Ex Parte Rhoads

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 16, 2019

12831789 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/831,789 07/07/2010 74275 7590 01/16/2019 DILWORTH IP, LLC 2 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 206 TRUMBULL, CT 06611 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR David C. Rhoads 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. 01925-P0304A 3132 EXAMINER LETTMAN, BRYAN MATTHEW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3746 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/16/2019 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 DAVID C. RHOADS Appeal2017-004642 Application 12/831,789 Technology Center 3700 Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE David C. Rhoads ("Appellant") appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17, and 19. 1 An oral hearing was held on January 8, 2019. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 Haldex Brake Corporation is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2017-004642 Application 12/831,789 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A spring brake actuator comprising: a push rod assembly including a push rod plate, said push rod plate having a distal surface, a circumferential edge, and a proximal surface opposite the distal surface; a diaphragm comprising: a rim projecting from said diaphragm for engaging a housing containing said push rod plate, a bottom wall having an interior surface for engaging said push rod plate, and a sidewall connecting said projecting rim with said bottom wall via a curved abutment; at least one flange extending in an axial direction from a periphery of the interior surface of the bottom wall of said diaphragm, adjacent to the curved abutment of the sidewall, to a distal end terminating at or beyond the proximal surface of the push rod plate in the axial direction, the at least one flange including an inner wall adjacent to and at least partially circumscribing the circumferential edge of the push rod plate, the inner wall terminating at the distal end radially outboard of the circumferential edge of the push rod plate; and an adhesive between said diaphragm and the distal surface of said push rod plate; wherein said adhesive maintains an attachment and a seal between said diaphragm and said push rod plate keeping said diaphragm and said push rod plate in line with each other. 2 Appeal2017-004642 Application 12/831,789 REJECTION Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ware (US 4,860,640, issued Aug. 29, 1989) and Coble (US 4,936,758, issued June 26, 1990). DISCUSSION The Examiner relies on Ware for teaching most of the limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner apparently relies on annular rib 86 as corresponding to both the recited flange and the curved abutment. Id. In support of the rejection, the Examiner provides the following annotated version of a portion of Ware's Figure 1: Curved Abutment Id. at 4. This drawing illustrates the Examiner's interpretation of the sidewalls and bottom wall of Ware's diaphragm 48. See also Ans. 3. Appellant contends that the rejection is based on "a strained and overly broad interpretation of the claims with respect to the prior art." Appeal Br. 7. Among Appellant's arguments is that Ware's rib 86, which "the Examiner considers ... to be an abutment between a curved sidewall and a bottom wall ... is not abutting between the two at all. Instead, the rib 86 merely projects from a flat portion of the diaphragm 48 far from the sidewall." Id. at 8. The Examiner responds by maintaining the position that 3 Appeal2017-004642 Application 12/831,789 Ware's sidewalls begin adjacent to the "bottom wall" as shown in the drawing reproduced above. Ans. 3. Appellant argues in the Reply Brief that "the Examiner takes an unreasonable interpretation of Ware and suggests that the sidewall forms both the side of the diaphragm and part of the bottom of the diaphragm .... One [of ordinary skill] in the art would not understand Ware in this way." Reply Br. 2. For the following reason, we do not sustain the rejection. Appellant's Figure 2 illustrates diaphragm 130. See Spec. ,r 33; Fig. 2. Diaphragm 130 comprises bottom wall 240 and side wall 230. Spec. ,r 33. As can be seen in Appellant's Figure 2, sidewall 230 extends in a generally vertical direction from bottom wall 240. See Spec. Fig. 2. The Examiner interprets the "bottom wall" of Ware's diaphragm 48 as the central horizontal portion only. See Final Act. 4. The Examiner interprets the sidewalls of Ware's diaphragm as including a substantially horizontal portion extending from Ware's "bottom wall" and then transitioning in a generally vertical direction at the left and right side of diaphragm 48. Id. The Examiner does not adequately explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that the claimed sidewall corresponds to a sidewall that includes a substantially horizontal portion of Ware's diaphragm in addition to a generally vertical portion. We agree with Appellant that the rejection is based on an unreasonably broad and strained interpretation of the term "sidewall." Due to this unreasonably broad claim construction, the Examiner's finding that Ware discloses "at least one flange ... adjacent to the curved abutment of the sidewall" is not supported by the disclosure in Ware. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also do not 4 Appeal2017-004642 Application 12/831,789 sustain the rejection of claims 2, 5, 6, and 8 which depend from claim 1 for the same reasons. The Examiner's rejections of independent claims 10 and 19 are likewise based on the same unreasonable interpretation of the term "sidewall" discussed above. Final Act. 5-8. We do not sustain the rejections of claims 10 and 19 for the same reasons stated above for claim 1. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 11, 14, and 17 which depend from claim 10 for the same reasons. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17, and 19 is reversed. REVERSED 5