Ex Parte Okazaki

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 21, 2013

12216283 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2013)

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.
12/216,283 07/02/2008 Yutaka Okazaki KF-1020 6745
77319 7590 10/21/2013
Kubotera & Associates, LLC
200 Daingerfield Rd
Suite 202
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
BLACK, MELISSA ANN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3612
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/21/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YUTAKA OKAZAKI
____________

Appeal 2011-011154
Application 12/216,283
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ANNETTE R. REIMERS and
MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-011154
Application 12/216,283

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Yutaka Okazaki (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2 and 4-7. Claim 3 is canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A vehicular sun visor comprising:
a sun visor body including a pair of divided
sun visor bodies, each of which is formed into a
shell shape, the sun visor body formed into a
hollow shape by joining the pair of divided sun
visor bodies;
a holder provided in the sun visor body;
a shaft bent substantially into an L shape, an
insertion-side part on one end side of which is
turnably inserted in the holder;
a bracket for attaching an attachment-side
part on the other end side of the shaft to the vehicle
body side, the sun visor being configured so that
the shaft is turnably supported on the bracket and
the sun visor body is turnably supported on the
shaft;
a coming-off preventing contacting piece
formed so as to extendingly project in the radial
direction of the shaft throughout the entire
periphery of the insertion-side part of the shaft;
a contacted piece formed on an inner wall of
one divided sun visor body of the pair of divided
sun visor bodies, including a first shaft receiving
part for receiving the insertion-side part of the
shaft; and
an auxiliary contacted piece formed on an
inner wall of the other divided sun visor body,
Appeal 2011-011154
Application 12/216,283

3
including a second shaft receiving part for
receiving the insertion-side part of the shaft,
wherein the contacted piece and the
auxiliary contacted piece are formed such that a
portion of the first receiving part faces a portion of
the second receiving part in an axial direction of
the insertion-side part of the shaft so as to overlap
the portion of the second receiving part in a plane
perpendicular to the axial direction when the pair
of divided sun visor bodies are joined to each other
and the first and second shaft receiving parts
receive the insertion-side part of the shaft.

PRIOR ART
Mills US 6,698,814 B1 Mar. 2, 2004
Wieczorek US 6,962,385 B2 Nov. 8, 2005
Calabro GB 1,567,710 May 21, 1980

GROUND OF REJECTION

Claims 1, 2 and 4-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wieczorek, Calabro and Mills.

OPINION
Appellant argues claims 1, 2 and 4-7 as a group. See Br. 5. We select
independent claim 1 as the representative claim and claims 2 and 4-7 stand
or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Examiner finds that Wieczorek discloses every limitation of
claim 1 except for “a coming-off preventing contacting piece formed so as to
extendingly project in the radial direction of the shaft throughout the entire
periphery of an insertion-side part of the shaft” (Ans. 5) and an
auxiliary contacted piece [that] faces the contacted
piece around the insertion-side part of the shaft so
Appeal 2011-011154
Application 12/216,283

4
as to overlap the contacted piece in a plane
perpendicular to an axial direction of the insertion-
side part of the shaft when the pair of divided sun
visor bodies are joined to each other, wherein the
auxiliary contacted piece is close to or in contact
with the contacted piece when the part[s] of [the]
divided sun visor bodies are joined to each other.
Ans. 6.
The Examiner finds that Calabro “teaches the use of a coming-off preventing
contacting piece (12B) formed so as to extendingly project in the radial
direction of the shaft throughout the entire periphery of an insertion-side part
of the shaft. Id. The Examiner further finds that Mills “teaches two internal
walls (70, 74, and 72, 76) that face one another so as to overlap when the
two bodies are joined to each other. Id. (citing Fig. 3).
Appellant argues that “Mills do[es] not have any structural features
corresponding to the first receiving part and the second receiving part of the
invention recited in claim 1.” Br. 9. Appellant is correct; however, this is
not indicative of error as the rejection does not rely upon Mills to teach the
first receiving part and the second receiving part. See Ans. 4. The rejection,
as articulated by the Examiner, cites Wieczorek for these features. Id.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Wieczorek discloses “a first shaft
receiving part (31) for receiving the insertion-side part of the shaft” and “a
second shaft receiving part for receiving the insertion-side part of the shaft.”
Ans. 4. Appellant has not apprised us of error in the Examiner’s findings
with respect to Wieczorek. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is not
persuasive.
Appellant argues that, “a person attempting to combine the stability
enhancing members 70, 72, 74, and 76 of Mills with the visor 10 of
Appeal 2011-011154
Application 12/216,283

5
Wieczorek would presumably be most inclined to insert them in a location
of the visor 10 corresponding to their location in the sun visor 10 of Mills.”
Br. 10. In response to this argument, the Examiner notes that “Mills [] is
merely being used to teach that it would have been obvious to overlap the
wall portions of Wieczorek [], since Mills [] states that the overlapping wall
portions (70, 74, 72, 76) are alignment and stability enhancing members.”
Ans. 7 (citing Mills, col. 4, ll. 20-28) (emphasis added). We agree.
Appellant’s argument is not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the
Examiner. The Examiner has provided reasons with rational underpinning
explaining why a person of ordinary skill in the art considering the teachings
of Wieczorek and Mills would modify Wieczorek’s existing walls to overlap
thus increasing their alignment and stability in accordance with Mill’s
teachings. See Ans. 6. Appellant has not provided evidence or persuasive
argument in support of the contention that the Examiner’s analysis is
incorrect. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is not convincing.
Appellant argues that modification of Wieczorek in view of Mills
would not result in the claimed feature that “the
contacted piece and the auxiliary contacted piece
are formed such that a portion of the first receiving
part faces a portion of the second receiving part so
as to overlap the portion of the second receiving
part in a plane perpendicular to an axial direction
of the insertion-side part of the shaft when the pair
of divided sun visor bodies are joined to each other
and the first and second shaft receiving parts
receive the insertion-side part of the shaft.”
Br. 11.
Appellant’s argument is not well taken, as it is not responsive to the
rejection as articulated by the Examiner. The Examiner determines that
Appeal 2011-011154
Application 12/216,283

6
overlapping Wieczorek’s wall portions near left reference numeral 31 in
figure 1, as taught by Mills, would result in the contacted piece and the
auxiliary contacted piece being formed such that a portion of the first
receiving part faces a portion of the second receiving part in an axial
direction of the insertion-side part of the shaft so as to overlap the portion of
the second receiving part in a plane perpendicular to the axial direction when
the pair of divided sun visor bodies are joined to each other and the first and
second shaft receiving parts receive the insertion-side part of the shaft as
required by claim 1. See Ans. 8. Appellant has not provided convincing
arguments or apprised us of error in the Examiner’s determination.
Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
Appellant argues, “the Examiner’s proposed reasons for combining
the references provide no motivation for such a specific configuration.”
Br. 11. This argument is foreclosed by KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398 (2007), in which the Court rejected the rigid requirement of a
teaching or suggestion or motivation to combine known elements in order to
show obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415. The Court noted that an
obviousness 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.” Id. at 418.
Appellant argues that “the configuration of claim 1 yields unexpected
results.” Br. 11. In support of this contention, Appellant states “[a]s Fig. 8
illustrates, due to the ‘overlap’ limitations as claimed in claim 1, the hole
formed in side view by the shaft receiving parts 7b and l0a is preserved even
as the contacted piece 7 and auxiliary contacted piece 10 begin to come
Appeal 2011-011154
Application 12/216,283

7
apart.” Br. 12. However, Appellant has provided no evidence that during
initial separation overlapping elements preserving some of the
characteristics of their overlapped configuration is “unexpected.”
Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is unconvincing.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 and claims 2 and 4-7 which fall therewith.

DECISION

The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2 and 4-7 are AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. §1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

Klh