Ex Parte Pearson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

13329603 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/329,603 12/19/2011
28415 7590 08/02/2016
PRICE HENEVELD LLP
FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
695 KENMOOR S.E.
P. 0. BOX 2567
GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49501-2567
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Craig Pearson
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.
83201098 2561
EXAMINER
DAZ, MUHAMMAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2016 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):
ptomail@priceheneveld.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CRAIG PEARSON and
ROBERT ANTHONY BRANCALEONE
Appeal2014-006825
Application 13/329,603
Technology Center 3600
Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
MARK A. GEIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Appeal2014-006825
Application 13/329,603
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an automotive side view mirror attachment
structure. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An internal mirror-mounting system for a vehicle door,
compnsmg:
a mirror-mounting reinforcement member operably
coupled to an inner panel of the vehicle door and having a
depression with reinforcement apertures disposed thereon
providing a first loading surface;
a belt reinforcement member operably coupled to the
mirror-mounting reinforcement member having a mounting
aperture aligned with the reinforcement apertures; and
a reinforcement flange disposed about a rim of the
mounting aperture providing a second loading surface.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Dickenson
Nagamoto
Brancaleone
US 5,889,624 Mar. 30, 1999
US 6,664,470 B2 Dec. 16, 2003
US 2009/0225459 Al Sept. 10, 2009
REJECTIONS
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
unpatentable over (U.S. Pat. No. 5889624) to Dickenson.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being unpatentable
over Brancaleone.
Claims 2-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brancaleone.
2
Appeal2014-006825
Application 13/329,603
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Brancaleone and Nagamoto.
OPINION
Regarding the rejection of claim 8 and those claims depending
therefrom, the Examiner reasons:
a belt reinforcement member can be interpreted as any bracket or
member that is either capable of reinforcing a belt or a member
that is flexible or resilient to some extent; as noted by the
Appellant the belt reinforcement member/seal 28 is a resilient
member (Dickenson: Column 2, line 48).
Ans. 3.
We are unable to discern how the second potential meaning of "belt
reinforcement member" identified and employed by the Examiner, "a
member that is flexible or resilient to some extent," takes into account the
word "reinforcement." All words in a claim must be considered in judging
the obviousness of the claimed subject matter. See In re vVilson, 424 F.2d
1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). It is not apparent why the Examiner determines
Dickenson's seal 28 reinforces anything. We therefore agree with
Appellants that the Examiner's rejection of claim 8 and those claims
depending therefrom is premised on an unreasonably broad claim
construction. App. Br. 9.
Turning to claim 1 and its dependents, the Examiner states that "any
element can be considered as inner or outer relative to any other element of
the invention." Ans. 9. The Examiner's reasoning is inconsistent with the
applicable laws of claim construction. "Although the PTO must give claims
their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent
with the one that those skilled in the art would reach." In re Cortright, 165
3
Appeal2014-006825
Application 13/329,603
F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999). "Prior art references may be 'indicative
of what all those skilled in the art generally believe a certain term means ...
[and] can often help to demonstrate how a disputed term is used by those
skilled in the art.' Accordingly, the PTO's interpretation of claim terms
should not be so broad that it conflicts with the meaning given to identical
terms in other patents from analogous art." Id. (Citations omitted).
Accordingly, there is no basis to sustain the Examiner's rejections on the
premise that Brancaleone's door's outer panel 10 is reasonably regarded as
the recited "inner panel of the vehicle door." App. Br. 13; see also Ans. 9
the Examiner's annotated version of Figure 2 of Brancaleone.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections are reversed.
REVERSED
4