Ex Parte Hanjono et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 29, 2009

11167824 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 29, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte HIROSHI HANJONO and YASUHIRO SUZUKI
__________

Appeal 2009-008580
Application 11/167,824
Technology Center 3600
__________

Decided: September 29, 2009
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and LORA M. GREEN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1-7,1 directed to a push-button box-opening structure. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Claims 8-13 are also pending, but have been withdrawn from
consideration.
Appeal 2009-008580
Application 11/167,824

2
Statement of the Case
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. An instrument panel for a motor vehicle, said instrument panel
comprising a push-button box-opening structure, said push-button box
opening structure comprising:
a box provided in the instrument panel, the box including an opening
to an interior space within the box;
a lid hingedly connected to the instrument panel such that the lid is
selectively movable from a closed position in which the lid blocks access to
the interior space within the box and an open position in which the lid
permits access to the interior space within the box; and
a button housing mounted in the lid for housing a push button that can
be pushed in from a pushing-in starting position to an unlocking starting
position and further to an unlocking position to thereby disengage a latch
operatively associated with the push button to allow the lid to be moved
from the closed position to the open position,
wherein the surface of the push button is substantially flush with the
outer surface of the lid when the push button is in the pushing-in starting
position,
and wherein the unlocking starting position is provided at a position
where the push button is pushed in a predetermined depth from the pushing-
in starting position.

The Examiner rejected the claims as follows:
• Claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Miller et al.
(US Patent 6,048,001, April 11, 2000).

• Claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Miyabayashi at
al. (US Patent 4,073,170, issued February 14, 1978).

We affirm the rejection of claims 1-5 over Miller, and reverse the
rejection of claims 1-7 over Miyabayashi.
Appeal 2009-008580
Application 11/167,824

3
Principles of Law
“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every
limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.” In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
During examination, the PTO must interpret terms in a claim using
“the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as
they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into
account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that
may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s
specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Anticipation: Miller
Issue
Claims 1-5 are directed to a push-button box-opening structure in the
lid of a box. The surface of the push button is substantially flush with the
outer surface of the lid when the button is in a pushing-in starting position,
and the button “can be pushed in [a predetermined distance] from [the]
pushing-in starting position to an unlocking starting position and further to
an unlocking position to thereby disengage a latch operatively associated
with the push button” (Claim 1).
The Examiner finds that Miller discloses a push button latching
mechanism in the lid of a box, where the push button is substantially flush
with the outer surface of the lid in its rest position, and “can be moved
between the positions as claimed” (Ans. 5).
Appellants contend that the push button in Miller’s latching
mechanism “cannot be pushed in from a pushing-in starting position to an
unlocking starting position a predetermined depth . . . because the starting
Appeal 2009-008580
Application 11/167,824

4
position and the unlocking starting position in [Miller’s mechanism] . . . are
exactly the same” (App. Br. 8). Appellants contend that “[a]ny pushing-in
movement of the push button . . . will begin unlocking the latch” (id. at 8-9).
Nevertheless, the Examiner finds that the Specification teaches that
“in the pushing-in starting position, the push button is in rest, it doesn’t
move; in the unlocking starting position, the push button is pushed a certain
distance without releasing the latch; and in the unlocking position, the push
button is further moved to another position to unlatch the latch” (Ans. 4-5).
The Examiner finds that the push button in Miller’s mechanism can be
moved into the three positions required by the claims because it can be
pushed from its rest position (i.e., the pushing-in starting position) a certain
distance to an unlocking starting position, during which time a support hook
that engages the latch begins to move from the locked to unlocked position,
without actually disengaging from and releasing the latch, and finally to an
unlocking position, when the latch is actually released (id. at 5).
The issue raised by this rejection is whether Appellants have
established that the Examiner erred in finding that the push button in
Miller’s latching mechanism moves from a pushing-in starting position to an
unlocking starting position before moving to an unlocking position.
Findings of Fact
FF1 Claim 1 is directed to a push-button box-opening structure
wherein a push button mounted in the lid of the box “can be pushed in from
a pushing-in starting position,” which is substantially flush with the outer
surface of the lid, to an “unlocking starting position” which “is provided at a
position where the push button is pushed in a predetermined depth from the
pushing-in starting position.” From the “unlocking starting position,” the
Appeal 2009-008580
Application 11/167,824

5
button can be pushed further to “an unlocking position to thereby disengage
a latch operatively associated with the push button to allow the lid to be
moved from the closed position to the open position”.
FF2 Thus, in claim 1, the “unlocking position” is defined spatially
and functionally. That is, the claim specifies that the unlocking position is
located somewhere beneath the surface of the lid. In addition, the act of
moving the push button into the unlocking position disengages the latch,
allowing the box to open.
FF3 In contrast to the “unlocking position,” the “pushing-in starting
position” and the “unlocking starting position” are defined only by their
relative spatial locations. The pushing-in starting position is flush with the
lid, while the unlocking starting position is “a predetermined distance”
between the lid and the unlocking position.
FF4 Appellants don’t point to any further explanation or definition
of the term “pushing-in starting position” in the Specification or drawings.
FF5 Miller describes a push-button actuated latching mechanism
for doors or drawers, where the push button actuator can be “placed either
flush or slightly protruding from the surface of the door or drawer latched by
the latching mechanism” (Miller, col. 1, ll. 27-29).
FF6 Miller’s Figure 1, reproduced below, shows a top longitudinal
cross-sectional view of the latching mechanism, while Figure 2, also
reproduced below, shows a cross-sectional view taken along line 2—2 of
Figure 1 (Miller, col. 2, ll. 55-59):
Appeal 2009-008580
Application 11/167,824

