Ex Parte I et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 201813559642 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/559,642 21874 7590 Locke Lord LLP P.O. BOX 55874 BOSTON, MA 02205 07/27/2012 09/05/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Sunsoku I 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. 1451562.372US2 8169 EXAMINER ANDERSON, DON M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3781 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/05/2018 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): patent@lockelord.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SUNSOKU I and MASAHIRO AKAHORI Appeal 2017-011267 Application 13/559,642 Technology Center 3700 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BRETT C. MARTIN, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2017-011267 Application 13/559,642 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Claims 2-7 were cancelled. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. THE INVENTION Appellants' claim is directed generally "to a watertight packing structure of an electrical junction box mounted on a vehicle or the like for making a space between step portions of both covers of the electrical junction box watertight." Spec. 1, 11. 8-11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A watertight packing structure of an electrical junction box comprising: a box main body comprising a concave curved portion disposed on a wall-end portion of the box main body; a cover comprising a convex curved portion disposed at a packing-receiving groove of the cover, sealing an opening of the box main body by engaging inside and outside walls of the cover with the wall-end portion of the box main body and by fitting the concave curved portion to the convex curved portion; and a packing provided in the packing-receiving groove, wherein the box main body concave curved portion comprises an arc shape with a radius and a center which is coplanar with a surface of a sidewall supporting the concave curved portion of the box main body, wherein the cover convex curved portion comprises an arc shape with a radius and a center which is coplanar with a surface of a sidewall supporting the convex curved portion of the cover, wherein the radius of the concave curved portion of the box main body is set larger than the radius of the convex curved portion of the cover, 2 Appeal 2017-011267 Application 13/559,642 wherein in a state where the cover seals the opening of the box main body, the center of the concave curved portion of the box main body is off set above the center of the convex curved portion of the cover, wherein in a state where the cover seals the opening of the box main body, a distance between the wall-end portion of the box main body and the packing-receiving groove of the cover is not constant at the concave curved portion and the convex curved portion, and wherein in a state where the cover seals the opening of the box main body, a gap, formed in the direction between a bottom of the concave curved portion and a tip of the convex curved portion, is set narrower than any other gap between the concave curved portion and the convex curved portion. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claim on appeal is: Yamaguchi US 2010/0265656 Al Oct. 21, 2010 REJECTION The Examiner made the following rejection: Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as being anticipated by Yamaguchi. Ans. 2. ANALYSIS Appellants present three arguments as to how the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims. See Br. 6. Appellants first argue that Yamaguchi fails to show that "the radius of the concave curved portion of the box main body is set larger than the radius of the convex curved portion of the cover" as found in claim 1. Id. We first note that Appellants' main error regarding all of the arguments presented is that the claims, while potentially directed at 3 Appeal 2017-011267 Application 13/559,642 subject matter that may be novel, is essentially broad enough to encompass inherent qualities of existing prior art junction boxes. As shown in Yamaguchi, two pieces of a junction box have mating profiles whereby a convex curve connecting two straight segments mates to a concave curve also connecting two straight segments. Inherent in this design is that the convex curve must have a smaller radius than that of the concave portion or else the two radii cannot properly nest inside one another as intended. As the Examiner points out, in exaggerated fashion, in order for a convex curve to fit inside a concave curve, the convex curve must have a smaller radius of curvature. See Ans. 3. Appellants argue that Yamaguchi teaches curves having the same radius (Br. 10), but in any three-dimensional object, it would be impossible for nesting to occur if they had the same radius of curvature. Such would result in a gap between the two mating surfaces. As Appellants admit, Yamaguchi "shows that the curves of convex and concave curved potions are superposed without any outstanding gap and sealed for water-proof function." Id. The lack of a gap can only be achieved if the convex radius is smaller than the concave radius. It may be possible that Appellants have found that a greater difference in radius of curvature has certain benefits, but such is not found in the actual claim language at lSSUe. Secondly, Appellants argue that "Yamaguchi does not show or suggest the 'offset center structure' as recited in Claim 1." Br. 15 ( emphasis omitted). Again, while Appellants may have discovered that some exaggerated difference in curvature radius has benefit as disclosed in the instant application, this offset center as claimed is inherent in Yamaguchi. As noted above, Appellants admit that Yamaguchi discloses no gap between the mating surfaces and, with that being the case, the center of the radius of 4 Appeal 2017-011267 Application 13/559,642 curvature of the convex portion, the radius thereof being smaller than the radius of curvature of the concave portion, would necessarily be closer to the mating surface thus resulting in the offset center structure claimed. While it is likely to be a much smaller offset than that disclosed by Appellants, such offset is inherent in the structure of Yamaguchi and satisfies the claim language at issue. Lastly, Appellants argue that Yamaguchi does not show the 'gap structure' as recited in Claim 1." Br. 18. Appellants' arguments regarding the gap structure are not directed to the interpretation set forth by the Examiner. Appellants may be correct that the differences between Yamaguchi's Fig. 6E and Appellants' Fig. 5B, which essentially show a side view of the mated structures, does not reflect the claim language at issue, but the Examiner's explanation points to the cross-section of the mated structure as shown in Yamaguchi Fig. 4F. Ans. 8. We discern no error in the Examiner's application of the claim language to this figure, which is essentially unrebutted by Appellants. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection. DECISION For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner's decision to reject claim 1. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation