Ex Parte Hipshier

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

12630067 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/630,067
75576 7590
Johnson Controls, Inc.
c/o Fletcher Yoder PC
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269
12/03/2009
06/28/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jason M. Hipshier
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.
08544/US_JOCA:0057 9055
EXAMINER
BLANKENSHIP, GREGORY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3612
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2016 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 JASON M. HIPSHIER
Appeal2014-004895
Application 12/630,067
Technology Center 3600
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JILL D. HILL, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
7, 9-12, 14, 21, and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-004895
Application 12/630,067
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a "flexible interior trim component having
a smooth surface." Spec. 1 (Title). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An interior trim component, comprising:
a plurality of substantially parallel ribs each configured to
engage a track to facilitate movement of the interior trim
component along the track; and
a substrate having a first surface and a second surface,
wherein the first surface is coupled to the plurality of ribs, the
second surface is opposite the first surface, and the second
surface is substantially smooth with dimensional variations of
less than approximately 0.5 mm;
wherein each rib is formed from a first material, and the
substrate is formed from a second material, different than the first
material.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Laskey
Dobos
US 2004/0130174 Al
US 2006/0186696 Al
REJECTIONS
July 8, 2004
Aug. 24, 2006
Claims 1, 2, 4--7, 9-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Dobos.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Dobos.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dobos and Laskey.
2
Appeal2014-004895
Application 12/630,067
OPINION
Regarding the requirement that the respective surfaces of independent
claims 1 and 9 be "substantially smooth with dimensional variations of less
than approximately 0.5 mm," the Examiner's rejections are predicated on the
notion that "[ s ]ince the substrate is a flexible, elastic, and continuous
material, as disclosed in paragraph [0039], no dimensional variations in the
surface are present." Final Act. 2. The Examiner further reasoned:
Since Dobos et al. intentionally drew the second surface of
Figures 1 and 2 as smooth and without dimensional variation and
intentionally drew the second surface of Figures 5 and 6 as
substantially smooth with a small dimensional variation, the
drawings, specifically Figures 1 and 2, can be used to disclose a
feature like the lack of dimensional variation in the second
surface. Further, the substrate (3) forming the second surface is
disclosed as being elastic and flexible, as disclosed in paragraph
[0039]. A flexible and elastic material can flex and retract as
needed to prevent sagging that would result in dimensional
variations in the second surface.
Ans. 2.
Appellant correctly points out that none of the Examiner's
observations are sufficiently indicative of the absence of dimensional
variations in the embodiment of Figures 1 and 2 in Dobos. Reply Br. 2-3.
Dobos may exhibit all the characteristics noted by the Examiner while still
having dimensional variations outside the recited range. A preponderance of
the evidence must show non-patentability before the PTO may reject the
claims of a patent application. In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674,
(Fed.Cir.1985). The Examiner has made no such showing here. We agree
with, and adopt as our own, Appellant's analysis (Reply Br. 2-3) as to why
3
Appeal2014-004895
Application 12/630,067
the anticipation rejection, and the obviousness rejections based on the same
reasoning, cannot be sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections are reversed.
REVERSED
4