David Huelke et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 6, 2020

14525366 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 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.
14/525,366 10/28/2014 David Huelke 83475974 1067
121691 7590 04/06/2020
Ford Global Technologies, LLC/
King & Schickli, PLLC
800 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 200
Lexington, KY 40503
EXAMINER
SUFLETA II, GERALD J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/06/2020 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):
laura@iplaw1.net
uspto@iplaw1.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID HUELKE, MIKE POPOVSKI,
JOHN ANDREW STAKOE, and JEFF TODD BAXTER
Appeal 2019-000193
Application 14/525,366
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, RAE LYNN P. GUEST, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–15, and 17–19. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-000193
Application 14/525,366

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a combined grab handle and light source
assembly for the interior of a vehicle. Spec. [0001]. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A combined grab handle and light source assembly,
comprising:
a revolving door having a first face and a second face,
wherein said first face is opposite said second face;
a grab handle carried on said first face; and
a light source carried on said second face.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Huizenga US 2003/0095416 Al May 22, 2003
Thompson et al. US 2004/0036304 Al Feb. 26, 2004
Kimura et al. JP 2007-320422 Dec. 13, 2007
Lyons US 7,611,269 B1 Nov. 3, 2009
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimura.
2. Claims 6–9, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Thompson.
3. Claims 11, 12, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Lyons.
4. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kimura in view of Huizenga.
Appeal 2019-000193
Application 14/525,366

3
OPINION
Anticipation
With respect to the rejection based on 35 U.S.C. § 102, Appellant
presents separate arguments with respect to only independent claims 1, 13,
and 19, and we address each argument in turn. All dependent claims stand
or fall with their respective independent claims.
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that
Kimura’s door 2 reads on the claim term “revolving door” and has a grab
handle 12 on a first face and a light source 19 on a second opposite face.
Non-Final Rej. 3. Appellant contends that door 2 in Kimura cannot read on
a “revolving door” because the door only pivots, but does not “revolve”
360°. See Appeal Br. 9–12; Reply Br. 1–2. To support Appellant’s claim
interpretation, Appellant points to the following: 1) the Drawing’s figures, 2)
paragraph [0021] of the Specification describing the clearance between the
outer housing 14 allowing for the handle 28 to freely pass the sides 32
during “rotation” of the subassembly 12 relative to the outer housing 14, and
3) a dictionary definition of the term “revolve” that is ‘“to cause to turn
around, as on an axis’ or ‘to cause to move in a circular or curving course, as
about a central point.’” Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 2.
“[A]s an initial matter, the PTO applies to the verbiage of the
proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their
ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the
applicant's specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appeal 2019-000193
Application 14/525,366

4
We disagree with Appellant that the broadest reasonable interpretation
of the term “revolving” requires the narrower 360° rotation argued by
Appellant. Appellant’s own dictionary definition supports the Examiner’s
finding that door 2, which is demonstrated in Figures 9 and 18 of Kimura to
turn about an axis and move in a curving course about that central axis, is a
revolving door within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term
“revolving.” We are not persuaded that Appellant’s Specification has
provided a particular definition or that the example configuration
represented in the figures, without additional structural claim language,
should limit the scope of the broader language recited in claim 1. “Though
understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations
contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim
limitations that are not a part of the claim.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV
Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, Appellant has shown no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, or the claims so rejected that depend therefrom, as
being anticipated by Kimura.
With respect to independent claim 13, the Examiner finds that door 2
of Kimura (as illustrated in Figures 9 and 18) reads on the recited “first
position wherein a grab handle is provided on said open side” and “a second
position wherein a light source is provided on said open side” in that the
term “open side” includes “any portion [of door 2] that is outside the
compartment 1.” Ans. 3; see also Non-Final Rej. 3–4. According to the
Examiner, “whenever Kimura’s door 10 [to the extent 10 is embedded in
door 2] is fully opened such that it makes a 90° angle with the compartment,
both sides are fully provided on the open side.” Ans. 4.
Appeal 2019-000193
Application 14/525,366

5
Appellant contends that Kimura’s handle and light are not
“displaced,” presumably vis-à-vis the door 2, and that “claim 13 requires
that both the grab handle and the light source are provides on the (same)
open side” because they never occupy the same position. Appeal Br. 12–13;
Reply Br. 3–4.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the grab handle
and light source are not displaced between the first position shown in
Figures 9 and 18 of Kimura and the second position shown therein, as the
positon of the these features has clearly moved, and the claims do not
require the grab handle and light to be displaced vis-à-vis the door, as
suggested by Appellant’s arguments. We are also not persuaded regarding
Appellant’s arguments about the grab handle and the light source not being
on the same “open side” when the door is in the respective positions in
Figures 9 and 18 of Kimura. We note that the claim recites “an outer
housing including a cavity and an open side.” Accordingly, the “open side”
on which the grab handle and light source are positioned in the first and
second positions, respectively, refers to the side of the outer housing, which
the Examiner identifies as compartment 1 in Kimura. Indeed, in Figures 9
and 18 of Kimura, the grab handle is disposed on the open side of
compartment 1 in the lower position and the light source is disposed on the
same open side of compartment 1 in the upper position. Further, we
disagree with Appellant’s argument that claim requires the grab handle and
the light to “occupy the same position.”
Accordingly, Appellant has shown no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 13, or the claims so rejected that depend therefrom, as
being anticipated by Kimura.
Appeal 2019-000193
Application 14/525,366

6
With respect to claim 19, the Examiner finds that that door 2 of
Kimura (as illustrated in Figures 9 and 18) reads on the on the recited “first
position wherein said grab handle is exposed for use and said light source is
hidden and a second position wherein said light source is exposed for use
and said grab handle is hidden” in that the term “hidden” does not mean
“hidden from any and all position” such that “[w]hen Kimura's door is fully
opened (such that it makes a 90° angle with the compartment 1) the handle
would be blocked from view by a user peering into the open compartment.”
Ans. 4; see also Non-Final Rej. 4.
Appellant contends that Kimura’s handle is not “hidden” even in the
open position because “it would be clearly visible on the back side of the
floor board.” Appeal Br. 13, Reply Br. 4. Appellant cites to a dictionary
definition in support of this contention for the term “hidden” as “being out of
sight or not readily apparent.” Reply Br. 4.
We disagree with Appellant that the broadest reasonable interpretation
of the term “hidden” distinguishes the Examiner’s interpretations and
findings. Appellant’s own dictionary definition supports the Examiner’s
finding that handle 12 in door 2, which is demonstrated in Figures 9 and 18
to be “out of sight” of a person accessing the interior of compartment 1
when the door is in an open position, is hidden within the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the term “hidden.” We are not persuaded that
Appellant’s Specification has provided a particular definition or that the
example configuration represented in the figures, without additional
structural claim language, should limit the scope of the broader language
recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2019-000193
Application 14/525,366

7
Accordingly, Appellant has shown no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 19, or the claims so rejected that depend therefrom, as
being anticipated by Kimura.
Obviousness rejections
With respect to the rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103, Appellants
present separate arguments for claims 6 and 17, for which we select claim 6
as representative of the group, and for claims 11, 12, 14, and 15 as a group
for which we select claim 11 as representative. Separately rejected claim 10
is not separately argued, and thus stands or falls with claim 1 from which it
indirectly depends.
With respect to claim 6, the Examiner finds that Kimura’s door 2 has
a first end wall and second end wall and includes a first pivot pin 13 on a
first end wall. Non-Final Rej. 4–5; Ans. 5. The Examiner finds that Kimura
does not teach more than one pin, but relies on Thompson for evincing a
handle with two rather than one pin is known in the art. Id. The Examiner
further articulates a reason why a skilled artisan would have used two pins as
opposed to one pin, namely as a known design option which uses “less
material” with the same functionality. Id.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not provided a sufficient
reason to combine the teachings because neither Thompson nor Kimura
teach that less material is used for two pivots as opposed to one. Appeal Br.
14–15; Reply Br. 5.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred merely by relying on reasons not expressly set forth in the prior art
references applied. An obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
Appeal 2019-000193
Application 14/525,366

8
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007). The Examiner provided a reason, with rational
underpinnings, why the skilled artisan would have optionally used two pins
for a rotating handle, as taught by Thompson, instead of the single pin for
the rotating handle taught by Kimura. Appellant has shown no error in the
Examiner’s findings nor has persuaded us that the Examiner’s reasoning is
insufficient or untenable. Moreover, the recognition in the art of known
substitute handle structures serving the same function is sufficient because
substitution of an equivalent structure would have been obvious to a skilled
artisan. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982).
Accordingly, Appellant has shown no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 6 as being unpatentable in view of Kimura and Thompson.
With respect to claim 11, the Examiner finds that Kimura does not
teach a reinforcing bracket to secure an outer housing 1. The Examiner
finds that Lyons teaches the use of U-shaped reinforcement brackets to
secure components of vehicles was known in the art. Non-Final Rej. 6–7.
The Examiner articulates several reasons why a skilled artisan would have
used a reinforcement bracket including to allow an assembly to remain
secure during operation of a vehicle, and for modular construction and ease
of replacement of failed parts. Id.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not provided a sufficient
reason to combine the teachings because neither Lyons nor Kimura teach
any of these benefits for a reinforcement bracket. Appeal Br. 14–15; Reply
Br. 5.
Appeal 2019-000193
Application 14/525,366

9
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred merely by relying on reasons not expressly set forth in the prior art
references applied. An obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. The
Examiner provided several reasons, with rational underpinnings, why the
skilled artisan would have used a reinforcing bracket, as taught by Lyons,
for the outer housing taught by Kimura. Appellant has shown no error in the
Examiner’s findings nor has persuaded us that the Examiner’s reasoning is
insufficient or untenable.
Accordingly, Appellant has shown no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 11 as being unpatentable in view of Kimura and Lyons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5,
13, 19 102 Kimura
1, 2, 4, 5,
13, 19
6–9, 17, 18 103 Kimura, Thompson 6–9, 17, 18
11, 12, 14,
15 103 Kimura, Lyons
11, 12, 14,
15
10 103 Kimura, Huizenga 10
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–15,
17–19

Appeal 2019-000193
Application 14/525,366

10
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED