Ex Parte Clamagirand et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 10, 2013

10572003 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CATHERINE CLAMAGIRAND and STEPHEN HOUSSAT
____________

Appeal 2011-011692
Application 10/572,003
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-011692
Application 10/572,003

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Catherine Clamagirand and Stephen Houssat (Appellants) appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 22-42. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to packaging device for a curved
windscreen wiper blade. Spec., p. 1, ll. 4-7. Claim 22 represents the subject
matter on appeal and is reproduced below.
22. A packaging device for a windscreen wiper blade,
wherein the packaging device comprises:
a housing configured to receive the blade, wherein the
housing comprises:
a first support surface configured to contact a
portion of an upper part of the blade;
a second support surface configured to contact a
first portion of a lower part of the blade; and
a third support surface configured to contact a
second portion of the lower part of the blade,
wherein the first support surface extends opposite
an area situated between the second support surface and
the third support surface,
wherein the first, second, and third support
surfaces together immobilize the blade inside the housing
in a position that is at least partially straightened out
relative to a resting position of the blade, and
wherein the packaging device is for receiving a
windscreen wiper blade comprising a curved blade and an
integrated flexible structure.

Appeal 2011-011692
Application 10/572,003

3
EVIDENCE

The Examiner relies on the following evidence:

Fisher US 4,854,450 Aug. 8, 1989
Kotlarski US 6,779,661 B11 Aug. 24, 2004

REJECTIONS

Claims 22-26, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Kotlarski. Ans. 4.
Claims 22, 27, and 30-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fisher and Kotlarski. Ans. 7.

ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Appellants argue claims 22-26, 28, and 29 as a group. Br. 6-9. We
select claim 22 as representative. Claims 23-26, 28, and 29 stand or fall with
claim 22. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).
The Examiner finds that Kotlarski discloses a packaging device 50 for
a windscreen wiper blade, comprising a housing 51 configured to receive the
blade and having a first support surface configured to contact a portion of an
upper part of the blade, and second and third support surfaces configured to
contact lower parts of the blade, wherein the first support surface extends
opposite an area situated between the second support surface and the third
support surface. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner also finds that the first, second,
and third support surfaces together immobilize the blade inside of the

1 This reference claims priority from WO 01/30619, which was published on
May 3, 2001 and also relied upon by the Examiner. See Ans. 4.
Appeal 2011-011692
Application 10/572,003

4
housing in a position that is at least partially straightened out relative to a
resting position of the blade, and that the packaging device is for receiving a
curved windscreen wiper blade 10 with an integrated flexible structure. Ans.
5.
Appellants argue that Kotlarski’s packing unit operates in complete
contrast to Appellants’ claimed packaging device because, unlike the simple
straightening out and placement within the holding points required by
Appellants’ packing device, Kotlarski’s packaging requires that a user take
the packing unit in one hand and, with the other hand, force the splines of
the blade within the legs of the U-shaped extensions 56. Br. 10. The basis
for this distinction is not recited in the pending claims and this argument is
therefore not persuasive.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner misinterprets Kotlarski’s
Figure 6. According to Appellants, Kotlarski’s Figure 6 only shows how a
single element 58 is maintained in a single U-shaped extension 54, and it
cannot be ascertained from the longitudinal view shown in Figure 6, which
portions of the supporting element 16 touch and are supported by the V of
the packing device. Br. 11.2 Appellants restate this argument as Kotlarski’s
Figure 6 not teaching the legs 56 of the packing device contacting an upper
part and two distinct lower parts of the blade, such that the upper part is
situated opposite to and between the two lower parts of the blade. Br. 11.
Similarly, Appellants argue that there is no disclosure in Kotlarski of
which portions of the supporting element 16 are contacted at the contact

2 Claim 22 does not require that the blade be supported by a particular area
of the packaging device, but rather refers broadly to support surfaces.
Appeal 2011-011692
Application 10/572,003

5
points 64, and it is a mischaracterization of Kotlarski for the Examiner to
assert that the contact points 64 shown in Figure 6 represent an upper and
two distinct lower parts of the blade. Br. 11. Appellants explain that the
Examiner is interpreting Figure 6 as showing a complete view of Kotlarski’s
blade, which is actually not the case, because Figure 6 is only a partial
longitudinal view showing a single U-shaped extension 54 with legs 56 of
the packing device with a single side of the peripheral element 58 of blade
support element 16 inserted into the housing U-shaped extension 54. Br. 12-
13.3
Despite Appellants’ argument that “Kotlarski is very clear in that
Figure 6 shows only a partial, longitudinal view of the supporting element
inserted into the U-shaped extension of the packing device” (Br. 13), we find
that a more likely meaning of “fragmentary” as used by Kotlarski in
describing Figure 6 is “cross sectional,” and that Figure 6 indeed shows the
entire length of the blade (of which support element 16 forms a part).
Further, Kotlarski’s element 56 is part of the packaging housing and thus its
contact points support the blade via contact with blade support element 16.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding the Examiner’s
misinterpretation of Kotlarski’s Figure 6. See col. 3, ll. 11-13 (describing
Figure 6 as a fragmentary longitudinal section taken along line VI-VI of
Figure 7); col. 5, ll. 36-42 (indicating that contact points 64 keep wiper blade
in a fixed position in the packing unit 50).
Appellants argue that immobilizing the blade within the housing is not
an intended use. Br. 13-14. Regardless of whether the recited language is

3 Kotlarski describes Figure 6 as “a fragmentary longitudinal section.”
Kotlarski, col. 3, ll. 10-11.
Appeal 2011-011692
Application 10/572,003

6
structural or functional, Kotlarski teaches such blade immobilization with
the first through third housing support surfaces contacting designated
portions of the blade. We are therefore not persuaded by this argument.
Accordingly, we sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 22 and
claims 23-26, 28, and 29 fall therewith.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants argue claims 22, 27, and 30-42 as a group. We select
claim 22 as representative. Br. 15-18. Claims 27 and 30-42 stand or fall
with claim 22. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Examiner finds that Fisher discloses a packaging device 20 for a
wiper blade 31, comprising all of the claim limitations except for the
packaging device comprising a first support surface configured to contact a
portion of an upper part of the blade, a second support surface configured to
contact a first portion of a lower part of the blade, and a third support surface
configured to contact a second portion of the lower part of the blade, the first
support surface extending opposite an area situated between the second
support surface and the third support surface, the first, second, and third
support surfaces together immobilizing the blade inside the housing in a
position that is at least partially straightened out relative to a resting position
of the blade, and the packaging device is for receiving a windscreen wiper
blade comprising a curved blade and an integrated flexible structure. Ans.
7-8.
Appeal 2011-011692
Application 10/572,003

7
The Examiner finds, however, that Kotlarski teaches a packaging
device 50 comprising a first support surface configured to contact a portion
of an upper part of the blade, a second support surface configured to contact
a first portion of a lower part of the blade, and a third support surface
configured to contact a second portion of the lower part of the blade, the first
support surface extending opposite an area situated between the second
support surface and the third support surface, the first, second, and third
support surfaces together immobilizing the blade inside the housing in a
position that is at least partially straightened out relative to a resting position
of the blade, and the packaging device is for receiving a windscreen wiper
blade comprising a curved blade 10 and an integrated flexible structure 58.
Ans. 8. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to place Kotlarski’s
curved blade into a packaging device like Fisher’s to provide more
protection for the packaged blade with a shock absorbing structure, and that
it is obvious to adapt a package to the geometry of a product. Ans. 8.
Appellants argue that Kotlarski does not cure the deficiencies of
Fisher, because it fails to provide the three distinct support surfaces
positioned in the manner claimed and the feature of the three support
surfaces configured to immobilize the blade within the packaging. Br. 16.
We are not persuaded by this argument for the reasons set forth above with
respect to the teachings of Kotlarski.
Appellants also argue that Kotlarski’s blade and packaging is
assembled by longitudinal insertion of the blade into the packaging, whereas
Fisher’s blade and packaging is assembled by transversal insertion into the
Appeal 2011-011692
Application 10/572,003

8
opened face of the packaging, and its blade only lies on the bottom surface
44 (the bearing surface). Appellants contend that the claimed invention
requires insertion of the blade into the packaging by the opened face of the
packaging (i.e., transversal insertion). Br. 16-17. Because insertion of the
blade into the packaging by the opened face of the packaging is not recited
in the claims, we are not persuaded by this argument.
Appellants next argue that there is no motivation to combine Fisher
and Kotlarski, because Fisher regards a packaging device comprising a
transparent blister for a straight wiper blade, and Kotlarski regards a curved
wiper blade, the two distinct types of wiper blades being unique and having
very different properties, such that a packaging device for each of these
types of blades must be designed differently to account for the unique
properties of the corresponding blade. Br. 17. Appellants therefore argue
that modifying Fisher’s packaging to be able to maintain a curved structure
for a flat wiper blade would render the packaging useless for a straight wiper
blade with several compensators and thus unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose. Br. 17-18.
Appellants lastly argue that, because Fisher’s straight blade does not
have a resting position that is curved, it does not make sense for the
packaging disclosed by Fisher to be modified to immobilize a blade inside
the housing in a position that is at least partially straightened out relative to a
resting position of the blade. Br. 18.
We disagree with Appellants that the intended purpose should be
narrowly limited to maintaining a straight wipe blade. The intended purpose
of Fisher is to package a wiper blade for display in a retail store. Fisher, col.
Appeal 2011-011692
Application 10/572,003

9
1, ll. 4-5. Modifying Fisher to maintain a curved wiper blade would not
render Fisher unsatisfactory for displaying the wiper blade. Further, the
Examiner does not propose to modify Fisher with the support surfaces of
Kotlarski to maintain a straight wiper blade, but rather to maintain a curved
blade. Appellants do not contend that the Examiner’s stated reasoning
(place Kotlarski’s curved blade into a packaging device like Fisher’s to
provide more protection) lacks a rational basis, and we are therefore not
persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding the combinability of Fisher
and Kotlarski.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22 as
unpatentable over Fisher and Kotlarski, and claims 27, and 30-42 fall
therewith .
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22-26, 28, and 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22, 27, and 30-42
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

llw