Ex Parte Nagwanshi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 201713407172 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/407,172 02/28/2012 Dhanendra Kumar Nagwanshi 11PLAS0136-US-NP 4333 23413 7590 03/29/2017 TANTOR TOT RTTRN T T P EXAMINER 20 Church Street PATEL, KIRAN B 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3612 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2017 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): usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DHANENDRA KUMAR NAGWANSHI, SUDHAKAR RAMAMOORTHY MARUR, and GURUNATH PV Appeal 2015-006207 Application 13/407,172 Technology Center 3600 Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Dhanendra Kumar Nagwanshi et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1—4, 7—13, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Allen (US 7,806,448 B2, iss. Oct. 5, Appeal 2015-006207 Application 13/407,172 2010) andMarur (US 2012/0104775 Al, pub. May 3, 2012).1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A thermoplastic energy absorber for a vehicle comprising: a base; and a crush lobe, wherein the crush lobe comprises load walls extending from the base; a convex front face located at an end of the load walls opposite the base, wherein the convex front face bow outward, away from the base; and wherein the convex front face is connected to the load walls with fillets having a radius of greater than or equal to 5 mm; wherein the base and crush lobe comprise a plastic material. DISCUSSION The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Allen discloses a “convex front face [that] is connected to the load walls with fillets Fig. 10 having a radius.” Final Act. 2; Ans. 2. Claim 1 requires fillets “having a radius of greater than or equal to 5 mm.” Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner does not address this 1 Claims 14—17 are withdrawn from consideration. Final Act. 1. The Examiner’s statement of the rejection in the Final Action is incomplete as it omits claims 4, 7—13, and 18. Final Act. 2. However, the explanation of the rejection includes these claims. See id. at 2—3. Accordingly, we understand this omission to be a typographical error. 2 Appeal 2015-006207 Application 13/407,172 requirement of claim 1. Thus, the Examiner fails to set forth a prima facie case obviousness. For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1, and claims 2-4, 7—13, and 18, which depend from claim 1. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 7—13, and 18 is REVERSED. REVERSED 3 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation