Ex parte Jaddou

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 26, 1998

08155877 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 26, 1998)

Application for patent filed November 23, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 11
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte JOHN Y. JADDOU

_____________
Appeal No. 95-4119
Application 08/155,8771
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before CALVERT, COHEN and FRANKFORT, Administrative Patent
Judges.
COHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 95-4119
Application 08/155,877
Our understanding of this document is derived from a2
reading of a translation thereof prepared in the United States
Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the translation is
appended to this opinion.
2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 4,
6, 7 and 10. These claims constitute all of the claims remaining
in the application.
Appellant’s invention pertains to a method of using a
universal waving die. An understanding of the method can be
derived from a reading of exemplary claim 6, a copy of which
appears in the appendix to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 9).
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied
the documents listed below:
Wuerfel Re 17,785 Aug. 26, 1930
Aktiebolaget 888,636 Jan. 31, 1962
(Great Britain)
Sipeykin et al. (Oil) 1,523,218 Nov. 23, 1989
(U.S.S.R.)2
Appeal No. 95-4119
Application 08/155,877
A final rejection of appellant’s claims under 35 U.S.C.3
§ 112, first paragraph, was withdrawn by the examiner (answer,
page 2).
In our evaluation of the applied teachings, we have4
considered all of the disclosure of each teaching for what it
3
The following rejections are before us for review.3
Claims 4, 6, 7 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Oil in view of Aktiebolaget.
Claims 4, 6, 7 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Wuerfel in view of Oil and
Aktiebolaget.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response
to the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer
(Paper No. 10), while the complete statement of appellant’s
argument can be found in the brief (Paper No. 9).

OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issues
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellant’s specification and claims, the applied
teachings, and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the4
Appeal No. 95-4119
Application 08/155,877
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art. See
In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into account not
only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw
from the disclosure. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159
USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
4
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
We reverse each of the examiner’s rejections of
appellant’s claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We fully comprehend the respective teachings of the
prior art, as applied, as well as the reasoning of the exami-
ner as articulated in the rejections (answer, pages 3 through 6)
and in the response to appellant’s argument (answer, pages 6
through 9). However, as more fully explained, infra, this panel
of the board finds that the prior art evidence relied upon does
not address or suggest, for example, the plural pressing steps
of appellant’s method, i.e., the step of “pressing” of the die
assembly together to apply a loading to a deformable arcuate
material to effect a deformed material with waves and the step
of relaxing the loading and pressing the deformed material to a
Appeal No. 95-4119
Application 08/155,877
We are informed by the specification (page 6) that when5
the load is relaxed and the deformed material is pressed to a
flat condition this has the effect of eliminating the high degree
of springback (relax run of Figure 9).
5
“flat condition.” In another method step, the material is then5
allowed to assume a “semi-deformed” shape.
We understand appellant’s statement in the brief (page
3) as calling upon the examiner to provide evidence rather than
relying upon speculation as to the knowledge of or suggestion in
the art for the claimed load applying period, pressure, and
“sequence of pressing.”
It is clear to us that the applied prior art would not
have been suggestive of the now claimed method with, in
particular, its plural pressing steps, as discussed above.
We appreciate the clear suggestion from the teaching of
Aktiebolaget for using non-dedicated matrices (dies) with
removably secured forming structure (pins) enabling the formation
of differently configured work pieces. However, plural pressing
steps as set forth in appellant’s claim 6 are not suggested.
Appeal No. 95-4119
Application 08/155,877
6
As to the Wuerfel patent, in particular, it addresses
a method of making annular springs with alternating reversed
helical formations thereon (Figure 4) and appears to us to be
suggestive of replacing an integral series of opposed projections
12, 13 with structure simply placed on (secured to) the discs 6
and 7. With the Wuerfel method of making springs (page 2,
lines 27 through 48), the discs of the apparatus clamp or distort
spring blanks which are then subjected to suitable temperature
for a sufficient length of time to permit setting of the rings in
the distorted condition or shape. After cooling, the discs are
removed and the rings are then in the distorted shape or
condition shown in Figure 4. Once again, plural pressing steps
are not suggested.
The device used in the manufacturing process of Oil
(translation, page 5) for making wavy ring springs effects
deforming of the work pieces 25, but after such deformation the
upper plate 4 of the device is raised and the bent work pieces
are removed, ostensibly as the final product. Thus, it is clear
to us that the process of Oil is not suggestive of plural
pressing steps, as claimed.
Appeal No. 95-4119
Application 08/155,877
7
Based upon the above assessments of the applied art,
we determine that neither the combined teachings of Oil and
Aktiebolaget nor the combined teachings of Wuerfel, Oil, and
Aktiebolaget would have suggested appellant’s claimed method to
one having ordinary skill in the art.
In summary, this panel of the board has reversed each
of the rejections of appellant’s claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-4119
Application 08/155,877
8
Appeal No. 95-4119
Application 08/155,877
9
Joseph W. Malleck
Ford Motor Company
Suite 911-Parkway Towers East
One Parklane Boulevard
Dearborn, MI 48126