Ex Parte Verelst et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 8, 2019

14368379 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 8, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/368,379 06/24/2014 34044 7590 01/10/2019 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch) 100 EAST WISCONSIN A VENUE MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hubert Verelst 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. 022862-2028-usoo 1286 EXAMINER HORTON, ANDREW ALAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3723 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/10/2019 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): mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HUBERT VERELST, JAN VAN HOYE, JAN BONROY, GEERT JANS, DOMINIK DE ROP and PETER SPRAFKE (Applicant: Robert Bosch GmbH) Appeal2017-011354 Application 14/368,379 Technology Center 3700 Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, JAMES P. CALVE and SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's 2 decision finally rejecting claims 1-20 and 26 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 3 Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Camps (DE 10 2010 001 900 Al, publ. 4 Aug. 18, 2011 )2 and Wunsch (US 2011/0088192 Al, pub 1. Apr. 21, 2011 ). The Appellant identifies Robert Bosch GmbH of Stuttgart, Germany, the applicant under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.46, as the real party in interest. (See Appeal Brief, dated May 9 2017, at 3). 2 Throughout this opinion, "Camps" will refer to an English-language translation of record in the file of the application underlying this appeal. Appeal 2017-011354 Application 14/368,379 1 Claims 22-25 are withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction 2 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). 3 We REVERSE. 4 The appealed claims are directed to a wiper blade adapter unit of a 5 wiper system for a motor vehicle window glass. Claim 1 is the sole 6 independent claim on appeal: 7 1. A wiper blade adapter unit with a wiper blade 8 adapter (10), which is configured to be connected to a wiper arm 9 adapter and which has at least one receiving area (12, 14) having 10 at least one contact surface (16, 18) configured for fastening at 11 least one carrier element (20, 22) of a wiper blade, characterized 12 in that the at least one contact surface (16, 18) has a maximum 13 length of 20 mm. 14 Camps describes a wiper blade adapter unit with a wiper blade adapter 15 15 configured for connection to a wiper arm 16. (See Camps, para. 26 & 16 Fig. 1 ). As depicted in Figure 9, the wiper blade adapter 15 has a pair of 17 receiving areas with contact surfaces facing the lower strips or hooks 42. 18 Energy directors 46 depend from the contact surfaces. The Examiner 19 correctly finds that Camps fails to describe the limitation whereby the wiper 20 blade adapter unit is characterized in that, in the words of claim 1, "the at 21 least one contact surface (16, 18) has a maximum length of20 mm." (Final 22 Office Action, mailed Oct. 17, 2016 ("Final Act."), at 2). 23 Wunsch describes a backbone or carrier element for a wiper blade. 24 The backbone includes two rails 32, 34 mounting a blade rubber or wiper 25 strip between them, and a pair of spring wires 36, 38 for providing additional 26 vertical stiffness to the backbone. (See Wunsch, paras. 49-51 & Fig. 3). 27 Wunsch teaches that the backbone may have a width as small as 6.00 mm 2 Appeal 2017-011354 Application 14/368,379 1 and a thickness as small as 0.63 mm. (See Wunsch, para. 53). The 2 Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious: 3 to have modified the carrier elements of Camps to have a lateral 4 length of 6.00 mm, as taught by Wunsch, in order to provide a 5 suitable length for the carrier elements such that the carrier 6 elements allow the wiper strip to conform to the curved shape of 7 the windshield being wiped. 8 (Final Act. 2). The Examiner's findings and reasoning are not persuasive. 9 The Specification formally defines the "length of the contact surface" 10 as "an expansion of the contact surface parallel to a main extension direction 11 of the wiper blade adapter." (Spec., para. 3). Read in view of the teachings 12 of the Specification, the "expansion of the contact surface parallel to a main 13 extension direction of the wiper blade adapter" referred to in the definition 14 means the length of the contact surface in the main extension of the wiper 15 blade adapter, which is roughly equivalent to the direction of the length of 16 the carrier elements. Wunsch arguably describes the width and thickness of 1 7 the carrier elements, but not the "expansion of the contact surface parallel to 18 a main extension direction of the wiper blade adapter." Therefore, the 19 teachings of Wunsch do not remedy the deficiencies in the teachings of 20 Camps as applied to independent claim 1. 21 The Examiner finds that the Specification does not indicate that the 22 limitation whereby the wiper blade adapter unit is "characterized in that 23 the at least one contact surface (16, 18) has a maximum length of 20 mm" is 24 critical. Despite this finding, the Examiner does not find that the length of 25 the at least one contact surface is a result-effective variable. Although the 26 Examiner finds that the Appellants have not proven that claim 1 yields 2 7 unexpected results having a nexus with the limitation, the Examiner has not 28 met the burden of proving sufficient facts to underpin a conclusion of 3 Appeal 2017-011354 Application 14/368,379 1 obviousness even in the absence of unexpected results. Further, Appellants 2 describe the invention as a contact surface with a maximum length of 20 mm 3 that allows a curved carrier element to be fixedly connected in a particularly 4 advantageous manner with a minimum amount of upset to the wiper blade 5 adapter. Br. 6-7 (quoting Spec., para. 3). Therefore, we do not sustain the 6 rejection of claims 1-20 and 26 underÂ§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over 7 Camps and Wunsch. 8 DECISION 9 We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 and 26. 10 More specifically, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-20 and 11 26 underÂ§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Camps and Wunsch. REVERSED 4