Ex Parte Mason

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 6, 2008

10249136 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 6, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte DAVID EDWARD MASON
__________

Appeal 2008-0147
Application 10/249,136
Technology Center 3600
__________

Decided: March 6, 2008
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, ERIC GRIMES, and JEFFREY N.
FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to an engine
hood, which the Examiner has rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse the rejection of claims 1 and
3-17.
BACKGROUND
The Specification teaches that during car crashes with pedestrians “it
is desirable to keep the deflation of the hood caused by impact to a minimum
Appeal 2008-0147
Application 10/249,136

to protect the pedestrian's body from hitting a hard portion of the engine
within the engine compartment” (Spec. 1). According to the Specification,
“[m]ost vehicle hoods include a generally planar or curvilinear outer skin
which is joined to a series of reinforcing ribs provided by a stamped metallic
sheet of material” (Spec. 1).
Appellant teaches an engine compartment hood “having channel
portions formed in a tessellated, generally equally-sized, equilateral
hexagonal pattern” (Spec. 2). According to Appellant the “hexagonal
pattern aids in providing greater uniformity in the head impact criteria (HIC)
of the hood along with uniformity in deformation caused by a predetermined
impact” (Spec. 2).
The Claims
Claims 1 and 3-17 are on appeal. The claimed subject matter is
reflected in representative claim 1, which reads as follows:
1. A hood for an engine compartment of a motor vehicle comprising:
an outer skin; and
reinforcing ribs connected with said outer skin and imparting
rigidity thereto, said ribs having a channel portion with sidewalls and
a valley, said valley being generally opposite said outer skin, said ribs
being mainly formed in an equilateral hexagonal pattern and wherein
an area between said ribs is cut out.

The Issues
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Chernoff US 6,793,275 B1 Sep. 21, 2004
Seksaria US 5,124,191 Jun. 23, 1992

2
Appeal 2008-0147
Application 10/249,136

The rejection as presented by the Examiner is as follows:
Claims 1 and 3-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being
obvious over Chernoff and Seksaria.

35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chernoff and Seksaria
The Examiner’s position is that Chernoff teaches a “hood for an
engine including an outer skin (29); and reinforcing ribs (35) connected with
the outer skin (Col. 3, lines 10-15) for imparting rigidity thereto. Figure 2
shows a plurality of ribs forming a plurality of polygons” (Ans. 3). The
Examiner notes that Seksaria teaches “that the ribs form irregular cups
(22,24,26) and can be made of various sizes and shapes to provide the
requisite structural performance (see at least Col. 4, lines 13-18)” (Ans. 3).
The Examiner therefore reasons that it “would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to arrange the
ribs in hexagonal pattern, to evenly distribute the ribs across the width of the
hood” (Ans. 4). The Examiner argues that “[d]istributing the ribs evenly
would provide a symmetrical shape for the rib structure, which would
provide the additional benefit [of] evenly distributing an impact force across
the width of the hood in the event of a crash” (Ans. 6).
Appellant contends “Chernoff neither teaches nor suggests a hood
having equilateral hexagonal structures; nor, for that matter, does Seksaria.
. . . In essence, the Examiner's proffered combination has neither the form
nor function of Applicants' claimed device, and the rejection is not
sustainable” (App. Br. 4).
3
Appeal 2008-0147
Application 10/249,136

In view of these conflicting positions, we frame the issue before us as
follows:
Would it have been obvious to an ordinary practitioner to alter the
arrangment of ribs in the hood panels of Chernoff and Seksaria to form ribs
in an equilateral hexagonal pattern?
Findings of Fact
1. Chernoff teaches a hood for an engine compartment with an
outer skin (Chernoff 3: 10-24; fig. 2).
2. Chernoff teaches reinforcing ribs connected with the outer skin
which impart rigidity to the outer skin and which have sidewalls and a valley
(Chernoff 3: 20-24; fig. 2).
3. Chernoff teaches that the “body panel structural member is
configured for rigid attachment to each of at least two of the frame members
to form a portion of the frame such that the structural member transfers loads
between the at least two frame members.” (Chernoff 2:8-11).
4. Seksaria teaches a body panel with “a configuration that is not
uniform, but which is individually designed to provide the requisite strength
in individual areas where required and enables the panel to be designed to
accommodate randomly spaced components over which the structural panel
is to be located.” (Seksaria 1: 60-65; figs. 1 and 2).
5. Seksaria teaches “the height and shape of each of the pyramids
is adjusted locally to accommodate intrusion by under-hood components.”
(Seksaria 2:23-25).
6. Seksaria teaches that “[o]bviously, as above mentioned, the
configurations can be made of various sizes and shapes and are designed to
4
Appeal 2008-0147
Application 10/249,136

provide the requisite structural performance for the structural panel.”
(Seksaria 4:15-18).
Discussion of § 103(a) over Chernoff and Seksaria
In KSR, the Supreme Court expanded the obviousness analysis, noting
“the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific
subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ.” KSR v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). However, the
KSR court did note that the “proper question to have asked was whether a
pedal designer of ordinary skill, facing the wide range of needs created by
developments in the field of endeavor, would have seen a benefit to
upgrading Asano with a sensor.” KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1744. Applying that
analysis to the engine compartment hoods of Chernoff and Seksaria, we do
not see any specific reason, benefit or inference which would have led the
ordinary practitioner to form the ribs in an equilateral hexagonal pattern as
required by claim 1. It is true that both Chernoff and Seksaria teach hood
panels (FF 1-6). However, Seksaria actually teaches a desire for irregular
patterns since these allow “the panel to be designed to accommodate
randomly spaced components over which the structural panel is to be
located.” (Seksaria 1: 60-65).
We do not think that replacing the irregular ribs of Chernoff and
Seksaria with the equilateral hexagonal ribs of the current invention is
simply a “design choice” which has no impact on the resultant hood. We
think that even the creative automotive designer would not necessarily apply
hexagonal patterns to an engine compartment hood because the change in
5
Appeal 2008-0147
Application 10/249,136

rigidity due to the change in rib shape would affect the crumple and load
characteristics of the automobile hood (see FF 3). In fact, the Specification
expressly teaches that the use of hexagonal members will make the hood
more forgiving in a pedestrian crash situation (Spec. 2). Such changes in
the rib design would have significant effects on the transmission of crash
forces to pedestrians who impact the hoods and on the transmission of crash
forces to drivers who are involved in single or multi vehicle collisions. It is
unpredictable whether the change to an equilateral hexagonal pattern of
reinforcing ribs for the hood would result in greater pedestrian survival at
the cost of reduced survival of vehicle occupants, greater survival of both, or
even reduced survival of both pedestrians and vehicle occupants. In
addition, the use of the equilateral hexagonal pattern of reinforcing ribs
would prevent easy accomodation of engine components (see Seksaria 1: 60-
65). Consequently, based upon the evidence of record, we think that it
would not have been obvious to the creative person of ordinary skill in the
art of hood design to use an equilateral hexagonal pattern of reinforcing ribs
in a hood.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1 and 3-
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chernoff and
Seksaria.

6
Appeal 2008-0147
Application 10/249,136

SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection of claims 1 and 3-17 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Chernoff and Seksaria.
REVERSED

Ssc:

ARTZ & ARTZ P.C.
28333 TELEGRAPH ROAD
SUITE 250
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48034

7