Ex Parte Zimmermann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2017

13817549 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 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.
2178-0567 6475
EXAMINER
BALLMAN, CHRISTOPHER D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/817,549 05/28/2013
10800 7590 11/15/2017
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Marc Zimmermann
11/15/2017 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 MARC ZIMMERMANN and OLIVER HENNIG
Appeal 2015-008027
Application 13/817,5491
Technology Center 3700
Before KEN B. BARRETT, SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Marc Zimmerman and Oliver Hennig (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 6—10,
and 12—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Meyer (US 1,939,128,
issued Dec. 12, 1933).2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Robert Bosch GmbH.
Appeal Br. 2 (filed Apr. 15, 2015).
2 Claims 5 and 11 are cancelled. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2015-008027
Application 13/817,549
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates “a valve of a piston pump, in particular
for a hydraulic vehicle brake system, with a closing body which can be
moved in an axially guided manner against a sealing seat.” Spec. 1.
Claims 1,10, and 14 are independent. Claim 1 below is illustrative of
the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A valve of a piston pump, comprising:
a sealing seat; and
a closing body configured to be moved in an axially
guided manner against the sealing seat, wherein the closing
body is formed in two pieces, the pieces including a damping
piston and a closing element inserted therein,
wherein the closing element is held on the damping
piston such that the closing element is radially translatable
within a radial spacing formed between a shaft of the closing
element and the damping piston.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Meyer anticipates each of the pending claims.
Final Act. 2—7. Appellants dispute, however, whether Meyer discloses
either a radially translatable closing element or a fluid communication
channel through the first and second ends of the damping piston. See
Appeal Br. 6—10, 12. Reversing the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 6—
10, 12, 13, and 15—18 is appropriate, Appellants argue, because each of these
claims require, directly or indirectly, a radially translatable closing element.
See id. at 10-11, 13—15. Appellants rely on claim 1 as representative of this
group. See id. In addition, Appellants argue separately that we should
reverse the rejection of claims 7, 14, 16, and 19—22 because each of these
claims, directly or indirectly, requires a fluid communication channel
2
Appeal 2015-008027
Application 13/817,549
through the first and second ends of the damping piston. See id. at 11—13,
15—16. Dependent claim 7 is relied upon by Appellants to represent this
group. See id. at 11—13.
Radially Translatable Limitation
Describing the closing element and damping piston configuration of
the claimed piston pump valve, independent claims 1 and 10 each recite, the
“closing element is held on [the] damping piston such that the closing
element is radially translatable within a radial spacing formed between a
shaft of the closing element and the damping piston,” which Appellants
assert Meyer does not disclose. Appeal Br. 6—10. Meyer discloses a valve
that includes head 31 and stem 24 (column 2, lines 8—9), shown in Figure 2
below. Meyer 2,11. 8—9, Fig. 2.
3
Appeal 2015-008027
Application 13/817,549
Figure 2 above is an enlarged sectional view of the valve Meyer discloses.
Id. at 1,11. 61—63. The Examiner identifies head 31, including projection 33,
as showing the claimed “closing element.” Final Act. 2. Creating the
following illustration, Image 1, the Examiner identifies the portion of stem
24 as disclosing the claimed damping piston, which is labeled “x.”
Image 1 (From Meyer FIG. 2)
Id. at 2—3. Above Image 1 shows a box around the lower end of stem 24,
which Meyer describes as socket 40 for creating a “ball and socket
connection” between stem 24 and head 31. Meyer 2,11. 35—41. The
Examiner finds the configuration between the damping piston and closing
element shown in Figure 2 of Meyer allows the closing element to radially
translate within a radial spacing formed between a shaft of the closing
element and the damping piston, as recited by claims 1 and 10. Final Act.
2—3 (citing Meyer 2,11. 8—15, 42-48). At page 2, lines 45—48, Meyer states,
“[t]he socket 40 is shaped and proportioned to hold the projection 33 so that
the head 31 is free to rotate and have limited tilting movement with relation
to the stem 24.” (Emphasis added).
Appellants contend “[t]he Examiner has mischaracterized Meyer.”
