Ex Parte Binelli

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 6, 2011

10910120 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 6, 2011)

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