Ex Parte Dooley et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 14, 2009

11162925 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 14, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAVID J. DOOLEY, MATTHEW S. BRUMMER, GLENN A.
COWELCHUK and MARK LOEHR
____________

Appeal 2008-5969
Application 11/162,925
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: January 14, 2009
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal 2008-5969
Application 11/162,925

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-10. Claims 13
through 19 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of forming a ribbed automobile door armrest in a
molding system having a first mold component and a second mold, the
method comprising:
a) positioning the first mold component and the second mold
component to define a first mold cavity;
b) introducing a first resin into the first mold cavity to form a
substrate;
c) positioning the first mold component and the second mold
component to form a second mold cavity, the second mold cavity having a
ribbed mold section which is the inverse of a ribbed section of the armrest;
and
d) introducing a second resin into the second the [sic] mold cavity
to form an armrest section, the armrest section having a first section
contacting at least a portion of the substrate and a second section having a
plurality of ribs.

The Examiner relies upon the following reference in the rejection of
the appealed claims:
Vecchiariano 5,799,385 Sep. 1, 1998
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method of forming a
ribbed automobile door armrest in a molding system. The method entails
positioning a first mold component and a second mold component to define
first and second mold cavities. The second mold cavity has a ribbed mold
section which is the inverse of a ribbed section of the armrest. A substrate is
formed in the first mold cavity. The armrest has a first section which
contacts at least a portion of the substrate and a second section having a
plurality of ribs.

2
Appeal 2008-5969
Application 11/162,925

Appealed claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Vecchiariano. Claims 3 and 7 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as being unpatentable over Vecchiariano.

Appellant has not presented separate arguments for any particular
claim on appeal. Accordingly, the groups of claims separately rejected by
the Examiner stand or fall together.

We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we find that Appellants have not demonstrated that
the Examiner has erred in rejecting the appealed claims under §102 and §
103. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for essentially
those reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily
for emphasis.

We consider first the Examiner’s § 102 rejection. There is apparently
no dispute that Vecchiariano, like Appellants, discloses a method of forming
an automobile door armrest in a molding system comprising a first mold
component and a second mold which receive first and second resins,
respectively. In particular, Figure 6 of the reference depicts a trim panel
comprising an armrest 15 and protruding elements pocket 4 and handle 11.
Since the panel of Figure 6 is one integral structure comprising an armrest,
we agree with the Examiner that the entirety of the panel may be fairly
considered an armrest comprising a section having a plurality of ribs,
namely, elements 4 and 11. Appellants’ Specification sets forth no
definition for the claimed terms “armrest” and “ribs” and, therefore, the
3
Appeal 2008-5969
Application 11/162,925

Examiner is correct in concluding that the appealed claims define no
structure that is patentably distinct from the structure shown in Figure 6 of
the reference. It is fundamental that claim language is to be given its
broadest reasonable interpretation during ex parte prosecution and, in the
absence of specification definitions for the claim terms at issue, we find that
the interpretation given by the Examiner is a reasonable one. While
Appellants’ Figure 2 shows ribs 20 underlying an armrest, it is axiomatic
that inventive features disclosed in the specification and drawings are not to
be read into the claims. Appellant has eschewed the opportunity to define
the armrest section having a plurality of ribs in a manner that corresponds to
the relationship depicted in the drawings.

We find no merit in Appellants’ argument that “Vecchiariano is
directed to forming a ‘trim panel’ and not an armrest as required by the
present invention” (App. Br. 3, 3rd para). As explained above, the trim panel
shown in Figure 6 of the reference comprises an armrest 15. Hence, it cannot
be gainsaid that the unitary structure depicted qualifies as an armrest,
especially in light of the breadth of the claimed term “armrest”.

Appellants also maintain that “it is quite evident that the armrest [15
of Vecchiariano] does not contact a substrate” (App. Br. 6, last para.).
However, as pointed out by the Examiner, “the armrest section [of
Vecchiariano] is that which is formed by the second injection of material
(column 2, lines 1-3; Figure 3, element 9), that section having a first section
(i.e. bottom) that contacts or interfaces with the previously –molded
substrate (Figure 3, elements 9 and 10; the bottom section of element 9
4
Appeal 2008-5969
Application 11/162,925

contacts the top section of substrate 10)” (Ans. 5, second para.). Figure 6 of
the reference comprising armrest 15 should be read in light of Figure 3. In
our view, one of ordinary skill in the art would find that Vecchiariano
reasonably describes an embodiment wherein the panel of Figure 3
comprises the armrest of Figure 6. We do not subscribe to Appellants’
argument that it is fanciful to find that Figure 6 of Vecchiariano describes an
armrest having a section comprising a plurality of ribs when the claim
language is given its broadest reasonable interpretation.

Appellants does not set forth a separate substantive argument against
the § 103 rejection of claims 3 and 7 but, rather, rely upon the arguments
advanced against the § 102 rejection of claim 1.

In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. §1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
tc

BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
INTL. AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS GROUP
1000 TOWN CENTER
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075
5