Ex Parte Fischer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2013

12061686 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
12/061,686 04/03/2008 David R. Fischer P002333-NAPD-LCH 8955
81466 7590 09/19/2013
MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd, LLC
One Maritime Plaza
720 Water Street
5th Floor
Toledo, OH 43604
EXAMINER
FERGUSON, MICHAEL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAVID R. FISCHER
____________

Appeal 2011-009007
Application 12/061,686
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ANNETTE R. REIMERS and
CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-009007
Application 12/061,686

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

David R. Fischer (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-18. Claims 5 and 14
are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 10 are independent, claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. An overlay component for mounting to an
elongated vehicle structure after assembly of the
vehicle structure onto a vehicle such that it has no
open accessible end, wherein the vehicle structure
is subject to environmental conditions during or
after assembly to the vehicle that would destroy
the overlay component so that the overlay
component cannot be mounted to the vehicle
structure prior to its assemble onto the vehicle, the
overlay component comprising:
a first body section; and
a second body section;
wherein the first body section is comprised
of a resilient material and has a first structure
receiving portion and a first interlocking portion,
wherein the first structure receiving portion is
shaped to contain at least a portion of the
elongated vehicle structure, wherein the first
interlocking portion has a first projection
extending along a first axis and a first receptacle
extending along a second axis, wherein the first
projection has a first cross-sectional profile
perpendicular with the first axis which is greater at
a distal end toward the second body section than at
a proximal end, wherein the first receptacle has a
second cross-sectional profile perpendicular with
the second axis which is lesser at a distal end
Appeal 2011-009007
Application 12/061,686

3
toward the second body section than at a proximal
end, and wherein the first projection has a fifth
cross-sectional profile parallel to the first axis that
increases from one longitudinal side of the first
projection to the other longitudinal side;
wherein the second body section is
comprised of a resilient material and has a second
interlocking portion, the second interlocking
portion having a second projection extending along
the second axis and a second receptacle extending
along the first axis, wherein the second projection
has a third cross-sectional profile perpendicular
with the second axis which is complementary with
the second cross-sectional profile of the first
receptacle, wherein the second receptacle has a
fourth cross-sectional profile perpendicular with
the first axis which is complementary with the first
cross-sectional profile of the first projection, and
wherein the second receptacle is complementary
with the fifth cross-sectional profile; and
wherein the first and second projections
resiliently deform for insertion into the second and
first receptacles, respectively, thereby closing the
first structure receiving portion in a manner
adapted to retain the overlay component on the
elongated vehicle structure without adhesives or
fasteners.

PRIOR ART

Phipps US 2,464,653 Mar. 15, 1949

GROUNDS OF REJECTION

1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-11, 13 and 15-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Phipps.
Appeal 2011-009007
Application 12/061,686

4
2. Claims 3 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Phipps.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Phipps discloses each and every limitation of
independent claim 1. In particular, the Examiner finds that Phipps discloses
“[a] first projection has a first cross-sectional profile perpendicular with the
first axis which is greater at a distal end 17 toward the second body section
than at a proximal end 19.” Ans. 4.
Appellant argues that “[i]n Phipps, the cross-sectional profile of the
tangs is decreasing as the distal end of the tang is reached, and the cross-
sectional profile is smaller at the distal end than at its proximal end; just the
opposite of what is claimed.” App. Br. 6. In response to this argument the
Examiner finds that
Phipps explicitly discloses that the semi-circular
end 17 of projection 16 is wider than neck portion
19 of the projection (column 2 line 44- column 3
line 1). Accordingly, as explicitly disclosed by
Phipps, the semi-circular end portion of the
projection 16 constitutes an end which has a cross-
sectional profile which is greater at a distal end 17
than a proximal end 19 (Figure 1).
Ans. 14.
Claim 1 requires “wherein the first projection has a first cross-
sectional profile perpendicular with the first axis which is greater at a distal
end toward the second body section than at a proximal end.” App. Br. 9
(emphasis added). While we agree with the Examiner that Phipps discloses
an end that is generally larger than the neck portion, the claim requires a
cross-section profile that is greater at the distal end. The Specification states
that the largest profile 35 corresponds to the distal end of projection 15. See,
Appeal 2011-009007
Application 12/061,686

5
Spec., para. [0026]; see also Fig. 3. Paragraph [0026] further states that “[a]
profile 36 having a lesser width corresponds to a position along the
longitudinal axis of 15 just slightly removed from the distal end.” Id.
(emphasis added). Reading the claim language in light of the Specification,
one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “a first cross-sectional
profile . . . which is greater at a distal end” as recited in claim 1, refers to the
cross-sectional profile at the actual end of the projection. Due to the semi-
circular configuration of the ends of Phipps’ tangs, the cross-sectional
profiles of their distal ends are significantly smaller than the cross-sectional
profiles of their proximal ends. See Phipps, Figs. 1 and 2.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
and claims 2-4 and 6-9 which depend therefrom. Claim 10 similarly
requires “wherein the first projection has a first cross-sectional profile
perpendicular with the first axis which is greater at a distal end toward the
second body section than at a proximal end.” App. Br. 11. Thus, we cannot
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 and claims 11-13 and 15-18
which depend therefrom.
DECISION

The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-18 are
REVERSED.

REVERSED

rvb