped thrust elements and said floor elements on which said front and rear seat cross-members rest each form a stiff torsional box, said stiff torsional box providing an increase in a torsional stiffness of the motor vehicle and of said floor elements not only in the transverse direction of the vehicle but also in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle; and a tunnel bridge disposed in a region between said plate-shaped thrust elements on said driver side and said passenger side, said tunnel bridge crossing said longitudinal center tunnel and thus, together with said Appeal 2011-010710 Application 12/276,680 3 plate-shaped thrust elements, produce a continuous thrust zone extending from one of said side sills to the other of said side sills. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following evidence: Watanabe Funk Uchida Bachmann US 4,514,008 US 6,382,710 B1 US 6,604,781 B2 US 7,600,807 B2 Apr. 30, 1985 May 7, 2002 Aug. 12, 2003 Oct. 13, 2009 Takeda JP 10-291443 Nov. 4, 1998 Nakazaki JP 62125956 Jun. 8, 1987 REJECTIONS Appellants seek our review of the following rejections: 1. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over either Uchida or Takeda in view of any one of Funk, Nakazaki, and Bachmann. Ans. 3-4. 2. Claims 7-9, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over either Uchida or Takeda in view of any one of Funk, Nakazaki, and Bachmann as applied to claim 2 and in further view of either Bachmann or Watanabe. Ans. 4. OPINION Obviousness of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 10 over either Uchida or Takeda in view of any one of Funk, Nakazaki, and Bachmann Appellants proffer argument solely for reversing claim 1, the only independent claim on appeal. Br. 6-14. Appellants state that “[t]he dependent claims stand or fall with claim 1.” Br. 13. We conclude, therefore, that Appellants have argued claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 10 as a group. Appeal 2011-010710 Application 12/276,680 4 We select claim 1 as representative of the group with our decision regarding these claims being determined by our analysis of claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). 1. Uchida in view of any one of Funk, Nakazaki, and Bachmann Appellants argue that Uchida does not describe the recited “plate- shaped thrust elements” of claim 1. Br. 8. Appellants contend that Uchida describes “hollow, profiled cross-member structures 20 each disposed between the longitudinal center tunnel 14 and one of the side sills 12.” Id. The Examiner responds that the claim does not require the recited thrust elements to be flat, but merely “plate-shaped,” which can include structures that are “dished at the ends.” Ans. 4-5. Appellants persuade us that the Examiner erred by finding that Uchida’s structures 20 constitute the claimed plate-shaped thrust members. Br. 8; Ans. 3. Even employing the Examiner’s understanding of “plate- shaped” (Ans. 5), Uchida’s structures 20 are bent to a degree that a skilled artisan would not consider them to be plate-shaped. See, e.g., Uchida Fig. 3. For example, Uchida describes its support structures as being “convoluted.” Uchida, 6:7-12. Therefore, we reverse the rejection under § 103(a) of claim 1 and its dependent claims 3, 4, 6, and 10 as unpatentable over Uchida and any one of Funk, Nakazaki, and Bachmann. 2. Takeda in view of any one of Funk, Nakazaki, and Bachmann Appellants argue for reversing the rejection based on Takeda as the primary reference on the grounds that Takeda fails to describe the claimed plate-shaped thrust elements. Br. 9. Appellants contend that: The sound insulating board 20 according to Takeda is not a plate-shaped thrust element for forming a torsional box for Appeal 2011-010710 Application 12/276,680 5 increasing the longitudinal and transverse stiffness of the motor vehicle but rather is used for accommodating the loudspeaker 11. It simply is a board for holding the speaker and creating an acoustic sound box and is not a plate-shaped thrust element for providing both transverse and longitudinal rigidity to the automobile. Id. The Examiner finds that Takeda’s board is substantially flat and therefore “‘plate-shaped’” and that “no magnitude of desired stiffness is disclosed or claimed.” Ans. 5. The Examiner further finds that Takeda’s plate-shaped member is capable of adding stiffness to the cross-members, floor, and tunnel. Id. We agree. Claim 1 is not limited to thrust elements that imbue the overall structure with any particular strength characteristic other than providing “[a]n increase in torsional stiffness.” Appellants’ argument that Takeda’s structure would not provide sufficient rigidity is unpersuasive. Appellants also contend that if Takeda’s sound insulating board were to be used to form the claimed “continuous thrust zone,” Takeda’s board would vibrate so much that the functioning of the speakers would be degraded. Br. 10. The Examiner responds that Appellants’ assertions regarding vibrations are unsupported speculation and irrelevant to whether Takeda’s sound insulating board could provide the recited “increase in torsional stiffness” when used in the proposed combination. Ans. 5. We agree on both points, and therefore reject Appellants’ argument. For the reasons explained above, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection under § 103(a) of claim 1 and its dependent claims 3, 4, 6, and 10 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of any one of Funk, Nakazaki, and Bachmann. Appeal 2011-010710 Application 12/276,680 6 Obviousness of claims 7-9, 12, and 13 Appellants proffer no argument for reversing the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 7-9, 12, and 13. On appeal, we consider only those issues and findings of fact that are argued with all other arguments being waived. Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (citing to Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) for the proposition that the Board may treat arguments appellant failed to make as waived). Therefore, we affirm the rejection of dependent claims 7-9, 12, and 13. DECISION For the reasons stated above, we affirm the rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, and 13. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED hh