Ex Parte Cardine et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 23, 2013

10511119 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PATRICE CARDINE and DENIS CHEVY
____________________

Appeal 2011-004392
Application 10/511,119
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-004392
Application 10/511,119

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 2-
10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 21 and 23-29. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The claims are directed to a bracket for a window regulator and
vehicle body. Claim 9, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
9. A vehicle body comprising:
a window regulator including:
a lug for fixing the window regulator;
a guide rail defining a window-guiding
direction, the guide rail including ends, wherein
the guide rail carries the lug at one of the ends; and
a bridge fitting for fixing the window
regulator in the vehicle body,
wherein the lug includes a first part for
fixing to the guide rail, and a second part defining
a plane fixed by screwing onto the bridge fitting, a
screwing direction being a normal line
substantially perpendicular to the plane, and the
normal line is inclined relative to the window-
guiding direction

REJECTIONS
Claims 2-10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 21, and 23-29 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by to Rieder1 (EP 0 626 283 A12 iss.
Mar. 23, 1994). Ans. 3.

1 References are to the English translation previously made of record.
2 We understand the Examiner’s listing of 262 in place of 626 to be a
typographical error.
Appeal 2011-004392
Application 10/511,119

3
OPINION
The Examiner has annotated figures 4 and 5 of Rieder (Ans. 6) in an
effort to demonstrate that a line normal to the plane of Rieder’s foot portion
15 and securing plate 21, interpreted by the Examiner as the “second part” of
the lug, is “inclined relative to the window-guiding direction” as defined by
Rieder’s guide rail 3. As Appellants correctly point out:
[T]here is no correlation between the window guiding direction
of Figure 5 and the window guiding direction of Figure 4. The
specification also does not disclose any relationship between
these Figures, and the Examiner cannot arbitrarily determine
that the orientation of the features of Figure 4 have any
relationship to Figure 5.

App. Br. 5.
While the views of figures 4 and 5 appear to be taken in the same
plane (R and IV in Figure 2), there is no indication that the illustration in
Rieder’s figures 4 and 5 is to scale or precisely oriented with respect to the
same reference plane. While figures alone may be relied upon for all they
fairly disclose (see, e.g., In re Seid 161 F. 2d 229, 231 (CCPA 1947)
(citations omitted)), we cannot agree with the Examiner that such a minor
deviation in the figures fairly discloses the inclination as found by the
Examiner without any mention of such an inclination in Rieder’s
Specification. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d
951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[I]t is well established that patent drawings do
not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on
to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the
issue.”). Appellants’ proposed “normal line” and “window-guiding
direction” (see App. Br. 4 annotating Rieder’s figures 2 and 3) is just as
Appeal 2011-004392
Application 10/511,119

4
plausible. At best, based on all the figures and the Specification as a whole,
the evidence as to the relationship between the two is inconclusive. “[T]he
precise language of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that ‘(a) person shall be entitled to a
patent unless,’ concerning novelty and unobviousness, clearly places a
burden of proof on the Patent Office which requires it to produce the factual
basis for its rejection of an application under sections 102 and 103.” In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1016 (CCPA 1967).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection is reversed.

REVERSED

Klh