Ex Parte Preisler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 29, 2018

14264598 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/264,598 04/29/2014
22045 7590 05/31/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
1000 TOWN CENTER
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Darius J. Preisler
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.
GIPH 0180 PUS 1048
EXAMINER
ROJAS CADIMA, OMAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2018 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
kdilucia@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DARIUS J. PREISLER and CHRISTOPHER A. HEIKKILA
Appeal2017-005661
Application 14/264,598
Technology Center 2800
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-005661
Application 14/264,598
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the final rejection of
claims 1--4, 8-12, 14, and 16-20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellant's invention is directed to vehicle trim parts and, in
particular, to such parts which are configured to form a light pattern at the
front of the parts (Spec. Jr 1; claim 1 ).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A vehicle trim part formed of a molded laminate
having a decorative finish, the molded part comprising:
a polymeric substrate;
a decorative layer overlying the polymeric substrate; and
a light-transmissive, protective layer overlying and
protecting the decorative layer, the protective layer including a
front surface and a rear surface having a surface portion with a
translucent surface finish to conceal illumination apparatus
rearward of the part, the decorative layer having an opening
extending from a rear surface of the decorative layer to a front
surface of the decorative layer and aligned with the translucent
surface finish, wherein both a cross section of the opening at
the front surface of the decorative layer and the translucent
surface finish are sized and shaped to form a light pattern which
is visible at the front of the part when artificial lighting
illuminates the translucent surface finish from the rear of the
part.
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l)
as unpatentable over Bharat (GB 2492100 A pub. Dec. 26, 2012).
1 Appellant is Applicant, Global IP Holdings, LLC, which according to the
Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2
Appeal2017-005661
Application 14/264,598
2. Claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bharat.
3. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bharat
in view of Selby (US 2009/0129050 Al pub. May 21, 2009).
4. Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Bharat in view of Judge (US 2010/0186214 Al pub. July 29,
2010).
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
Rejections (1) and (2)
Regarding rejection (1 ), Appellant relies on the same arguments
regarding claims 1 and 18 (App. Br. 16-20). Appellant relies on these
arguments with regard to rejection (2) (App. Br. 20-21 ). Accordingly,
rejections (1) and (2) will stand or fall with our analysis of claim 1.
We have fully considered all of Appellant's arguments contained in
the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief. We find that the preponderance of the
evidence favors the Examiner's anticipation finding and obviousness
conclusion. We agree with the Examiner's analysis and response to
arguments provided on pages 5 to 6 of the Final Action and on pages 3 to 7
of the Answer regarding Bharat. We add the following for emphasis.
Appellant argues that Bharat fails to teach a vehicle trim part made of
a "molded laminate" as recited in the preamble of claim 1 (App. Br. 16-17).
Appellant contends that the Examiner's interpretation of "molded laminate"
as including Bharat's spray coated lacquer structure is not reasonable when
read in light of the Specification (App. Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 5). Appellant
contends that a spray coated lacquer finish does not constitute a molded
laminate structure which should be construed as including the structure
3
Appeal2017-005661
Application 14/264,598
shown in Appellant's Figure 5 (App. Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 5). Appellant
contends that the Examiner's construction requires that the phrase "molded
laminate" be read as two separate terms "molded" and "laminate" and the
Examiner's construction does not comport with the description provided in
the Specification (Reply Br. 5---6).
The Examiner finds that the claims do not require that any of the
layers forming the vehicle trim be molded before or after the layers have
been assembled into a laminate (Ans. 7). The Examiner finds that Bharat
forms layers separately by molding the substrate and decorative layers and
then assembles them into a laminate (Ans. 3--4; Final Act. 17-18). The
Examiner finds that Bharat's use of liquid lacquer to form a coating on the
outside of the decorative layer and substrate constitutes a molded layer
because the liquid conforms to the shape of the surface (Ans. 4).
Although Appellant argues that the phrase "molded laminate" as read
in light of Figure 5 of the Specification requires that the laminate be molded
in a unitary molding operation (i.e., all layers of the laminate are molded at
the same time in the mold), the Specification further discloses:
As required, detailed embodiments of the present
invention are disclosed herein; however, it is to be understood
that the disclosed embodiments are merely exemplary of the
invention that may be embodied in various and alternative
forms. The figures are not necessarily to scale; some features
may be exaggerated or minimized to show details of particular
components. Therefore, specific structural and functional
details disclosed herein are not to be interpreted as limiting,
but merely as a representative basis for teaching one skilled in
the art to variously employ the present invention.
(Spec. i-f 40; emphasis added).
4
Appeal2017-005661
Application 14/264,598
The Specification further discloses:
While exemplary embodiments are described above, it is
not intended that these embodiments describe all possible forms
of the invention. Rather, the words used in the specification are
words of description rather than limitation, and it is understood
that various changes may be made without departing from the
spirit and scope of the invention.
(Spec. if 58).
In other words, the claims are not limited solely to the embodiment
described in Figure 5 as argued by Appellant. Rather, the claims include
other methods of forming a "molded laminate."
The Examiner reasonably finds that Bharat's molding of the substrate
320 and the trim element 310 before assembling as a laminate would satisfy
forming a molded laminate. Moreover, spraying of the lacquer in layers to
form the layer 330 forms a molded layer on the substrate-trim element
laminate. In short, there is no requirement in the claims that the laminate be
molded as a unitary structure. Appellant has not shown that there would
have been a structural distinction between Bharat's laminate formed by
molding the various layers separately before assembling as a laminate and
Appellant's Figure 5 embodiment that includes a unitary molding of a
laminate. In any event, the properly construed claim language does not
exclude Bharat's "molded laminate."
Appellant argues that the claims require that the translucent surface
finish on the underside of the protective layer is aligned with the openings in
the substrate 40 and the decorative layer 50 so that the translucent layer
functions to "conceal illumination apparatus rearward of the part" (App. Br.
18). Appellant argues that the translucent surface, its positional relationship
5
Appeal2017-005661
Application 14/264,598
to the openings that pass light, and its functionality, are not taught by Bharat
(App. Br. 18).
Bharat teaches to form a clear, lacquer layer 330 over the trim element
310 and substrate 320 wherein an aperture 312 is formed through the
substrate 320 and trim element 310 (Bharat 9: 10-17). Bharat teaches that a
barrier layer 640 may be placed on the lacquer layer 630 so as to cover the
aperture and permit light to escape only around the edges of the barrier layer
(Bharat 11 :34--36; 12: 1---6). Bharat also teaches that the barrier layer maybe
translucent (Bharat 12:4---6).
Based upon Bharat's disclosures, we find that Bharat's barrier
layer/lacquer layer assembly would have permitted light to pass through it
(i.e., translucent) but also have obscured viewing the light source positioned
behind the layer. Bharat teaches that the barrier layer may permit only light
to pass around the edges of the barrier layer 640 which is placed over top the
lacquer layer formed over the aperture. The barrier layer/lacquer layer
would cover the aperture thereby obscuring the light source underneath the
substrate and trim layer but also permitting light to exit through the aperture
(i.e., translucent) as found by the Examiner (Ans. 3).
Appellant argues that Bharat's layer that partially blocks light should
not be considered translucent (Reply Br. 9). Citing Merriam-Webster's
Dictionary, Appellant contends that translucent means that an element
transmits and diffuses (i.e., scatters) light so that objects beyond cannot be
seen clearly (Reply Br. 9). However, even considering Appellant's
definition of translucent, Bharat teaches that the barrier film that overlies the
lacquer layer and the aperture may be "translucent" (Bharat 12:4--6). Bharat
teaches the disputed limitation.
6
Appeal2017-005661
Application 14/264,598
Appellant argues that the Examiner erroneously finds that Bharat's
layers 310, 320, and 330 are shaped by applied pressure (App. Br. 19).
Appellant contends that layer 330 is spray applied lacquer and does not have
pressure applied to the layer. Id. Appellant contends that wooden shell trim
element 310 is not formed as part of a molded laminate, but rather is formed
separately and then adhered to other layers. Id. Appellant contends that the
Examiner equates the sink void formed in the lacquer layer above the
aperture with the light-transmissive, protective layer (App. Br. 19).
Appellant argues that this finding is erroneous because a void is an empty
space which cannot be a positive structure. Id.
To the extent that Appellant's arguments are directed to the same
argument that Bharat does not teach a molded laminate, we find that
argument unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed above. Appellant's
argument regarding Bharat's layers 310, 320, and 330 being shaped by
applied pressure is not persuasive. The Examiner finds that layer 310 may
be shaped by applied pressure and the layers 320 and 330 may be conjoined
with the layer 310 (i.e., the layers are adhered together after some pressure is
applied for some period of time). Even if the lacquer layer is sprayed onto
the surface of the substrate 320 and trim layer 310, we note that claim 1 does
not require any pressure be applied to the layers. Thus, Appellant argues
limitations not appearing in the claims. Rather, the Examiner's finding that
some of the layers are formed by applied pressure and then assembled to
form a laminate are directed to the same issues discussed above regarding
whether Bharat teaches a molded laminate. We agree with the Examiner
that the broadest reasonable interpretation of molded laminate consistent
7
Appeal2017-005661
Application 14/264,598
with the Specification includes Bharat's laminate structure formed from
molded pieces.
Appellant's arguments regarding the Examiner's reliance on Bharat's
sink void as corresponding to the translucent surface are based on an
apparent misreading of the Examiner's rejection. The Examiner relies on
the sink in Bharat's layer 330 as an indication of location of where the
translucent layer 330 overlies aperture 312 (Final Act. 7). In other words,
the void that constitutes the sink is not the structural feature, but the dip in
the layer 330 that forms a sink gives an indication of where the layer is
positioned over the aperture. Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner's§ 103 rejections (1) and (2).
REJECTION (3): Claim 2
Appellant argues that Selby fails to teach that layers 50 and 52 are
translucent layers (App. Br. 21 ). Appellant contends that the "translucent"
limitation requires that the element diffuses or scatters light so that objects
beyond it cannot be seen clearly (Reply Br. 9). Appellant contends that
Selby's colored layer does not satisfy that definition of translucent (Reply
Br. 8-9).
The Examiner finds that Selby teaches that the light pattern is visible
from the front of the part when natural light illuminates the translucent
surface finish 52 from the front of the part (Final Act. 15).
Although Appellant contends that the term translucent requires that
the element scatter light so as to hide what is behind the element,
Appellant's citation to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines translucent as
permitting the passage of light (Reply Br. 9). In other words, a translucent
8
Appeal2017-005661
Application 14/264,598
element permits the passage of light but does not necessarily allow one to
see through the element (i.e., it is not necessarily transparent).
Bharat teaches that a barrier medium may be placed over the lacquer
layer (Bharat 11 :34--36; 12: 1---6). Bharat also teaches that the barrier layer
may be translucent (Bharat 12:4---6). The Examiner's rejection is based upon
incorporating the translucent surface finish 52 as taught by Selby into the
teachings of Bharat in order to make the vehicle trim part more appealing to
the user (Final Act. 15). Therefore, the modification would have entailed
using Selby's surface finish in Bharat's layer 310, wherein the layer 310
may be covered by a barrier layer that is translucent according to Bharat. In
other words, the combined teachings of Selby and Bharat would have
suggested using a translucent surface layer that also provides a reflective
property when illuminated by natural light.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner's§ 103 rejection over Bharat
in view of Selby.
REJECTION (4): Claims 12 and 14
With regard to claim 12, Appellant argues that Judge does not teach
that polymer material 180 is a protective layer (App. Br. 21-22). Appellant
contends that Judge's primary structure 161 provides the protective function,
not the polymer material 180 (App. Br. 22). With regard to claim 14,
Appellant argues that Judge does not teach that the surface portion of the
rear surface of the protective layer is etched or blasted with a blasting
material to form the translucent surface finish (App. Br. 22).
The Examiner finds that primary structure 161 has an opening in it
that exposes the polymer material 180 (Ans. 10). The Examiner finds the
polymer material 180 serves as a protecting layer because it covers the
9
Appeal2017-005661
Application 14/264,598
underlying material and thereby protects it. Id. Appellant does not respond
to this finding of the Examiner (Reply Br. 11-12).
Regarding claim 14, the Examiner finds that Judge teaches laser
etching the lower surface of polymer material 180 (Ans. 11; Judge i-f 56).
The Examiner finds that Judge teaches that etching may be used in lieu of
ink to decorate the polymer material (Ans. 11 ). The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to use Judge's laser etching to provide
unique and accurate designs (Ans. 11 ). Appellant does not respond
substantively to these findings (Reply Br. 12). Appellant merely rehashes
the arguments made in the principal Brief.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims 12
and 14 over Bharat in view of Judge.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is 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)(l ).
AFFIRMED
10