Dean M. Jaradi et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 29, 2019

14996976 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 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.
14/996,976 01/15/2016 Dean M. JARADI 83599689 5854
28395 7590 07/29/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
BLACK, MELISSA ANN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2019 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte DEAN M. JARADI, MOHAMMED OMAR FARUQUE,
and S.M. ISKANDER FAROOQ
__________

Appeal 2018-008353
Application 14/996,976
Technology Center 3600
__________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1–8, 11, and 13–19. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Ford Global Technologies, LLC is the applicant and identified as the sole
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-008353
Application 14/996,976

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification
The Specification explains that “[v]ehicles generally include front and
rear fascia (bumpers) in order to absorb energy during impacts, reduce
potential injury to pedestrians, and avoid height mismatches between
vehicles, among other functions.” Spec. ¶2. Appellant’s “disclosure relates
to a one-piece fascia with an integrated energy absorber.” Id. ¶1.
The Rejected Claims
Claims 1–8, 11, and 13–19 are pending and all are rejected. Final
Act. 1. No other claims are pending. Id. at 2; Appeal Br. (Claims App. 1–
3). Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below.
1. A one-piece vehicle fascia, comprising:
a fascia body; and
an energy absorber integrally formed with the fascia
body and including an open lattice portion having at least one
lattice wall extending rearward from a front portion of the
fascia body and adjoining at least two open cells, and a solid
portion extending upward from the open lattice portion, the
open lattice portion having a depth greater than a depth of the
solid portion.
Appeal Br. (Claims App. 1).
Appeal 2018-008353
Application 14/996,976

3

The Appealed Rejections
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. claims 1, 5, 8, and 18, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), as
anticipated by Schultz2 (Final Act. 2);
2. claims 6 and 7, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being unpatentable
over Schultz (id. at 4);
3. claims 2–4, 19, and 20, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being
unpatentable over Schultz and Montgomery3 (id.); and
4. claims 11 and 13–17, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being
unpatentable over Schultz, Montgomery, and Buller4 (id. at 5).
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5, 8, and 18 as anticipated by
Schultz. Final Act. 2. Appellant argues these claims together. Appeal
Br. 2–4. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv).
Schultz discloses “a bumper [i.e., fascia] system for an automotive
vehicle.” Schultz 1:6–7. More specifically, “bumper system 10 of [Schultz]
includes a one-piece, arcuate composite or plastic valance or member 12
which provides both the top and bottom bumper show or exterior surfaces in
a[n] integrated structure.” Id. at 2:45–49.
Figure 3 of Schultz is reproduced below with the Board’s annotation,
a red rectangle.

2 US 6,511,109 B1, issued Jan. 28, 2003 (“Schultz”).
3 US 4,061,384, issued Dec. 6, 1977 (“Montgomery”).
4 US 2015/0367415 A1, published Dec. 24, 2015 (“Buller”).
Appeal 2018-008353
Application 14/996,976

4

Figure 3, reproduced above (along with the Board’s annotation), shows a
cross-section of Schultz’s bumper system. Id. at 2:32–33. Schultz states:
Structural ribs 24 preferably extend along entire reinforcement
section 18 in a lattice type configuration, as shown in FIG. 1.
With this configuration, hollow interior portions 26 are defined
between structural ribs 24, thereby reducing the amount of plastic
material required to construct structural ribs 24 and keeping
composite valance 12 lightweight. In addition, hollow interior
portions 26 provide flexibility to composite valance 12, which is
beneficial for impact resistance.
Id. at 3:25–33 (cited at Final Act. 2).
The Examiner relies on composite valance 12 as disclosing claim 1’s
“fascia body”; on structural rib 24 and hollow interior portions 26 as
disclosing claim 1’s “energy absorber”; on hollow interior portions 26 as
disclosing claim 1’s “open lattice portion”; on structural rib 24 as disclosing
claim 1’s “at least one lattice wall extending rearward from a front portion of
the fascia body and adjoining at least two open cells”; and a solid portion of
composite valance 12 as disclosing claim 1’s “a solid portion extending
Appeal 2018-008353
Application 14/996,976

5

upward from the open lattice portion, the open lattice portion having a depth
greater than a depth of the solid portion.” Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 6–7.
The solid portion of composite valance 12 is identified more specifically by
the Examiner as “front wall of top portion of 12.” Final Act. 2. Thus, the
structure within the Board’s annotation (i.e., the red rectangle) is relied upon
by the Examiner as disclosing the “solid portion” recited in claim 1. Final
Act. 2–3; see also Ans. 6–7.
Appellant argues that Schultz does not disclose “the open lattice
portion having a depth greater than a depth of the solid portion,” as recited in
claim 1. Appeal Br. 2–4. In articulating her finding of that feature in
Schultz, the Examiner stated that Schultz’s “open lattice portion (24) has a
thickness that is greater than a thickness of the solid portion (12, See figure
3).” Final Act. 2. Appellant takes issue with the Examiner’s terminology,
arguing that “thickness is not a depth.” Appeal Br. 3. However,
terminology is not the issue, as the Examiner and Appellant agree that
depth/thickness should be measured left-to-right (or right-to-left) in the
context of Schultz’s Figure 3. See Appeal Br. 3. The real dispute between
the Examiner and Appellant is over what in Schultz constitutes “the solid
portion.”
Figure 3 of Schultz, as annotated by both the Examiner and Appellant,
is reproduced below.
Appeal 2018-008353
Application 14/996,976

6

Appeal Br. 3.5 Shown above is Figure 3 of Schultz, annotated with unboxed
text added by the Examiner, boxed text added by Appellant, and their
competing measurements of the “solid portion” indicated with various
arrows. Final Act. 3; Appeal Br. 3. As readily seen above, Appellant argues
that the depth of Schultz’s “solid portion” is the maximum left-to-right
extension of the entire composite valence 12 and, thus, the depth of the
upper horizontal extension where the arrow of reference number 12 points.
Appeal Br. 3. In contrast, the Examiner relies on only the “front wall of top
portion of 12” as meeting the “solid portion” and therefore applies a depth
equal to the thickness of the wall. Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 6–7 (“[T]he
solid portion that the examiner is relying on in the Schultz reference is front
face portion 22 of fascia body 12.”).6
In resolving the dispute over what in Schultz may or may not
correspond to claim 1’s “solid portion,” we look to the language of the

5 The Examiner included an annotated version of Schultz Figure 3 in the
Final Action. Final Act. 3. Appellant thereafter further annotated the figure
in the Appeal Brief. Appeal Br. 3.
6 Schultz Figure 1 includes reference numeral 22, whereas Figure 3 does not.
Appeal 2018-008353
Application 14/996,976

7

claim. Claim 1 recites “a solid portion extending upward from the open
lattice portion.” As claim 1 employs the transitional term “comprising,”
claim 1 does not preclude additional structure, for example, attached to the
solid portion. As illustrated above in the annotated Figure 3 of Schultz, the
portion of Schultz’s composite valance that the Examiner finds corresponds
to the “solid portion” of claim 1 does, in fact, extend upward from the open
lattice portion. Another portion of Schultz’s composite valance—namely,
the upper horizontal extension where the arrow of reference number 12
points—extends rearward (or leftward) therefrom. Appellant wants that
additional portion included as part of the asserted “solid portion,” arguing
that the Examiner’s exclusion of it “seeks to separate a unitary structure in
order to manipulate dimensions to reject Appellant’s claim[] 1.” Appeal
Br. 4.
Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of error. Claim 1, by its
very terms, is directed to a unitary structure, i.e., “[a] one-piece vehicle
fascia, comprising: a fascia body; and an energy absorber integrally formed
with the fascia body.” Thus, by employing the term “portion,” the claim
explicitly contemplates that the “solid portion” is part of a greater structure.
The Examiner has identified a solid portion extending upward from
the open lattice portion.7 Its depth is less than the depth of the open lattice
portion.

7 On Reply, Appellant raises a new argument—that Schultz’s solid portion
does not actually extend upward from the open lattice portion because the
plane of the solid portion is offset slightly forward of the hollow interior
portions 26. Reply 2–3. This argument is late. See 37 C.F.R. §41.41(b)(2)
(“Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal
brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner’s answer,
Appeal 2018-008353
Application 14/996,976

8

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by Schultz, as well as that of claims 5, 8, and 18, which fall
therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv).
Rejections 2–4
The Examiner rejected, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, claims 6 and 7 over
Schultz; claims 2–4, 19, and 20 over Schultz and Montgomery; and claims
11 and 13–17 over Schultz, Montgomery, and Buller. Final Act. 4–5.
Appellant’s arguments against these rejections are all premised on Schultz
not disclosing “the open lattice portion having a depth greater than a depth
of the solid portion.” Appeal Br. 4–6.
Because we are not persuaded by that argument above, we also find
no error in the Examiner’s Rejections 2–4. Accordingly, we affirm
Rejections 2–4.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–8, 11, and 13–19 is affirmed.

TIME PERIOD
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

including any designated new ground of rejection, will not be considered by
the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.”).
The argument is also not well developed and, thus, not persuasive. In
particular, it seems to be based on an unreasonably narrow interpretation of
the claim that is neither identified nor supported by Appellant.