Ex Parte Boland

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 15, 2018

13806517 (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/806,517 03/13/2013
59582 7590 05/15/2018
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
2600 WEST BIG BEA VER ROAD
SUITE 300
TROY, MI 48084-3312
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Xavier Boland
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
710290-00066 3447
EXAMINER
HORTON, ANDREW ALAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3723
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/15/2018 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XAVIER BOLAND
Appeal2017-004478
Application 13/806,517
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, LISA M. GUIJT, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection2 of claims 1and4--16. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Federal Mogul S.A.
Appeal Br. 3.
2 Appeal is taken from the Non-Final Office Action dated May, 5, 2016.
3 Claims 2 and 1 7 have been cancelled (see Amendments dated July 17,
2015, Nov. 6, 2015). The Examiner has allowed claim 3. Non-Final Act. 6.
The Examiner's objection to claim 18 is petitionable, not appealable. See
id.; see also MPEP §§ 1002, 1201.
Appeal2017-004478
Application 13/806,517
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1 and 14 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal, with
disputed limitations italicized for emphasis.
1. A windscreen wiper device compnsmg an elastic,
elongated carrier element, as well as an elongated wiper blade of
a flexible material, which can be placed in abutment with a
windscreen to be wiped, which wiper blade is of the flat blade
type and includes at least one groove, in which groove a
longitudinal strip of said carrier element is disposed, wherein
said windscreen wiper device further comprises a mounting head
for transferring a reciprocal movement to an oscillating arm, and
a connecting device for detachably connecting said wiper blade
to the oscillating arm near one end thereof around a pivot axis,
wherein said connecting device has a substantially U-shaped
cross-section, wherein legs of said U-shaped cross-section are
connected to the flexible material of said wiper blade on opposite
sides thereof, wherein said legs are provided with two pairs of
opposite protrusions near the outer ends of said connecting
device, and wherein said protrusions extend laterally inwardly
and exert only a transverse force on the flexible material of said
wiper blade in order to allow said longitudinal strip to exhibit a
curvature at the location of the interconnection of said
connecting device and said wiper blade, thereby locally
squeezing said flexible material onto said longitudinal strip, in
order to block any lateral movement of said longitudinal strip at
the location of the interconnection of said connecting device and
said wiper blade, and wherein a ratio (L '/L) between the width
L' of said flexible material at the location of said protrusions and
the width L of said flexible material at a location outside said
protrusion varies between 30% and 1 % said connecting device
extending a predetermined length between opposite longitudinal
ends thereof, and said longitudinal strip having a constant width
along said length of said connecting device.
2
Appeal2017-004478
Application 13/806,517
THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 4--6, 12, and 14--16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Jarasson (US 2009/0056049; published Mar.
5, 2009) and Park (US 2005/0120503 Al; published June 9, 2005).
II. Claim 7-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jarasson, Park, and Erdal (US 2010/0024149 Al;
published Feb. 4, 2010).
III. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jarasson, Park, and Boland (US 2007/0214593 Al;
published Sept. 20, 2007).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that
Jarasson discloses a claimed windscreen wiper device comprising an
elongated wiper blade of flexible material (i.e., support frame 12 and the
strip inserted in tubular body 30 of support frame 12) having a groove in
which a longitudinal strip of an elastic, elongated carrier element (i.e., spine
14) is disposed. Non-Final Act. 2 (citing Jarasson i-fi-17, 8, 45, Figs. 2, 3).
The Examiner also finds that J arasson' s linking element 16 corresponds to
the claimed connecting device. Id. (citing Jarasson i141). With respect to
the claim limitation requiring the connecting device to extend "a
predetermined length between opposite longitudinal ends thereof," as set
forth supra, the Examiner determines that a length of Jarasson's linking
element 16 "extends vertically between the first pair of recesses 42 [of spine
14] and the second pair of recesses 42 [of spine 14]," wherein Jarasson's
3
Appeal2017-004478
Application 13/806,517
spline 14 (i.e., the claimed longitudinal strip) has a constant width along
"said length," as claimed. Id. at 3 (citing Jarasson, Fig. 2). The Examiner
determines that claim 1 "does not recite the connecting device extending a
predetermined length from one terminal longitudinal end of the connecting
device to another terminal longitudinal end of the connecting device." Final
Act. 3; see also Ans. 4. In other words, the Examiner determines that the
"predetermined length" can be any longitudinal segment of the connecting
device located between the ends of the connecting device. Thus, the
Examiner finds that Jarasson's strip (i.e., spine 14) has a constant width
along a longitudinal segment (i.e., a predetermined length) of the connecting
device) as defined by the Examiner. Id.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's interpretation of the claimed
length as being a length other than the entire length of the connecting device
(i.e., from one longitudinal end of the connecting device to the opposite
longitudinal end) is "unreasonable" because "it is inconsistent with how one
of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted this language." Appeal Br.
12. See also Appeal Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 1-3. Appellant submits that the
claim term "between" should be interpreted as "from one to another of,"
such that claim 1 requires the connecting device to extend a length from one
to the other longitudinal end of the connecting device. Reply Br. 2-3
(dictionary citation omitted). Appellant concludes that the Examiner erred
by finding that Jarasson's longitudinal strip (i.e., spine 14) has a constant
width along the length of the connecting device, as claimed, because
Jarasson's longitudinal strip has recesses 42 along such length of the
connecting device. Appeal Br. 1 O; see, e.g., Jarasson, Fig. 4.
4
Appeal2017-004478
Application 13/806,517
As set forth supra, claim 1 recites "said connecting device extending a
predetermined length between opposite longitudinal ends thereof." The
Specification4 does not provide support for the Examiner's interpretation
that there is a predetermined length less than, or a segment of, the entire
length dimension of the connecting device. In addition, the claim language
states that it is the connecting device, and not a portion of the connecting
device, that extends as claimed. Thus, we interpret this claim limitation,
consistent with the Specification, to describe the length dimension of the
connecting device, meaning that the connecting device itself, or the entire
connecting device, has a length the extends a predetermined length between
opposite longitudinal ends of the connecting device, or put another way,
from one longitudinal end of the connecting device to the other.
In view of our claim interpretation, the Examiner erred in determining
that J arasson' s spline 14 has a constant width along "said length" (or the
entire length) of Jarasson's linking element 16 (i.e., connecting device), as
claimed.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1, and claims 4---6, 12, and 15 16 depending therefrom.
Independent claim 14 recites the same claim limitation as discussed supra
with respect to independent claim 1 (namely, "said connecting device
extending a predetermined length between opposite ends thereof, and said
longitudinal strip having a constant width along said length of said
connecting device" (Appeal Br. 21 (Claims Appendix)), and therefore, for
4 We refer to the Specification as originally filed on December 21, 2012,
which is identified as "WO 2011/160689."
5
Appeal2017-004478
Application 13/806,517
the same reasons stated supra, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 14 and claim 16 depending therefrom.
Rejections II and III
The Examiner's reliance on Erdal and Boland does not cure the
deficiencies in the Examiner's findings with respect to independent claim 1,
as discussed supra, and therefore, for the same reasons as stated supra, we
also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 7-11 and 13, which
depend from claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 4--16 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
6