Ex parte Kocer et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 20, 2001

08953606 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 20, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte BRUCE KOCER, SCOTT SPICUZZA and
WALTER A. SNYDER
____________
Appeal No. 2001-0738
Application No. 08/953,606
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before COHEN, ABRAMS, and STAAB, Administrative Patent Judges.
STAAB, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the final rejection of
claims 12-19, all the claims currently pending in the
application.
Appellants’ invention pertains to a frame assembly for a
vehicle, said frame assembly comprising a frame having a pair of
frame rails and a subframe having a generally U-shaped unitary
Appeal No. 2001-0738
Application No. 08/953,606
2
cradle. A further understanding of the invention can be derived
from a reading of exemplary claim 12, which appears in the
appendix to appellants’ main brief.
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Wallace 2,189,719 Feb. 6,
1940
Raidel, Sr. 4,465,300 Aug. 14,
1984
Mukai et al. (Mukai) 5,385,369 Jan. 31,
1995
Ni et al. (Ni) 5,557,961 Sep.
24,
1996
Claims 12-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ni in view of Wallace and Mukai.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ni in view of Wallace, Mukai and Raidel.
Reference is made to appellants’ main and reply briefs
(Paper Nos. 13 and 16) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No.
15) for the respective positions of appellants and the examiner
regarding the merits of these rejections.
Discussion
Appeal No. 2001-0738
Application No. 08/953,606
3
Ni, the examiner’s primary reference, pertains to a method
for hydroforming a tubular structural member, such as the engine
cradle illustrated in Figure 1. Although not expressly
described, it would appear that the engine cradle is attached to
the vehicle frame by means of the diagonally extending
appendages at the corners of the cradle.
Wallace (Figures 6-7) is directed to an automobile frame
comprising a pair of frame rails 10, 10’, each frame rail having
a front section connected to a mid section by a downwardly
sloping intermediate section (adjacent element 24’ in Figure 7)
such that the front section is disposed in a generally
horizontal plane that is higher that the mid section.
Mukai discloses a vehicle frame having a structure for
fitting a suspension system to the frame. According to the
examiner, Mukai
teaches a subframe (17) wherein the side members
extend in a generally vertical direction from the
front cross member (see Figure 4; downward angled
piece 21 of 17). The subframe is has [sic] a pair of
front attachment members (14) extending in a generally
vertical direction from a front portion of the cradle
and a pair of rear attachment members (16) extending
in a generally vertical direction from a rear portion
of the side members, the attachment members being
Appeal No. 2001-0738
Application No. 08/953,606
4
adapted to be attached to the vehicle frame rails
(13). [Answer, page 4.]
The examiner considers that Ni does not disclose (1) a pair
of frame rails with a downwardly sloping intermediate section or
(2) attachment members extending in a generally vertical
direction from the cradle. The examiner takes the position that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to provide difference (1) is Ni in view of the teachings of
Wallace, and to provide difference (2) is Ni in view of the
teachings of Mukai. Implicit in the above is the examiner’s
position that the subject matter of claims 12-18 would result.
The examiner’s position in these matters is not well taken.
Our first difficulty with the standing § 103 rejection of
claims 12-18 is the examiner’s findings with respect to Mukai.
Initially, we note that members 14, 15 and 16 of Mukai are
described as being part of the frame rails 13 (see column 3,
lines 47-63), and that the suspension cross member 17 is secured
to members 14 and 15 by threaded fasteners 30 and 31 (see Figure
6; column 4, lines 61-68; column 6, line 66 through column 7,
line 11) that are designed to break away in the event of a front
end collision (column 6, lines 59-66; column 7, lines 6-11).
Appeal No. 2001-0738
Application No. 08/953,606
5
Under these circumstances, it is inappropriate, in our view, to
consider members 14, 15 and 16 as being parts of the suspension
member 17. Rather, they are integral portions of the frame 13.
In addition, elements 36 are not portions of the suspension
cross member 17, as the examiner appears to believe, but rather
separate “A-type suspension arms” that are pivotally mounted to
the cross member 18 of suspension member 17 and to attachment
members 16, respectively, by shafts 38 (see Figure 6) and
connecting sleeves 41 (see Figure 4). Thus, it also is
inappropriate to consider Mukai’s elements 36 as being part of
the suspension cross member 17. Based on the above, it is
questionable whether Mukai would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art that the attachment members (not
numbered) at the corners of Ni’s Figure 1 tubular structural
member should be disposed to extend vertically.
More importantly, we are in agreement with appellants’
argument on page 6 of the main brief and pages 2 and 3 of the
reply brief that the applied prior art does not teach or suggest
mounting vertically extending rear attachment members to the
downwardly sloping intermediate sections of the frame rails, as
called for in the last paragraph of claim 12. Ni discloses no
Appeal No. 2001-0738
Application No. 08/953,606
6
frame or frame rails whatsoever. As to Wallace, while this
reference does indeed disclose a frame comprising frame rails
having a downwardly sloping intermediate section between a front
section and a mid section, there is no teaching of a subframe
having vertical attachment members, much less any teaching of
vertically extending rear attachment members attached to the
downwardly sloping intermediate sections of the frame rails.
Concerning Mukai, the frame rails 13 thereof do not include a
downwardly sloping intermediate section connecting a front
section and a mid section. Rather, as can be seen in Figure 4,
the frame rails 13 of Mukai are straight, at least in the area
of concern at the location where the suspension cross member 17
is mounted.
From our perspective, the only suggestion to combine
selected elements of the Ni, Wallace and Mukai references in a
manner that results in a frame assembly wherein a vertically
extending rear attachment of a subframe is attached to a
downwardly sloping intermediate section of a frame rail, as
called for in claim 12, is found in the luxury of hindsight
accorded one who first viewed appellants’ disclosure. This, of
Appeal No. 2001-0738
Application No. 08/953,606
7
course, is improper. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23
USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992). This being the case, the
teachings of Ni, Wallace and Mukai fail to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter
recited in independent claim 12 or, it follows, of claims 13-18
that depend therefrom. Accordingly, the standing
§ 103 rejection of claims 12-18 will not be sustained.
As to the § 103 rejection of claim 19, the Raidel reference
additionally applied in this rejection does not render obvious
what we have found to be lacking in Ni, Wallace and/or Mukai.
The rejection of claim 19 will therefore not be sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
Appeal No. 2001-0738
Application No. 08/953,606
8
REVERSED
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
NEAL E. ABRAMS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge )
LJS/lp
Appeal No. 2001-0738
Application No. 08/953,606
9
HARNESS DICKEY & PIERCE
P O BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILL MI 48303
Letty
JUDGE STAAB
APPEAL NO. 2001-0738
APPLICATION NO. 08/953,606
APJ STAAB
APJ ABRAMS
APJ COHEN
DECISION: REVERSED
PREPARED: Sep 23, 2002
OB/HD
PALM
ACTS 2

DISK (FOIA)
REPORT
BOOK