Appeal Br. 6. Meyer, according to Appellants, “fail[s] to disclose that the
head [] and projection^ are radially translatable” and, “furthermore, radial
4
Appeal 2015-008027
Application 13/817,549
translation of the head and projection relative to the socket 40 would render
the valve 21 of Meyer inoperable.” Id. at 7. Appellants assert, without any
evidentiary support, the concentric surfaces interfacing the closing element
and damping piston in Meyer, and its configuration, “precludes radial
translation of the projection 33 and head 31 relative to the socket 40.” Id.
When considering the weight of the evidence, Appellants’
unsupported assertions fail to overcome the Examiner’s persuasive
supporting evidence from Meyer that expressly states, “[t]he socket 40 is
shaped and proportioned to hold the projection 33 so that the head 31 is free
to rotate.'” Meyer 2,11. 45—48 (emphasis added). We further observe Meyer
teaches the head and stem connection is such “that the head is free to tilt and
rotate and thus center itself with relation to the seat ring 20.” Id. at 2,11. 29—
32 (emphasis added). Moreover, Meyer teaches head 31 includes vanes 60
with beveled or pitched faces 61, which “causes the head to rotate” when
they are engaged by the fluid passing through the valve. Id. at 2,11. 95—109.
Appellants have not demonstrated persuasively any error with the
Examiner’s finding Meyer discloses a piston pump valve with a damping
piston/closing element configuration that allows the closing element to
radially translate, which a preponderance of the evidence supports. Because
Appellants do not allege any other errors exist with the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1—4, 6, 8—10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18, we sustain the Examiner
rejection of these claims.
Channel Limitation
For claims 7, 14, 16, and 19-22, Appellants argue these claims are
patentable because they each require, either directly or indirectly, a damping
piston that has a “channel form[ing] a segment of a flow connection through
5
Appeal 2015-008027
Application 13/817,549
the damping piston to its other end,” which Meyer does not disclose. Appeal
Br. 11—12 (quoting claim 7). To show Meyer discloses this claimed channel
configuration, the Examiner created Image 3 reproduced below.
Image 3 (From Meyer FIG. 2)
C
Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds Image 3 above shows how Meyer
“discloses the at least one channel b forms a segment of a flow connection
through the damping piston x to its other end.” Id. at 5 (citing Meyer
Fig. 2). The Examiner explains further that because “[a] channel is merely
an enclosed passage .... the socket 40 is a channel (b) in that it is an
enclosed passage that connects the 2 ends of the damping piston.” Id. at 8.
Appellants argue persuasively that the Examiner misapprehends the
claimed channel. Appeal Br. 11—12. Specifically, Appellants note the
claimed channel forms “a flow connection which extends through the
damping piston.” Id. at 12. Rather than simply a damping piston with a
channel, the claimed “channel forms a segment of a flow connection through
the damping piston to its other end.” Id. (quoting claim 7). In Appellants
words, “[rjegardless of whether a blind bore can be considered to be a
‘channel,’ it is indisputable that the blind bore in the socket 40 of Meyer
does not provide a flow connection through the stem 24 to its other end.” Id.
6
Appeal 2015-008027
Application 13/817,549
We agree. A preponderance of the evidence fails to support the
Examiner’s finding the element “b” in Image 3 created by the Examiner
“forms a segment of a flow connection through the damping piston to its
other end.” Final Act. 5. More specifically, we agree with Appellants that
element “b” in Image 3 fails to disclose a through passage in the damping
piston that connects the first and second ends of the damping piston, nor
does it show flow passage through the first end and the second end of the
damping piston. Instead, the weight of the evidence supports Appellants’
characterization of socket 40 in Meyer as “a blind hole formed in the lower
end of the stem 24,” which does not form a “connection through” the
damping piston. Appeal Br. 12 (citing Meyer Figs. 2, 3). Therefore, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 14, 16, and 19—22.
In summary, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 8—10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18, but we
do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 7, 14, 16, and 19-22.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 8—10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18 is
affirmed.
The rejection of claims 7, 14, 16, and 19-22 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7