Ex Parte LeGallo

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 21, 2008

10092363 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 21, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte YANN LEGALLO
____________

Appeal 2007-4386
Application 10/092,363
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: February 21, 2008
____________

Before WILLAM F. PATE, III, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
ANTON W. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

PATE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 4, and 16.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2002).

1 Claims 5-15 have been allowed, claims 17-19 are objected to, and claims 2 and 3 have
been cancelled.
Appeal 2007-4386
Application 10/092,363

2
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to an anti-entrapment device
for a motor-driven cable-operated window lifting mechanism (Spec. ¶ 1).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A window glass lifting mechanism comprising:
a sliding member for a window glass;
a cable for driving the sliding member for the window glass and
connected to the sliding member;
a motor for driving the cable;
an end stop operatively coupled to the cable; and
a sensor disposed between the end stop and the sliding member,
wherein the sensor measures tension in said cable by measuring the
force exercised by the cable on the sliding member.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following evidence in the rejections:
Sesselmann (as translated) DE 19847080 A1 Apr. 13, 2000
The following rejection is before us for review.
1. Claims 1, 4, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Sesselmann.
ISSUE
Appellant contends that Sesselmann fails to disclose (1) an end stop as
recited in claim 1, and (2) supplying a signal representing entrapment by the
window glass as recited in claim 16 (Appeal Br. 4-5). The Examiner found
that the guide piece 24 of Sesselmann is equivalent to the claimed end stop
(Answer 3).
The issue before us is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1, 4, and 16 as anticipated by Sesselmann.
Appeal 2007-4386
Application 10/092,363

3
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings are supported by at
least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d
1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for
proceedings before the Office).
1. Sesselmann teaches an anti-pinch system for parts of motor
vehicles that are moved by a motorized mechanism via a flexible traction
means that are chucked between its ends (Sesselman, p. 2).
2. Sesselmann teaches a window winder for displacing a window
100 in a motor vehicle (Sesselmann, p. 9 and Fig. 1).
3. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the window winder includes an electric
motor 10 connected to a drive housing 11 which retains a displacement
gearing coupled with the drive motor 11 which serves to drive the window
winder (Sesselmann, p. 10).
4. The cable section below the cable drum 12 is guided around a
cable deflection piece 15 to a cable eyelet 60 for the bottom end 6 of the
cable (Sesselmann, p. 10).
5. The bottom cable eyelet 60 includes a guide element 64 which
is carried in a guide channel 63 in a sliding manner, and which serves to
retain the bottom end 6 of the cable (Sesselmann, p. 10).
6. The cable section extending above the cable drum 12 is guided
to an upper cable eye 20 via an upper deflector element 14 which
simultaneously serves as a device for recognizing a pinching incident
(Sesselmann, p. 10).
Appeal 2007-4386
Application 10/092,363

4
7. A second guide piece 24 is carried in a guide channel 23 in a
sliding fashion, and is supported against the upper cable deflector element
14 via a pretensioned screw spring 21 (Sesselmann, p. 11).
8. The cable 5 is firmly chucked on its two ends 6, 7 such that
rotation of the cable drum 12 causes the drive motor 10 to move together
with the drive housing 11 and the window 1 (Sesselmann, p. 13).
9. Sesselmann discloses a sensor/measuring strip 28 which
measures any stretch in the cable 5 due to a force F which acts upon the
cable section, and generates an electrical signal which is fed to an electronic
unit 17 (Sesselman, p. 19).
10. If the stretch of the cable 5 exceeds the force F which acts upon
the cable 5 by a specific predefined value, it is interpreted as a pinching
incident, i.e., entrapment, by the electronic unit 17 (Sesselmann, p. 19).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that Sesselmann fails to anticipate claim 1 because
Sesselmann fails to disclose an end stop as claimed. More specifically,
Appellant contends that the guide piece 24 of Sesselmann, which the
Examiner found to be an end stop, is not equivalent to the claimed end stop
because it is “not at an end of a cab1e, nor is it a stop structure, nor is it
Appeal 2007-4386
Application 10/092,363

5
operatively coupled to the cable as a stop structure” (Appeal Br. 4). We
disagree.
First, we note that element 24 of Fig. 3 does not refer to a channel as
suggested by Appellant but rather to the guide piece which moves within
channel 23. Second, Sesselmann clearly teaches that the guide pieces 24 and
64 are disposed at the ends 6, 7 of the cable 5 and serve to retain the ends of
the cable (Finding of Facts 5-7). Furthermore, Sesselmann teaches that the
cable 5 is firmly chucked on its two ends 6, 7 and that the guide pieces 64
and 24 are attached to the ends 6, 7 of the cable 5 (Finding of Facts 4-8).
Therefore, the guide piece 24 of Sesselmann is attached at an end of the
cable, acts as a stop structure and is operatively coupled to the cable 5. As
such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellant contends that Sesselmann fails to anticipate claim 4 because
Sesselmann fails to disclose “a mechanism having the claimed processing
module that supplies a signal representing trapping by the window glass”
(Appeal Br. 4). The Examiner found that Sesselmann discloses a sensor and
processing module as claimed (Answer 3).
Sesselmann discloses a sensor/measuring strip 28 which measures any
stretch in the cable 5 due to a force F which acts upon the cable section, and
generates an electrical signal which is fed to an electronic unit 17 (Finding
of Fact 9). If the stretch of the cable 5 exceeds the force F which act upon
the cable 5 by a specific predefined value, it is interpreted as a pinching
incident, i.e., entrapment, by the electronic unit 17 (Finding of Fact 10). As
such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 as anticipated by
Sesselmann.
Appeal 2007-4386
Application 10/092,363

6
Finally, Appellant contends that “[a]lthough Sesselmann mentions
detecting a jam situation from a strain force acting on the traction
element/cable 5, it is not clear whether the jam detected by Sesselman is due
to entrapment by the window glass lifting mechanism” (Appeal Br. 5).
Appellant further contends that “Sesselmann generically refers to a jam
without specifying what caused the jam” (Id.). Sesselman specifically
discloses that if the stretch of the cable 4 exceeds the force F which acts
upon the cable 5 by a specific predefined value, it is interpreted as a
pinching incident (Finding of Fact 10). A pinching incident as disclosed by
Sesselmann is equivalent to the claimed entrapment. As such, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 as anticipated by Sesselmann.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that the Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1, 4, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated
by Sesselmann.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as anticipated by Sesselmann is sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).
AFFIRMED

Appeal 2007-4386
Application 10/092,363

7
hh

CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009