Jörg Gross

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 23, 2019

14504511 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2019)

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.
14/504,511 10/02/2014 Jörg GROSS 0541-1215 6664
65363 7590 07/23/2019
Todd A. VAUGHN
Jordan IP Law, LLC
12501 Prosperity Drive, Suite 401
Silver Spring, MD 20904
EXAMINER
PELHAM, JOSEPH MOORE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/23/2019 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):
admin4@jordaniplaw.com
admin@jordaniplaw.com
tvaughn@jordaniplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte JÖRG GROSS1
__________

Appeal 2018-009122
Application 14/504,511
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 40–42, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. Final Act. 1 (Office Action Summary); Br. 14–
15 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the
reasons explained below, we do not find error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 40–42. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection.

1 “The real party in interest is MAGNA STEYR Fuel Systems GmbH.” Br.
3. We refer to the appealing party as “Appellant.”
Appeal 2018-009122
Application 14/504,511

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relate[s] to a reservoir or container for a
urea solution, comprising an upper shell, a lower shell and a heater designed
(structurally and/or operationally) to control the temperature of the urea
solution, and to a method for producing a container of this kind.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Claims 40–42 are independent. Claim 40 is illustrative of the claims
on appeal and is reproduced below.
40. A method for producing a motor vehicle container,
the method comprising:
forming an upper shell and a lower shell by injection
moulding a moulding material composed of a plastic, the upper
shell having upper pillar-type structures and upper shell flanges,
and the lower shell having lower pillar-type structures and lower
shell flanges;
arranging a heater centrally at a bottom of the lower shell;
permanently connecting the upper shell flanges and the
lower shell flanges to each other by heating the upper shell
flanges and the lower shell flanges such that the upper shell
flanges and the lower shell flanges are to extend around the outer
periphery of the motor vehicle container; and then
simultaneously pressing the upper shell and the lower shell
together and welding the upper pillar-type structures and the
lower pillar-type structures to each other,
wherein the lower pillar-type structures are arranged
adjacent to, and distributed around the heater to counteract
deformation of the bottom of the lower shell.

REFERENCES
Rösch et al. DE 10 2012 108 858 A1 Mar. 20, 20142, 3

2 The Examiner provides a machine-generated English-language translation
from the European Patent Office. All citations to Rösch will be to this
English-language translation.
3 We note that Rösch’s publication date of Mar. 20, 2014, is before
Appellant’s “FILING or 371(c) DATE” of Oct. 2, 2014, but is after the
Appeal 2018-009122
Application 14/504,511

3
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (“APA”), Spec. ¶¶ 3–7, 34–36; Figs.
1–2.

THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 40–42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
APA and Rösch. Final Act. 2.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues claims 40–42 together. Br. 6–12. We select claim
40 for review, with claims 41 and 42 standing or falling therewith. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that APA discloses a urea container comprising
upper and lower plastic shells 2, 3 and a heater 6 arranged “centrally at a
bottom of the lower shell,” as claimed. Final Act. 2 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 3–7,
34–36; Figs. 1–2). However, the Examiner acknowledges that APA does
not disclose “upper pillar-type structures” and “lower pillar-type structures,”
respectively, in the upper and lower shells, as claimed. Final Act. 2. For
this “pillar” teaching, the Examiner relies on Rösch, which discloses a urea
tank having upper and lower shells (107, 101) and, more particularly, “upper
109 and lower 103 pillar-type structures” therein. Final Act. 2 (citing Rösch
¶¶ 4–8, 40–50; Figs. 1, 4–8). The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to modify the urea tank of APA to adapt the pillar-type
structures of Rösch “since R[ö]sch teaches such to enhance the stability and
rigidity of the container, thereby minimizing the sagging which occurs when
heated.” Final Act. 3; see also Rösch ¶¶ 4, 6, 9, and 51.

priority date of Appellant’s European Patent Application, which is Oct. 2,
2013. See BIB DATA SHEET.
Appeal 2018-009122
Application 14/504,511

4
Appellant contends that the recited centrally arranged heater at a
bottom of a lower shell is not disclosed in the admitted prior art. See Br. 7–
9; see also id. at 7–8 (arguing that paragraphs 5 and 34 of the Specification
do not describe a heater “centrally” located at the bottom of the lower shell;
and, paragraphs 35–37 are not identified as prior art).
Appellant’s contentions are unpersuasive. “[T]hings patent drawings
show clearly are [not] to be disregarded.” In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072
(CCPA 1972) (emphasis in original).
Appellant’s Figures 1 and 2 (identified by the Examiner as APA (see
Final Act. 2)) are reproduced below.

Appellant’s Specification states, “Fig. 1 is a sectioned view of a
conventional container” and “Fig. 2 is a sectioned view of a conventional
Appeal 2018-009122
Application 14/504,511

5
container without reinforcement of the bottom of the lower shell.” Spec.
¶¶ 31–32 (emphasis added).
As depicted above, Figures 1 and 2 of the subject application are each
labeled as “PRIOR ART.” Additionally, these figures are described as
illustrating container 1 having an upper shell 2, a lower shell 3, and a heater
6. See Spec. ¶¶ 5, 34. These Figures 1 and 2 clearly show heater 6
positioned at the center of the bottom of lower shell 3. Consequently, we do
not agree with Appellant that a centrally arranged heater at a bottom of a
lower shell is not disclosed therein.
Appellant also contends that the combination of APA and Rösch lacks
the combination of a heater arranged centrally and pillar-type structures
arranged adjacent and distributed around the heater “to counteract
deformation of the bottom of the lower shell,” as claimed. Br. 9; see also id.
at 11.
This argument is also unpersuasive. As discussed above, APA
discloses a heater arranged centrally at a bottom of a lower shell. Rösch
discloses pillar-type structures (connecting member 103) in a lower shell
(lower liquid tank shell 101). Rösch ¶ 40; Figs. 1, 4–8. As the Examiner
explains, “when adapted to the APA tank shape with a centered heater, the
pillar-type structures would, as a matter of course, be spaced uniformly
around the heater.” Final Act. 2. In other words, the combined teachings of
APA and Rösch would result in pillar-type structures being located around
the centered heater thereby counteracting any tank deformation to increase
the stability of the tank. See Rösch ¶¶ 4, 6, 9, and 51.
Appellant further states, “the asserted combination via the purported
APA discloses a solution requiring a structural feature (reinforcing ribs) that
Appeal 2018-009122
Application 14/504,511

6
is already recognized by Appellant as being undesirable” in which the “use
of reinforcing ribs, while perhaps curing deformation/sagging at the lower
shell, actually causes another undesirable problem in creating a barrier to the
complete emptying of an entire quantity of liquid from the container.” Br.
11 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 4–5).
We first note that claim 40 does not require nor preclude reinforcing
ribs. Moreover, to the extent that Appellant is arguing the pillar-type
structures of Rösch cannot be added to the tank of APA because of Rösch’s
“stabilizing ribs 121,” the test for obviousness is not whether the features of
a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference; rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Further, as the Examiner
explains, “[t]he tank stability afforded by the pillars of R[ö]sch accomplish
what the ribs of the APA do less effectively, rendering the ribs unnecessary
in the combination.” Ans. 5. Additionally, we note that Figure 1 of Rösch
discloses pillars 109, 103 fully functional without any accompanying
“stabilization ribs 121.”
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 40 as being obvious over APA and
Rösch. We thus sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 40–42.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 40–42 as being unpatentable over
APA and Rösch is affirmed.
Appeal 2018-009122
Application 14/504,511

7
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