Ex Parte CampianDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesDec 13, 201110521652 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 13, 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. 10/521,652 01/14/2005 Jonathon Reo Campian 5772-000004/US/NP 2215 27572 7590 12/14/2011 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. P.O. BOX 828 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303 EXAMINER SELLS, JAMES D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1745 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/14/2011 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 JONATHON REO CAMPIAN ________________ Appeal 2010-010013 Application 10/521,652 Technology Center 1700 ________________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, TERRY J. OWENS, and BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-12, 22-24, 26, 27, 32, 34-44 and 47-52, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellant claims a method for forming a body panel. Claim 52 is illustrative: Appeal 2010-010013 Application 10/521,652 2 52. A method for forming a body panel by joining of a first metal panel to a second metal panel, the method comprising: locating a first metal panel on an upper surface of a lower nest such that a perimeter region on a first side of said first metal panel is supported on a generally flat material-contacting area of said frame and an interior region of said first side engages a pad such that a sealed elongated channel is formed between said pad and said first metal panel adjacent a portion of said material-contacting area; locating a second metal panel on a second side of said first metal panel opposite said first side; evacuating said sealed elongated channel to immobilize said first metal panel on said frame; and operating a tool across the boundary of said upper surface to said material-contacting area on said first metal panel to form and flange said first metal panel over an edge of said second metal panel. The References Sawa 5,228,190 Jul. 20, 1993 Veale 5,375,951 Dec. 27, 1994 The Rejection Claims 47, 48 and 52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sawa in view of Veale.1 OPINION We reverse the rejection. We need to address only claim 52, which is the sole independent claim. That claim requires locating a panel on an upper surface of a lower nest such that a perimeter of the panel is supported on a 1 The only rejection of claims 2-12, 22-24, 26, 27, 32, 34-44 and 49-51, which is a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written description requirement, is withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer (p. 2). Appeal 2010-010013 Application 10/521,652 3 generally flat material-contacting area and the panel engages a pad so as to form a sealed elongated channel between the pad and the panel adjacent a portion of the material-contacting area. For those claim requirements the Examiner relies upon Veale (Ans. 4). Veale discloses a vacuum table comprising a bed (11) having channels (12), raised panels (13) and a hole (14) cut in the bottom of one of the channels and connected via a vacuum hose (15) to a vacuum system (16) (col. 2, ll. 45-52; col. 4, ll. 13-19; Fig. 4B). A cover (17) such as a sheet of plywood having holes (18) therein covers the channels (12) such that when the vacuum system (16) is operated, a material placed on the cover (17) is held down by suction in the channels (12) and holes (18) (col. 4, ll. 20-27). The Examiner relies upon Veale’s bed (11) as corresponding to the Appellant’s nest and relies upon Veale’s raised panels (13) as corresponding to the Appellant’s pad (Ans. 7). The Examiner argues: “Material 17 is placed on top of bed 11 sufficient to cover channels 12. See col. 4, lines 20- 22. This creates the sealed elongated channels in the manner recited in applicant’s claims” (Ans. 5). Cover 17 does not create a sealed channel because there are holes (18) in it. A seal is not created until a material is placed on the cover (17) (col. 4, ll. 25-27). That material does not meet the Appellant’s claim requirement of engaging a pad and, therefore, cannot correspond to the Appellant’s first panel. What the Examiner relies upon as corresponding to the Appellant’s pad, i.e., Veale’s raised panels (13) (Ans. 7), is engaged by the cover (17), not by the material placed on the cover (17) (Fig. 4B). Hence, the Examiner has not established that combining the reference as proposed by the Examiner results in the Appellant’s claimed method. See Appeal 2010-010013 Application 10/521,652 4 Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection. DECISION/ORDER The rejection of claims 47, 48 and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sawa in view of Veale is reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED ssl Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation