Ex Parte Newman et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 23, 201613084611 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/084,611 04/12/2011 26096 7590 02/25/2016 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. 400 WEST MAPLE ROAD SUITE 350 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Todd R. Newman 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 67596-011 PUS4 1461 EXAMINER EUSTAQUIO, CAL J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/25/2016 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): ptodocket@cgolaw.com cgolaw@yahoo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) U-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TODD R. NEWMAN, JOHN M. W ASHELESKI, ANDREW E. BLANK, DAVID W. SHANK, and EDWARD J. COX II Appeal2015-005123 Application 13/084,611 Technology Center 2600 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. 1 The real party in interest is identified as UUSI, LLC, doing business as Nartron Corporation. (App. Br. 1.) Appeal2015-005123 Application 13/084,611 Claimed Subject Matter The invention generally relates to a fascia panel assembly including a capacitance sensor for detecting objects. (Title.) The invention may be used for detecting the presence of an object interfering with the closing of, for example, a vehicle trunk or lift gate. (See Spec. 4: 19-22, 10:4--13.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. An assembly comprising: an electrically non-conductive isolator mountable to a flexible fascia panel; and a capacitance sensor attached to the isolator, wherein the sensor capacitively couples to an electrically conductive object proximal to the sensor while the sensor is driven with an electrical charge such that capacitance of the sensor changes due to the sensor capacitively coupling with the object; wherein the isolator is flexible such that in response to the fascia panel displacing upon an object touching the fascia panel the isolator also displaces to thereby cause the sensor to displace, wherein the capacitance of the sensor changes due to the displacement of the sensor. Rejections Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nahata et al. (US 2001/0052839 Al; Dec. 20, 2001) ("Nahata"), Bingle et al. (US 7,576,631 Bl; Aug. 18, 2009) ("Bingle"), and Aimi et al. (US 2008/0024451 Al; Jan. 31, 2008) ("Aimi"). (Final Act. 2-7 (mailed Dec. 27, 2012).) Claims 11 and 14--16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nahata, Bingle, Aimi, and Schousek (US 5,959,538; Sept. 28, 1999). (Final Act. 7-8.) 2 Appeal2015-005123 Application 13/084,611 Claims 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nahata, Bingle, Aimi, Schousek, and Pierce et al. (US 5,493,277; Feb. 20, 1996) ("Pierce"). (Final Act. 8-10.) Claims 7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nahata, Bingle, Aimi, and Milton (US 5,361,018; Nov. 1, 1994). (Final Act. 11.) ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments the Examiner erred (App. Br. 3-13; Reply Br. 1---6; Supp. Reply Br. 1-5). On the record before us, we concur with Appellants' contention (App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 2; Supp. Reply Br. 2-3) that the Examiner has not pointed to sufficient evidence that Bingle teaches an electrically non- conductive isolator mountable to a flexible fascia panel, wherein the isolator is flexible such that in response to the fascia panel displacing upon an object touching the fascia panel the isolator also displaces to thereby cause the capacitance sensor to displace, as required in claim 1. The Examiner finds Bingle's vehicular handle with non-numeric keyless entry pad shown in Figure 4 has capacitance sensors activated by manipulating keys. (Supp. Ans. 4--5; Final Act. 3--4 (citing Bingle 5:27- 44).) The Examiner finds Bingle's keys manipulate the sensors via additional "unnamed elements coupled to keys 32" and that "[t]he unnamed elements further provide a contacting force from the key to the sensor, and therefore, the unnamed elements would likely be analogous to the claimed 'non-conductive isolator. "' (Supp. Ans. 5 (emphasis added).) This finding is not sufficiently supported by column 5, lines 27--44, and Figure 4 of 3 Appeal2015-005123 Application 13/084,611 Bingle, which show external keys 32 mounted on top of corresponding sensors 82, but do not disclose any "unnamed elements" or isolator between them. (See Supp. Reply Br. 2.) If Bingle's keys are considered the claimed isolator, the Examiner has not shown the combination of references also teaches a flexible fascia panel that when displaced causes the isolator to displace, as required by claim 1. In light of the foregoing, we reverse the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 12, which recites the limitations of an electrically non- conductive isolator, wherein the isolator is sandwiched between the fascia panel and the sensor, wherein the fascia panel and the isolator are flexible such that the fascia panel and the isolator displace upon an object touching the fascia panel thereby causing the sensor to displace. Further, we do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2-3, 5-11, and 13-20. We do not address Appellants' remaining arguments because this issue is dispositive with respect to all claims on appeal. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3 and 5-20 is reversed. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation