Ex Parte BinelliDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 6, 201110910120 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 6, 2011) Copy Citation 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. 10/910,120 08/03/2004 James C. Binelli 04893 (3883.00050) 8024 35374 7590 06/07/2011 LEAR CORPORATION, BLISS MCGLYNN, P.C. 2075 WEST BIG BEAVER ROAD SUITE 600 TROY, MI 48084 EXAMINER OMGBA, ESSAMA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3726 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/07/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte JAMES C. BINELLI ____________________ Appeal 2009-009709 Application 10/910,120 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-009709 Application 10/910,120 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE James C. Binelli (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-4, 6 and 7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a method of making a vehicle seat crossmember (Spec. 1: para. [0001]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for producing a rear crossmember for a vehicle seat including the steps of: providing metal plate stock having a shape generally consistent with the rear crossmember to be produced, the plate stock further defined as having a first edge and a second edge; performing a simultaneous punching and clinching operation to locate and secure a plurality of threaded fasteners into the plate stock at predetermined points, said operation causing an opening to be punched through the plate stock and further causing the fasteners to be permanently retained in the plate stock at the openings such that the plurality of fasteners provides threaded connection points that are employed in the further construction of the vehicle seat; performing a rolling operation to cause the first edge of the plate stock to come into close proximity with the second edge of the plate stock in such a manner as to form the desired cross-sectional shape for the rear crossmember; performing a welding operation to secure the first edge to the second edge thereby forming the rolled plate stock into the desired rear crossmember; and performing a striking operation upon the metal plate stock to provide a plurality of notches and openings in the rear Appeal 2009-009709 Application 10/910,120 3 crossmember, which are employed in the further construction of the vehicle seat. THE REJECTION Claims 1-4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (Spec. 1-2, hereinafter “AAPA”) in view of Nakazima (US 4,301,348, issued Nov. 17, 1981), Shinjo (US 4,690,599, issued Sep. 1, 1987), and Takeda (JP 06217844, published Aug. 9, 1984)2 and Maeda (US 7,134,456 B2, issued Nov. 14, 2006). ISSUE The issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in concluding that the combined teachings of AAPA, Nakazima, Shinjo, Takeda and Maeda would have led a person having ordinary skill in the art to the step of performing a simultaneous punching and clinching operation, as called for in independent claim 1 (App. Br. 20). ANALYSIS Claim 1 calls for, inter alia, the step of “performing a simultaneous punching and clinching operation.” The Examiner found that Shinjo describes (1) “self-clinching nuts that by design are installed in a single operation wherein the nuts are punched into a panel and are clinched thereto, see for example column 1, lines 24-32” (Ans. 6) and (2) “self-piercing clinch nuts having pilot portions” (id.). 2 Incorrectly listed in the Evidence Relied Upon section of the Examiner’s Answer as JP 06217488 (Ans. 3). Appeal 2009-009709 Application 10/910,120 4 The Examiner found that the “installation of such self-piercing clinch nuts in the metal plate inherently causes the part of the pilot portion that extends beyond the seat surface of the metal plate to be bent or flattened to or into the metal plate” (id.). The Examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious . . . to have secured a plurality of fasteners to the metal plate of AAPA/Nakazima, in the manner taught by Shinjo” (Ans. 4). Appellant contends that “clinching” is defined as a particular type of anchoring or fastening “that requires that a projecting end of a fastener (a bolt, nail, screw, etc.) that has been driven through something be bent or flattened to or into the thing to secure the fastener to the thing” (App. Br. 21) (emphasis original). Appellant contends that Shinjo describes the use of a self-piercing nut that is anchored by swaging, not clinching, as called for in independent claim 1 (App. Br. 22). Appellant’s Specification describes the following: [a]s shown in Figure 2, the fasteners may include female self- clinching nuts 46 that have a piercing sleeve 48. During the operation the piercing sleeve 48 is driven through the plate stock 40. An opposing die causes the fastener to be clinched in the plate stock 40 and permanently retained. (Spec. 7: para. [0019]) (emphasis bolded). Appellant’s Specification does not assign or suggest a particular definition to the term “clinching” or otherwise indicate that this term is used in a manner other than its ordinary and customary meaning. Therefore, in determining the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term “clinching” as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art, it is appropriate to consult a general dictionary definition of the word “clinch” Appeal 2009-009709 Application 10/910,120 5 for guidance. Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The ordinary meaning of the word “clinch” includes “to turn over or flatten the protruding pointed end of (a driven nail)” and “to fasten in this way.”3 We find (1) that the Examiner has not disputed Appellant’s definition of the word “clinching,” as set forth supra, and (2) that Appellant’s definition of “clinching” is consistent with Appellant’s Specification and the ordinary meaning of the word “clinch.” Thus, we will use Appellant’s definition in our analysis of the step of “performing a simultaneous punching and clinching operation,” as called for in independent claim 1. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Examiner has referenced column 1, lines 24-32 of Shinjo for support of the finding that when the self-clinching nuts are installed to a panel, the self-clinching nuts are punched into the panel and then are clinched thereto (Ans. 6). Column 1, lines 24-32 of Shinjo references U.S. Patent No. 3,152,628 to Strain. Strain describes in column 2, lines 23-40 the following: The fastener and the sheet metal panel [P] are joined . . . . The squared shoulders 30 and 32 and longitudinal edges 26 and 28 on the upper face 9 of the fastener, punch an opening into the metal panel against the underside 35 of the die button as the downward movement occurs. The contour 37 of the die button then displaces the metal to underlie the squared shoulders 30 and 32. The metal around the opening 40 in panel P is also 3 MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (10th ed. 1996) Appeal 2009-009709 Application 10/910,120 6 displaced into the grooved areas 21 and 23 of the fastener to form a sturdy, durable, and positive joint. (Col. 2, ll. 23-40). We find that in Strain, the joining of the fastener and the metal panel P is by displacement of the metal of the metal panel P and not by clinching, that is, the flattening of the upper face of the fastener 9. Thus, we find that Strain and column 1, lines 24-32 of Shinjo do not support the Examiner’s finding that when the self-clinching nuts are installed to a panel, the self-clinching nuts are punched into the panel and then are clinched thereto (Ans. 6). The Examiner also found that “installation of such self-piercing clinch nuts in the metal plate inherently causes the part of the pilot portion that extends beyond the seat surface of the metal plate to be bent or flattened to or into the metal plate” (Ans. 6). As we found supra, we similarly find no support for this finding. The Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based on these findings. Thus, we conclude that a rationale based upon unsupported fact findings does not provide a sound basis for a conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”) In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“The legal conclusion of obviousness must be supported by facts. Where the legal conclusion is not supported by facts it cannot stand.”) Appeal 2009-009709 Application 10/910,120 7 The Examiner has not relied on Nakazima, Takeda and Maeda for any teaching that would remedy the deficiency in the combined teachings of AAPA and Shinjo (Ans. 4-5). We reverse the rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4, 6 and 7. CONCLUSION The Examiner has erred in concluding that the combined teachings of AAPA, Nakazima, Shinjo, Takeda and Maeda would have led a person having ordinary skill in the art to the step of performing a simultaneous punching and clinching operation, as called for in independent claim 1 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-4, 6 and 7 is reversed. REVERSED JRG Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation