Asif Zia et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 16, 2020

15150768 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2020)

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.
15/150,768 05/10/2016 Asif Zia 710012 6899
24938 7590 04/16/2020
FCA US LLC
CIMS 483-02-19
800 CHRYSLER DR EAST
AUBURN HILLS, MI 48326-2757
EXAMINER
LUGO, CARLOS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/16/2020 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):
chris.davenport@fcagroup.com
michelle.madak@fcagroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ASIF ZIA, MATT J. SCHULTE,
AMIR SIDDIQUI, and GRAHAM PAYNE

Appeal 2019-005765
Application 15/150,768
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, BRETT C. MARTIN and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7.1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 The term “Appellant” is used herein to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as FCA US
LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-005765
Application 15/150,768

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to an emergency fuel door release
mechanism. Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below:
1. An emergency fuel door release mechanism comprising:

an integrated member including a grocery bag hook portion, a
key portion, and a fuel door release cable coupling;

an interior trim panel of a vehicle having a keyway opening
therethrough and a locking detent;

wherein, when the integrated member is received in the keyway
opening, the grocery bag hook portion is positioned on a vehicle
interior side of the interior trim panel, and the fuel door release
cable coupling is positioned on an opposite, non-vehicle interior
side of the interior trim panel;

wherein, when the integrated member is received in the keyway
opening in an unlocked orientation, the key portion is oriented in
alignment with the keyway opening to permit the key portion to
pass through the keyway opening; and

wherein, when the integrated member is received in the keyway
opening in a locked orientation, the integrated member is
oriented with the locking detent engaging and retaining the
integrated member in the locked orientation.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects:
(i) claims 1–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Gilmore (US 3,653,277, issued Apr. 4, 1972) in view of Schellinger (US
2,101,348, issued Dec. 7, 1937) and Renou (FR 2 870 299, published Nov.
Appeal 2019-005765
Application 15/150,768

3
18, 2005) (hereafter “FR 299” to maintain consistency with the identification
used by the Examiner and Appellant); and
(ii) claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gilmore
in view of Schellinger, FR 299 and Farelli (US 4,027,910, issued June 7,
1977).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–6--35 U.S.C. § 103--Gilmore/Schellinger/FR 299
The Examiner finds that Gilmore discloses a release mechanism
having integrated member 1. Final Act. 3. The Examiner notes that
Gilmore includes hook 7 and key portion 6, 11. Id. The mechanism is a
release mechanism with a release cable coupling, which operates as a hood
release for a vehicle. Id. The Examiner relies on Schellinger, which
discloses a cable release for a fuel door, and concludes that it would have
been obvious to use the mechanism of Gilmore for a fuel door cable release.
Id. at 3–4.
The Examiner additionally finds that, although handle/hook 7 of
Gilmore is not disclosed as being a grocery bag hook as claimed, it is
capable of supporting a grocery bag. Id. at 4–5.
A further difference between the claimed invention and Gilmore noted
by the Examiner is that Gilmore does not disclose that the integrated
mechanism is to be coupled to a keyway opening in an interior trim panel
having a locking detent that interacts with a key portion of the integrated
member. Id. The Examiner finds that the Gilmore mechanism has a housing
4 with a guide slot 8 with which a locking pin 11 interacts, such that the pin
Appeal 2019-005765
Application 15/150,768

4
may travel along the slot, and, when the integrated member is rotated, the
pin will lock against a keyway. Id.
The Examiner cites to FR 299 as disclosing an integrated member 7
with a key portion 71, 72, that is inserted through a keyway opening 8 so as
to lock the integrated member in place with the panel, by operation of a user
rotating the integrated member into a locking orientation. Final Act. 6. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the Gilmore
apparatus to provide the integrated member with a key portion to be inserted
through and engaged with a keyway opening in panel 5, in order to provide a
simpler way to secure the integrated member and provide less members to
perform that function. Id.
The Examiner provides drawing sketches to illustrate the proposed
modification of Gilmore in view of FR 299 at page 10 of the Answer, and
these are reproduced below:

Appeal 2019-005765
Application 15/150,768

5
Depicted above, at the top, is a reproduction of Figure 1 of the release device
of Gilmore, which is a side view thereof. Depicted at the bottom are two
Examiner-generated sketches intended to illustrate the modifications to be
made to Gilmore in view of the teaching in FR 299 of providing a keyway in
a panel to receive a keyed member that can be secured to the panel.
The Examiner’s proposed modification is not supported by rational
underpinnings. The Gilmore release mechanism operates on the principle of
applying tension to the cable to pull the cable and cause coupling member 3'
to pull a remote hood or fuel door actuator. Gilmore 1:46–48. The
Examiner’s proposed modification would still allow this to occur, when
handle 7 is rotated to align the key portions identified above with similarly
shaped key openings in panel 5, such that the key portions can by pulled
through the panel. The above sketches, however, appear to be at best
incomplete, in that simply passing key portions attached to handle 7 through
key openings in panel 5 and rotating the handle would not lock the handle to
the panel without some structure, such as a plate, on the handle positioned
against the opposite, interior side of the panel. Without such structure, the
key portions of handle 7 would be allowed to separate from the inner surface
of the interior panel, and be allowed to flop around within the opening.
Even were Gilmore further modified to include structure on the side
of the handle opposite that of the key portions, the Examiner is not correct
that the modification would “provide a mechanism with less members while
not changing the function or movement of the release mechanism.” Ans. 10
(emphasis added). Gilmore, prior to modification, operates in a linear
manner, with rod 6 biased away from the actuation/pull direction by spring
12. Gilmore 2:10–22. The operator rotates then pulls the handle, effecting
Appeal 2019-005765
Application 15/150,768

6
the release of the hood lock. Id. Upon release of the handle, rod 6 is
retracted by the biasing force of spring 12, and returned to its secured
position through the release of torsion in the spring. Id. With the proposed
modification in place, there would be no biased return of a rod and handle,
so either the handle is temporarily left flopping in the car interior at the end
of the cable, or the handle must continue to be held by the operator. Either
way, in order to reset the mechanism, the operator must realign the key
portions of the handle with the key openings in the interior panel, and
manually insert the key portions and rotate the handle to relock the release
mechanism.
Along the same lines, as noted by Appellant, when Gilmore’s handle
is uncoupled from the panel, a bare keyway would be exposed through the
trim panel. Appeal Br. 9–10. This, according to Appellant, would be
unsightly and allow for the possibility that foreign objects might make their
way into the opening. Id. at 10. Although Appellant’s construction would
have the same negative aspects, Appellant intends for its device to be a
backup to a main device, and thus rarely, if ever, used. In contrast, the
devices relied on by the Examiner are the main actuators for either hood
release or fuel door release, and the negative aspects would be experienced
much more frequently. Id.
Appellant points out that the FR 299 keyway and bayonet connector
are designed to essentially permanently secure actuator 2 to housing or
casing 4 through an opening 3 in casing 4, not to serve as a connection that
is to be coupled and decoupled on any kind of regular basis. Reply Br. 8–9.
Further, although FR 299 is directed to the locking and unlocking of a fuel
door, the mechanism effecting the unlocking and locking of the fuel door in
Appeal 2019-005765
Application 15/150,768

7
FR 299 is bolt 5 traveling within casing 4 to engage or release the fuel door.
No part of the keyway and bayonet connector are involved in this process. If
FR 299 is at all relevant to the Gilmore device, it might be considered as an
alternative way to permanently mount the entire support body 4 to dash
panel 5, but that would not lead to the invention as presently claimed. cf.
Reply Br. 8–9 (discussing use of fixed members to position release members
in panels in prior art).
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1–6 over Gilmore in view of
Schellinger and FR 299 is not sustained.

Claim 7--35 U.S.C. § 103--Gilmore/Schellinger/FR 299/Farelli
The Examiner does not rely on Farelli in any manner that cures the
deficiencies noted above with respect to the teachings of Gilmore and
FR 299. The rejection of claim 7 as being unpatentable over these
references is therefore not sustained.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Gilmore, Schellinger, and FR 299 is reversed.
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Gilmore, Schellinger, FR 299, and Farelli is reversed.

Appeal 2019-005765
Application 15/150,768

8
CONCLUSION

In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6 103 Gilmore,
Schellinger,
FR 299
1–6
7 103 Gilmore,
Schellinger,
FR 299, Farelli
7
Overall
Outcome

1–7

REVERSED