6

Figure 1 shows a top longitudinal cross-sectional view of the latching
mechanism, while Figure 2 shows a cross-sectional view taken along line
2—2 of Figure 1 (id.). Push button 132 is shown slightly protruding from
Appeal 2009-008580
Application 11/167,824

7
the surface of a door, but Miller indicates that it can be placed flush with the
door instead (FF5).
Upon selective movement of the push-button 132 from the
retracted position to the advanced position, a pair of tines 150 at
the opposite end 146 of the push-button 132 . . . which extend
through complementary apertures 152 in the base plate 120 . . .
engage the support hook 80 and move the support hook 80 from
the locked position to the unlocked position, against the biasing
force of the springs 90, disengaging the hooked portions 82
from the intermediate portions 88 of the forward posts 48, and
thereby freeing the latching cam 44 for pivotal movement from
the latched position to the unlatched position, in response to the
biasing force of the compression spring 70.

(Miller, col. 4, l. 66 to col. 5, l. 10.)

Analysis
The Examiner finds that the push button in Miller’s mechanism can be
moved into the three positions required by the claims because it can be
pushed from its rest position (i.e., the pushing-in starting position) a certain
distance to an unlocking starting position, during which time a support hook
that engages the latch begins to move from the locked to unlocked position,
without actually disengaging from and releasing the latch, and finally to an
unlocking position, when the latch is actually released (Ans. 5).
Appellants contend that pushing the button in Miller’s mechanism
causes “tines 150 at the opposite end of the push button 32 [sic, 132] . . . [to]
immediately contact and thereby engage the support hook 80 (i.e., the latch –
see Fig. 1) and thus begin to move the support hook from a locked position
to an unlocked position the very instant the push button 132 is pushed in”
(App. Br. 8). In other words, “[a]ny pushing-in movement of the push
Appeal 2009-008580
Application 11/167,824

8
button . . . will begin unlocking the latch” (id. at 8-9). Appellants contend
that the push button in Miller’s latching mechanism “cannot be pushed in
from a pushing-in starting position to an unlocking starting position a
predetermined depth . . . because the starting position and the unlocking
starting position in [Miller’s mechanism] . . . are exactly the same” (id. at 8).
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive. First, support hook 80 does
not function as the latch in Miller as implied by Appellants. Rather, the
latch in Miller’s mechanism is latching cam 44. Second, all that is required
by the plain language of the claims is that the push button can be pushed into
an intermediate position between the pushing-in starting position and the
unlocking position without actually releasing the latch. Appellants have not
pointed to anything in the Specification which compels a narrower
interpretation of the term “unlocking starting position.” That being the case,
the claim does not preclude engagement of a support hook, or any other
working part in the latching mechanism for that matter, before the latch is
actually disengaged and released.
We do not agree with Appellants that the Examiner “improperly
focuses on whether the latch is released in the unlocking starting position”
(Reply Br. 3). Given the lack of functional language associated with the
term “unlocking starting position,” the Examiner has reasonably interpreted
the distance between the initial resting position of the push button in Miller’s
latching mechanism, and the point at which the latching cam 44 is actually
released, as encompassing an intermediate position, i.e., an “unlocking
starting position.”
Appeal 2009-008580
Application 11/167,824

9
Conclusions of Law
Appellants have not established that the Examiner erred in finding that
the push button in Miller’s latching mechanism moves from a pushing-in
starting position to an unlocking starting position before moving to an
unlocking position.
ANTICIPATION: MIYABAYASHI
Issue
The issue raised by this rejection is whether Appellants have
established that the Examiner erred in finding that Miyabayashi describes a
push-button box-opening structure, mounted in the lid of a box, where the
surface of the push-button is substantially flush with the surface of the lid in
its pushing-in starting position.
Findings of Fact
FF8 Figure 1 of Miyabayashi, reproduced below, is a sectional side
view of a cylinder lock mechanism disposed in the lid of a vehicle’s luggage
compartment:

Figure 1 shows the relative positions of push button 46 and lid 12 in
Miyabayashi’s cylinder lock 40, before the push button is pushed in.
Appeal 2009-008580
Application 11/167,824

10
Analysis
According to the Examiner, Miyabayashi’s “Figure 1 shows the push
button (46) in the pushing-in starting position, where the push button is in a
rest position and ‘substantially’ flush with the outer surface” (Ans. 6).
Appellants contend that “the surface of the push button 46 [in
Miyabayashi’s cylinder lock] is clearly not ‘substantially flush’ with the
outer surface of the lid 12 when the push button 46 is in the pushing-in
starting position, as required by claim 1” (App. Br. 10). Appellants contend
that the push button projects away from the outer surface of the lid 12
initially, and moreover, “[t]he latch is disengaged in the device . . . before
the surface of the push button 46 ever becomes substantially flush with the
outer surface” (id.).
Appellants’ arguments are persuasive on this point.
Conclusions of Law
Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in finding that
Miyabayashi describes a push-button box-opening structure, mounted in the
lid of a box, where the surface of the push-button is substantially flush with
the surface of the lid in its pushing-in starting position.
SUMMARY
• The rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Miller et al. is affirmed.

• The rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Miyabayashi at al. is reversed.

Appeal 2009-008580
Application 11/167,824

11
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(2006).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

dm

RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP
38210 GLENN AVENUE
WILLOUGHBY, OH 44094-7808