Ex Parte Harada

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 12, 2007

10254979 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 12, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte AKINORI HARADA
____________

Appeal 2006-1508
Application 10/254,979
____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before OWENS, BAHR, and HORNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The appellant appeals from a rejection of claims 1,
4-9, 13 and 14, which are all of the pending claims.
THE INVENTION
The appellant claims a damping mechanism for an opening
and closing member. An example of such a member is a container
holder in the center console of an automobile (specification,
page 1, lines 11-14). Claim 1 is illustrative:

Appeal 2006-1508
Application 10/254,979

1. A damping mechanism for opening and closing an opening
and closing member for a device with an opening, comprising:

a shaft part attached to each end of the opening and
closing member and having a first shaft and a second shaft at a
predetermined distance away from the first shaft,

a rotatable arm adapted to be rotatably attached to said
device to engage the shaft part for supporting the same and
having a first long hole part engaging the first shaft and a
second long hole part engaging the second shaft and arranged to
incline relative to the first long hole part,

forcing means for urging the arm toward an opening
direction of the opening and closing member,

locking means for holding the opening and closing member
in a closed state relative to said device against a force of
the forcing means, and

guide means formed in said device and engaging the first
and second shafts of the shaft part for changing a position of
the shaft part relative to the arm according to a movement of
the opening and closing member, said guide means having a first
guide groove part and a second guide groove part communicating
with the first guide groove part for moving the first and
second shafts along a same track to open the opening and
closing member from a predetermined angle to a completely open
state thereof, said first shaft located in the first guide
groove part rotating around the second shaft and moving along
the first guide groove part and the first long hole part while
the second shaft slides along the second long hole part so that
the opening and closing member opens from a closed state
thereof to the predetermined angle.

THE REFERENCES
Ichimaru et al.
(Ichimaru) US 2001/0052524 A1 Dec. 20, 2001

2
Appeal 2006-1508
Application 10/254,979

Kobayashi et al. (Kobayashi)1 62-026145 Feb. 4, 1987
(Japanese Kokai)
THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 4-9, 13 and 14 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ichimaru in view of
Kobayashi.
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejection. We need to
address only the sole independent claim, i.e., claim 1.
Claim 1 requires a first long hole part (62) that engages
a first shaft (48), and a second long hole part (64) that
engages a second shaft (50) and is at an incline relative to
the first long hole part (fig. 4). That claim also requires
that the first shaft is movable along a first guide groove part
(43B) and the first long hole part while the second shaft
slides along the second long hole part so that the opening and
closing member opens from a closed state to a predetermined
angle (θ, fig. 5).
Ichimaru discloses a mechanism for opening and closing a
lid of a container for an automobile such as a cup holder
(¶ 0001). The examiner relies upon the axial hole at shaft 31

1 Our consideration of Kobayashi is based upon the English
translation thereof which is of record.
3
Appeal 2006-1508
Application 10/254,979

(figs. 1-3) as corresponding to the appellant’s second long
hole part (answer, page 3).
The examiner states that “the Examiner has carefully
reviewed appellant’s specification and has found appellant to
be silent on what is meant by a ‘first long hole part’ or a
‘second long hole part’ in particular” (answer, page 7). The
appellant’s specification discloses:
[0037] Two long hole parts 62 (the first long
hole part) and 64 (the second long hole part) are
provided on a wide area part 54B of the arm 54
with a predetermined distance therebetween, and
are placed roughly perpendicular to each other.
The shaft 48 is inserted into the long hole part
62, and the shaft 50 is inserted into the long
hole part 64.
[0038] Here, an external diameter of the shaft 48
and a width of the long hole part 62 are formed to
be substantially the same. When the shaft 48 moves
in the long hole part 62, the shaft 48 moves while
rubbing against the perimeter of the long hole part
62. Also, an external diameter of the shaft 50 and
the width of the long hole part 64 are formed to be
substantially the same. Thus, when the shaft 50
moves in the long hole part 64, the shaft 50 moves
while rubbing against the perimeter of the long
hole part 64.

Thus, contrary to the examiner’s finding, the appellant’s
specification is not silent regarding the meanings of “first
hole part” and “second hole part.”
The examiner argues that “[s]ince, it is unclear as to
what is a long hole part, the Examiner believes a suitable
interpretation maybe [sic] a part of a long hole or a long part
4
Appeal 2006-1508
Application 10/254,979

([Ichimaru’s] rotatable member 2) with a hole” (answer, page
7). The examiner further argues that “one of ordinary skill
will consider the specification as a whole for an exemplary
meaning illustrated by elements 62 and 64 in appellant’s
drawing figures of what constitutes a long hole part, but the
Examiner believes the claims are given the broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification, and assumptions
of what a phrase or term(s) meaning [sic] are is [sic] not read
into the claim” (answer, page 8). The examiner’s
interpretation of “long hole part” as meaning a long part with
a hole is not reasonable in view of the disclosure in the
appellant’s specification that shafts 48 and 50 move,
respectively, in long hole parts 62 and 64 (¶ 0038).
The examiner argues that there inherently is at least a
slight or minute tolerance or gap which allows movement of
shaft 31 relative to rotating member 2, especially because
Ichimaru does not disclose that the axial attachment between
shaft 31 and rotating member 2 is made permanent (answer,
page 8). When an examiner relies upon a theory of inherency,
the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical
reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the
allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the
teachings of the applied prior art. Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d
5
Appeal 2006-1508
Application 10/254,979

1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990). Inherency may not be
established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact
that a certain thing may result from a given set of
circumstances is not sufficient. Ex parte Skinner, 2 USPQ2d
1788, 1789 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1986). The examiner’s
observation that Ichimaru does not disclose that shaft 31 is
permanently attached to rotating member 2 is not technical
reasoning as to why there necessarily is a gap between those
parts. Thus, the examiner has not carried the burden required
for a prima facie showing of an inherent gap between Ichimaru’s
rotating member 2 and shaft 31.
The examiner relies upon Kobayashi only for a suggestion
to include a latch on Ichimaru’s container (answer, page 4),
and not for any disclosure that remedies the above-discussed
deficiency in Ichimaru.
For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness of the
appellant’s claimed invention.
6
Appeal 2006-1508
Application 10/254,979

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 4-9, 13 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Ichimaru in view of Kobayashi is reversed.
REVERSED

)
Terry J. Owens )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Jennifer D. Bahr )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Linda E. Horner )
Administrative Patent Judge )

TJO/jrg

7
Appeal 2006-1508
Application 10/254,979

HAUPTMAN, KANESAKA, BERNER
Patent Agents, LLP
1700 Diagonal Road
Suite 310
Alexandria, VA 22314
8