Ex Parte Ikehata

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2018

13320316 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/320,316
21874 7590
Locke Lord LLP
P.O. BOX 55874
BOSTON, MA 02205
01/24/2012
08/23/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eriko Ikehata
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.
1451562.323US9 1034
EXAMINER
GUAN, GUANG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2018 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 ERIKO IKEHAT A
Appeal2017-008958
Application 13/320,316
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. PETTING, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1---6. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 "The real party in interest is YAZAKI CORPORATION." (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal2017-008958
Application 13/320,316
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant's invention "relates to a bracket structure in an
electrical junction box." (Spec. 1, 11. 6-7.)
Sole Independent Claim on Appeal
1. A bracket structure in an electrical junction box,
compnsmg:
a junction box body having a lower cover and an upper
cover configured to be engaged with each other, the lower
cover having a first wide-width surface and the upper cover
having a second wide-width surface;
a first bracket affixed to the first wide-width surface of
the lower cover of the junction box body; and
a second bracket affixed to the second wide-width
surface of the upper cover of the junction box body, the second
wide-width surface being opposed to the first wide-width
surface, the first bracket and the second bracket being brought
into a direct fitting engagement with each other upon attaching
the first bracket to the first wide-width surface and attaching the
second bracket to the second wide-width surface of the junction
box body,
wherein the first bracket includes a plate-shaped portion
configured to be directly contacting with the first wide-width
surface of the junction box body, and a first fitting-engagement
portion protruding from one end of said plate-shaped portion of
the first bracket,
wherein the second bracket includes a plate-shaped
portion configured to be directly contacting with the second
wide-width surface of the junction box body, and a second
fitting engagement portion protruding from one end of said
plate-shaped portion of the second bracket,
wherein the first fitting-engagement portion of the first
bracket and the second fitting engagement portion of the second
bracket are configured to fit-engage with each other, and
wherein the first bracket is affixed directly to the junction
box body and is affixed indirectly to the junction box body via
the second bracket, while the second bracket is affixed directly
2
Appeal2017-008958
Application 13/320,316
to the junction box body and is affixed indirectly to the junction
box body via the first bracket, and
wherein each of the first bracket and the second bracket
receives at least a part of the junction box body therein, and
each of the first bracket and the second bracket is configured to
be secured to a vehicle body.
Sumida
Sato026
Fukamachi
Sato281
References2
us 5,569,040
US 6,780,026 B2
US 6,926,545 B2
US 7,077,281 B2
Rejections3
Oct. 29, 1996
Aug.24,2004
Aug.9,2005
July 18, 2006
I. The Examiner rejects claims 1--4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Fukamachi. (Final Action 9.)
II. The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fukamachi and Sato28I. (Final Action 16.)
III. The Examiner rejects claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fukamachi and Sato026. (Final Action 19.)
IV. The Examiner rejects claim 1--4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fukamachi and Sumida. (Final Action 9.)
V. The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fukamachi, Sumida, and Sato281. (Final Action 16.)
VI. The Examiner rejects claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fukamachi, Sumida, and Sato026. (Final Action 19.)
2 Our quotations from these references will omit, where applicable, bolding
and/ or italicization of reference numerals.
3 The Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph (see Final Action 7), has been withdrawn (see Answer 16).
3
Appeal2017-008958
Application 13/320,316
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal, with the rest of the
claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2-6) depending directly or ultimately
therefrom. (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Independent claim 1 recites "a first bracket," "a second bracket," and
"a junction box body." (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that
Fukamachi discloses an electrical connection box comprising a first bracket,
a second bracket, and a junction box body. (See Final Action 9.) Fukamachi
discloses an electrical connector box comprising "a body 11," "a lower
cover 20," and "a female connector 30." (Fukamachi, col. 3. 11. 4--9.)
Elements 11, 20, and 30, along with element 50 which is discussed in more
detail below, are accentuated in our below annotated version of Fukamachi's
Figure 1.
first
bracket
FIG. 1
\
20A
/
25
As labeled in the above annotated drawing, the Examiner considers
Fukamachi' s element 11 to be the claimed "first bracket," considers
Fukamachi's element 20 to be the claimed "second bracket," and considers
4
Appeal2017-008958
Application 13/320,316
Fukamachi's element 30 to be the claimed "junction box body." (Final
Action 9.)
Independent claim 1 requires the first bracket to include a "plate-
shaped portion." (Appeal Br., Claims App.) As labeled in our above
annotated version of Fukamachi' s Figure 1, Fukamachi' s element 11, which
the Examiner considers the claimed first bracket, includes a plate-shaped
portion.
Independent claim 1 also requires the junction box body to have a
"lower cover" with a "first wide-width surface." (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Fukamachi's element 30, which the Examiner considers the claimed junction
box body, has "a rectangular box-shaped holder 50." (Fukamachi, col. 3,
11. 60-65.) Element 50, which is accentuated in our above annotated
drawing of Fukamachi' s Figure 1, is also accentuated in our below annotated
version of a portion of Fukamachi' s Figure 2.
