Ex Parte DOW et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 30, 201914724179 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/724,179 05/28/2015 IAN DOW 23413 7590 06/03/2019 CANTOR COLBURN LLP 20 Church Street 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 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. IPL1072US2 5448 EXAMINER MERLINO, ALYSON MARIE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3675 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/03/2019 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte IAN DOW, JOHN R. RICE, and DONALD M. PERKINS Appeal2018-008642 Application 14/724,179 1 Technology Center 3600 Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 Appellant identifies Inteva Products, LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2018-008642 Application 14/724, 179 According to Appellants, their "invention relate[ s] to ... a vehicle latch." Spec. ,r 2. Claims 1 and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims. 1. A latch, comprising: a fork bolt movably mounted to a housing portion of the latch for movement between an open position and a closed position; a detent lever movably mounted to the housing portion of the latch for movement between a latched position and a released position, wherein the detent lever prevents the fork bolt from moving from the closed position to the open position when the detent lever is in the latched position; and a hold open lever configured for movement between a first position and a second position, wherein the hold open lever has a feature configured to engage a feature of the detent lever such that the detent lever is retained in the released position by the hold open lever when it is in the first position, wherein the hold open lever moves in a substantially vertical plane or a substantially vertical direction that is oriented substantially perpendicular to a horizontal plane or horizontal directions in which the fork bolt and the detent lever move. 2 Appeal2018-008642 Application 14/724, 179 REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: I. Claims 4, 14, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b);2 II. Claims 1-16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as anticipated by Vazquez et al. (US 2011/0031765 Al, pub. Feb. 10, 2011) ("Vazquez"); and III. Claims 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Vazquez and Coleman et al. (US 2004/0055407 Al, pub. Mar. 25, 2004) ("Coleman"). ANALYSIS Initially, we note that our rules require that an Appeal Brief includes a summary of the claimed subject matter. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iii). The rule requires that the summary specifically include "[a] concise explanation of the subject matter defined in each of the rejected independent claims, which shall refer to the [S]pecification ... by page and line number or by paragraph number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference 2 In the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a) and 112(b ). Final Action 3---6. Specifically, with regard to the rejection of claims 1-20 under§ 112(b ), the Examiner determines that the language in independent claims 1 and 20 is unclear. With regard to the rejection of dependent claims 4, 14, 16, and 19 under § 112(b ), the Examiner additionally determines that it is unclear how these claims further limit claim 1. (J d.) Subsequently, Appellants amend claims 1 and 20, and the Examiner withdraws "the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. [§]112(a) and ... of claims 1 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. [§] 112(b)." Answer 3. Appellants do not separately amend claims 4, 14, 16, and 19. Thus, it appears that at least the rejection of claims 4, 14, 16, and 19 remains pending. See Final Action 5. 3 Appeal2018-008642 Application 14/724, 179 characters." Id. We note that Appellants' summary of the claimed subject matter does nothing more than quote the language of claim 1, and cite all of the figures ("See at least FIGS. 1-8" (Appeal Br. 3)) and virtually the entire detailed description portion of the Specification ("See at least ... paragraphs 0024---0049 of the instant application as filed" (id.)). It is doubtful that this description complies with the requirements of 37 C.F .R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iii), and the summary as filed provides no help to the Examiner or the Board in understanding the claimed invention. Reiection I Appellants do not argue that the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 4, 14, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Further, as indicated above, it appears that although the Examiner withdraws certain rejections under §§ 112(a) and 112(b), the rejection of claims 4, 14, 16, and 19 under § 112(b) remains. Thus, we summarily sustain this rejection. Rei ection II Appellants argue (see Appeal Br. 6-8; see Reply Br. 2-5) that the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claim 1 because Vazquez does not disclose "a hold open lever configured for movement between a first position and a second position, ... wherein the hold open lever moves in a substantially vertical plane or a substantially vertical direction that is oriented substantially perpendicular to a horizontal plane or horizontal directions in which the fork bolt and the detent lever move" (Appeal Br., Claims App. (Claim 1)). Based on our review of the record, including Appellants' Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, and the Examiner's Final Office 4 Appeal2018-008642 Application 14/724, 179 Action and Answer, the Examiner does not support adequately that Vazquez discloses the hold open lever configured for movement, as claimed. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection. The Examiner is correct that claim 1 "recites the planes and directions in the alternative." Answer 4. Thus, the Examiner may "[choose] to compare the direction of movement of the hold open lever [ rather than the direction of the plane in which the hold open lever moves,] to the directions of movement of the detent lever and the fork bolt" rather than to the direction of the plane in which the detent lever and folk bolt move. Id. Regardless, both Appellants and the Examiner appear to agree that Vazquez's "hold open lever" 30, detent lever 12, and fork bolt 11 rotate around pivot points that are in the same plane. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 4; see, e.g., Answer 5. It is not clear to us, without further explanation by the Examiner, how such an arrangement provides a hold open lever that moves in a substantially vertical direction that is oriented substantially perpendicular to a horizontal directions in which the fork bolt and the detent lever move. Instead, it appears that portions of each of Vazquez's "hold open lever" 30, detent lever 12, and fork bolt 11 move in both the "vertical direction" and the "horizontal direction" as designated by the Examiner. Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1-16 and 20. Rei ection II The Examiner does not rely on Coleman to remedy the above deficiency in independent claim 1 's rejection. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner obviousness rejection of claims 17-19 that depend from claim 1. 5 Appeal2018-008642 Application 14/724, 179 DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's§ 112(b) rejection of claims 4, 14, 16, and 19. We REVERSE the Examiner's§§ 102(a)(l) and 103 rejections of claims 1-2 0. AFFIRMED-IN-PART 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation