10555203 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 2, 2010)

Ex Parte Graute et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 2, 2010

10555203 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 2, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte LUDGER GRAUTE and OMER INAN ____________________ Appeal 2009-004626 Application 10/555,203 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Decided: February 2, 2010 ____________________ Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY and KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s 2 decision finally rejecting claims 7-9, 18-22, 25-35 and 38-45 under 35 3 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Inoue (US 5,288,115, issued 4 Feb. 22, 1994); finally rejecting claims 10 and 11 under § 103(a) as being 5 Appeal 2009-004626 Application 10/555,203 2 unpatentable over Inoue and Mastrofrancesco (US 6,280,592 B1, issued 1 Aug. 28, 2001); and finally rejecting claims 36 and 37 under § 103(a) as 2 being unpatentable over Inoue and Sbrana (EP 0 995 870 A1, publ. Apr. 26, 3 2000). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 4 We REVERSE. 5 Claim 8 recites: 6 7 8. A vehicle door latch with at least one 8 locking mechanism (1, 4) comprising 9 a pawl (4); 10 a catch (1) having a primary position (2) for 11 engaging said pawl (4) when the catch is in a 12 closed position; and 13 an inlet opening (5) for receiving a catch 14 bolt (6); 15 wherein 16 said catch (1) comprises a casing (7), said 17 casing (7) being made of a soundproofing material 18 and having a first buffer pocket (8), said first 19 buffer pocket (8) being disposed next to said 20 primary position (2) in the clockwise direction; 21 said first buffer pocket (8) being curved towards 22 the primary position (2) and having an L-shape; 23 said first buffer pocket (8) forms an 24 overtravel stop (9) for said pawl (4); and 25 said pawl (4) abuts said overtravel stop (9) 26 when said catch is rotated counterclockwise during 27 closing of the latch up to a mechanical rotational 28 limit of said catch (1). 29 Appeal 2009-004626 Application 10/555,203 3 Claims 7, 8 and 44 are independent. Claims 7 and 8 both recite a 1 vehicle door latch in which a pawl (4) abuts an overtravel stop (9) formed by 2 a buffer pocket (8) of a catch (1) “when said catch is rotated 3 counterclockwise during closing of the latch up to a mechanical rotational 4 limit of said catch (1).” Claim 44 recites a vehicle door latch in which the 5 overtravel stop (9) “cushions said pawl (4) when said catch is in an 6 overtravel position.” 7 The Examiner finds that Inoue discloses a vehicle door lock device or 8 latch including a ratchet or pawl 15 that abuts an overtravel stop formed by a 9 buffer pocket in a catch 7 when the catch is rotated counterclockwise during 10 closing of the latch to a fully closed position. (Ans. 7). The Appellants 11 contend that Inoue’s pawl 15 does not abut the stop formed by the buffer 12 pocket of the catch 7 when the catch 7 is rotated counterclockwise during 13 closing of the latch up to a mechanical rotational limit of the catch. (App. 14 Br. 7-8). Likewise, the Appellants argue that no overtravel stop formed by a 15 buffer pocket of Inoue’s catch 7 cushions Inoue’s ratchet 15 when the catch 16 is in an overtravel position. (App. Br. 9-10). 17 The Appellants use both the term “closed position” and the term 18 “mechanical rotational limit” in claims 7 and 8. The Appellants also use 19 both the term “closed position” and the term “overtravel position” in claim 20 44. These usages imply that the meaning of the term “closed position” 21 differs from the meanings of the terms “mechanical rotation limit” and 22 “overtravel position.” The interpretation of these terms most consistent with 23 the Specification (see, e.g., Spec. 1, ll. 14-19 and 2, ll. 14-18) is that the 24 terms “mechanical rotational limit” and “overtravel position” refer to 25 positions reached only after the catch rotates beyond the closed position. 26 Appeal 2009-004626 Application 10/555,203 4 Inoue discloses a lock device 1 (Inoue, col. 1, ll. 60-63) including a 1 rotatable latch or catch 7 and a rotatable ratchet or pawl 15. (Inoue, col. 2, 2 ll. 1-6 and 23-25). Inoue’s latch 7 includes an engagement groove 9 for 3 receiving a striker 2. Figure 2 depicts the latch 7 as having a pocket adjacent 4 the engagement groove 9. When the vehicle door which the lock device 1 5 secures is closed, the striker 2 engages the engagement groove 9 and rotates 6 the latch 7 counterclockwise toward a fully latched position. (Inoue, col. 2, 7 ll. 1-6 and figs. 2, 3 and 5). 8 Figures 2-5 of Inoue depict the lock device 1 as including a part which 9 the Appellants call a “stopper.” Inoue does not describe either the stopper 10 itself or how the stopper interacts with the ratchet 15. Nevertheless, from 11 the configuration of the lock device 1 as shown in Figures 2-5 of Inoue, it 12 appears that the stopper is held by a lock housing in a position to restrict the 13 rotation of the ratchet 15 toward the latch 7. 14 When Inoue’s latch 7 is in a fully latched position as depicted in 15 Figure 5, a claw 16 of the ratchet 15 engages with a second stepped portion 16 18 of the latch 7 to prevent the latch 7 from reverse-rotating. (See Inoue, 17 col. 2, ll. 29-33). Figure 5 also shows the ratchet 15 abutting against the 18 stopper when the latch 7 is in the fully latched position. In other words, 19 Figure 5 suggests that the stopper prevents the ratchet 15 from rotating any 20 closer to the latch 7 than the position in which the ratchet 15 engages the 21 second stepped portion 18 of the latch 7. Inoue does not depict or describe 22 any abutment between the ratchet 15 and the latch 7, or any cushioning of 23 the ratchet 15 by any structure of the latch 7, should the latch 7 rotate 24 beyond the fully closed position depicted in Figure 5. Neither has the 25 Appeal 2009-004626 Application 10/555,203 5 Examiner provided persuasive evidence or technical reasoning to show any 1 such abutment or cushioning between the ratchet 15 and the latch 7. 2 As the Appellants correctly point out (see App. Br. 7-8), the latch 7 3 reaches its mechanical rotational limit at or about the position in which an 4 engagement pin 36 secured to the latch 7 (see Inoue, col. 2, ll. 10-12) meets 5 a stop projecting from the lock housing. In this position, the latch 7 is 6 rotated beyond the fully latched or closed position. Inoue does not disclose, 7 expressly or inherently, abutment between Inoue’s latch or catch 7 and 8 Inoue’s ratchet or pawl 15 when the latch is rotated counterclockwise during 9 closing of the latch up to a mechanical rotational limit of the latch. 10 The Examiner has erred in finding that Inoue discloses a vehicle door 11 latch in which a pawl abuts an overtravel stop formed by a buffer pocket of a 12 catch when the catch is rotated counterclockwise during closing of the latch 13 up to a mechanical rotational limit of the catch. The Examiner provides no 14 apparent reason why one of ordinary skill in the art might have modified the 15 lock device described by Inoue to meet this limitation. The Examiner erred 16 in rejecting independent claims 7 and 8, along with their dependent claims 9, 17 18-22, 25-35 and 38-43, under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Inoue. 18 Claims 10, 11, 36 and 37 depend from claims 7 and 8. The Examiner 19 articulates no reasoning explaining how the teachings of Mastrofrancesco or 20 the teachings of Sbrana might have supplemented those of Inoue so as to 21 have provided one of ordinary skill in the art reason to provide a vehicle 22 door latch in which a pawl abuts an overtravel stop formed by a buffer 23 pocket of a catch when the catch is rotated counterclockwise during closing 24 of the latch up to a mechanical rotational limit of the catch. The Examiner 25 Appeal 2009-004626 Application 10/555,203 6 erred in rejecting claims 10 and 11 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable 1 over Inoue and Mastrofrancesco; and in rejecting claims 36 and 37 under 2 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Inoue and Sbrana. 3 As the Appellants also correctly point out (see App. Br. 9-10), the 4 term “overtravel position” implies rotation of the catch beyond the closed 5 position. Inoue does not disclose, expressly or inherently, cushioning of the 6 ratchet or pawl 15 by any structure of the latch or catch 7 when the latch is 7 rotated to an overtravel position. In other words, the Examiner has erred in 8 finding that Inoue discloses a vehicle door latch in which the overtravel stop 9 formed by a first buffer pocket in a catch cushions a pawl when the catch is 10 in an overtravel position. The Examiner provides no apparent reason why 11 one of ordinary skill in the art might have modified the lock device 12 described by Inoue to meet this limitation. Therefore, the Examiner has 13 erred in rejecting independent claim 44, along with its dependent claim 45, 14 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Inoue. 15 16 DECISION 17 We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7-11, 18-22 18 and 25-45. 19 20 REVERSED 21 22 23 24 25 26 Appeal 2009-004626 Application 10/555,203 7 mls 1 2 3 MATTHIAS SCHOLL 4 14781 MEMORIAL DRIVE 5 SUITE 1319 6 HOUSTON, TX 77079 7