FIG. 2
wide-width
surface
of element 50
lowe1· cover of
,junction box
, 50 body
As labeled in the above annotated drawing, the Examiner considers
Fukamachi' s element 50 to be the claimed "lower cover" of the junction box
body. (Final Action 9.) As also labeled in the above annotated drawing,
Fukamachi's box-shaped element 50 has an upper rectangular rim, which the
Examiner considers to be the claimed "wide-width surface." (Id.)
5
Appeal2017-008958
Application 13/320,316
Independent claim 1 additionally recites a "directly contacting"
limitation requiring the plate-shaped portion ( of the first bracket) to be
"configured to be directly contacting with the first wide-width surface of the
junction box body." (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that
Fukamachi discloses, in Figure 6, that the plate-shaped portion of its first
bracket 11 directly contacts the wide-width surface of the lower cover 50 of
junction box body 30. (See Final Action 10.) Elements 11, 30, and 50 are
accentuated in our below annotated version of Fukamachi's Figure 6.
FIG. 6
first
l
63 64 62 63
v,ide-\vidth
surface
junction box
body
As labeled in the above annotated drawing, the plate-shaped portion of
Fukamachi's element 11 (i.e., the first bracket) and the wide-width surface
of Fukamachi's element 30/50 (i.e., the junction box body), are depicted as
neighboring elements in Figure 6. And, according to the Examiner, these
neighboring elements directly contact each other. (See Answer 19.)
The Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that
Fukamachi discloses, in Figure 6, that the plate-shaped portion of element 11
6
Appeal2017-008958
Application 13/320,316
directly contacting the wide-width surface of element 30/50. (See Appeal
Br. 12-13, 17.) According to the Appellant, Fukamachi's Figure 6 shows "a
distance" between these neighboring elements (id. at 13), and directs our
attention to left and right regions of Figure 6 (see id. at 14). These left and
right regions are enlarged in our below annotated version of Fukamachi' s
Figure 6.
r
I
I
:-
1 • \
'
plate-shaped
pm·tion
of element 11
F:G 6
''\,~ ... ~ ,.
............ :I' ....
---~;"-ide-width
•mrface
of element 30/50
plate-shaped
portion
of element l l
' I I
' I I
.,. ""'! ..,~- /
/
• ~.;;-"'°
- .... -it,.__ .......... ;
,vide-width
surface
of element 30/50
As labeled in the above annotated drawing, the plate-shaped portion of
Fukamachi' s element 11 does appear to be spaced slightly above the wide-
width surface ofFukamachi's element 30/50 in the enlarged regions. 4
However, the Examiner maintains that the Appellant's arguments
focus on the "left and right parts" of the plate-shaped portion of
4 The annotated enlarged regions of Figure 6, which the Appellant says show
"a distance" between the plate-shaped portion of element 11 and the wide-
width surface of element 30/50 (see Appeal Br. 13), also show that
Fukamachi' s element 11 is affixed to the wide-width surface of Fukamachi' s
element 50. In other words, in these regions, Fukamachi's first bracket 11 is
"affixed to" the "wide-width surface of the lower cover of the junction box"
as required by independent claim 1. As such, insofar as the Appellant argues
that Fukamachi does not disclose this limitation of independent claim 1,
these arguments are not persuasive.
7
Appeal2017-008958
Application 13/320,316
Fukamachi' s element 11, and do not take into consideration the "the middle
part" of the plate-shaped portion. (Answer 18.) This "middle" region is
enlarged in our below annotated version of Fukamachi' s Figure 6.
,' ,
' ' I
,'
plate-slrn1wcl
portion F1G. 6
of element 11
__ ..,...,.-- -
;'
'~ ....... _ __ ....
,,ide-width
~udace
of element 30/50
The Examiner finds that, as labeled in the above annotated drawing, the
plate-shaped portion of Fukamachi' s element 11 is disclosed as directly
contacting the wide-width surface of Fukamachi's element 30/50 in the
enlarged region. (See id. at 18-19.) This finding by the Examiner goes
unchallenged by the Appellant.
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by the Appellant's arguments that
Fukamachi does not disclose the bracket structure required by independent
claim 1. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Fukamachi (Rejection I).
The Appellant does not argue dependent claims 2-6 separately (see
Appeal Br. 22), and, thus, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of
dependent claims 2--4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Fukamachi
(Rejection I), the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fukamachi and Sato281
(Rejection II), and the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 6 under
8
Appeal2017-008958
Application 13/320,316
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fukamachi and Sato026
(Rejection III).
The Examiner alternatively rejects independent claim 1, and
dependent claims 2---6, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Fukamachi and Sumida alone (Rejection IV), in view of Sato281
(Rejection V), or in view of Sato026 (Rejection VI). With respect to these
rejections, the Appellant argues only that the directly-contacting limitation
would not have been obvious over the combined teachings of Fukamachi
and Sumida. (See Appeal Br. 17-22.) However, as the Appellant does not
establish adequately that the Examiner errs in finding that this limitation is
disclosed by Fukamachi, these arguments are unpersuasive. Thus, we also
sustain these rejections.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6.
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
9