Ex Parte REJ et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 201814151963 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/151,963 01/10/2014 86397 7590 11/02/2018 Ford Global Technology LLC c/o Joseph E. Root 1809 Jones Cove Rd. Clyde, NC 28721 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR RICH REJ 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. 83401705 2558 EXAMINER HONG, HENRY Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3723 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/02/2018 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): ip _ docket@qualipat.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICH REJ and KAREN SILER Appeal2018-002218 Application 14/151,963 Technology Center 3700 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant is the Applicant, Ford Global Technologies, LLC, which the Appeal Brief identifies as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2018-002218 Application 14/151,963 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter relates to "automatic transmission systems in vehicles, and more specifically, to devices for positioning and installing of automatic transmission shifters." Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the only independent claim. 1. A mechanism for locking a shifter of an automatic transmission in a drive position prior to assembly in an automotive vehicle having a shift lever carried in a shift gate mounted in a shifter core, the mechanism comprising: a locking aperture formed in the shift gate adjacent the drive position of the shift lever, the locking aperture extending across a travel path of the shifter; and a locking pin, including: an elongated portion, adapted to fit into the locking aperture; and a gripping portion adapted for facilitating manual extraction; wherein the locking pin is positioned to block the travel path of the shift lever, preventing movement from the drive position when the locking pin is inserted in the locking aperture. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). THE REJECTIONS The Examiner referenced a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, but no such rejection appears in the Final Office Action or is further explained, and we therefore do not consider any rejections under that statute on appeal. See Final Act. 2-3 (referring to "as best understood in view of the 112 rejections above" in anticipation rejections, with no § 112 rejections "above"). Appellant seeks review of the following rejections before us on appeal: 2 Appeal2018-002218 Application 14/151,963 1. Claims 1--4 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as anticipated by Hu. 2 2. Claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as anticipated by Takikawa. 3 3. Claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C § 103 as unpatentable over Takikawa. ANALYSIS Hu The Examiner found that Hu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, including finding that Ru's lock seat 3 discloses the claimed "locking pin" and Ru's fastening seat 33 and ratcheting teeth 42 disclose the claimed "elongated portion" of the "locking pin." Final Act. 2. The Examiner also found that "multiple elements could read on a pin and aperture" and that "any protrusion can read on" the claimed locking pin because all protrusions will have an elongated portion and gripping portion. Adv. Act. 2 (mailed June 1, 2016). Appellant argues that Hu does not disclose a locking aperture formed in a "shift gate," as that term is used in the specification, because Hu does not disclose a shift gate. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant also argues that Ru's 2 U.S. Patent No. 5,778,710, issued July 14, 1998 ("Hu"). 3 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2008/0034913 Al, published Feb. 14, 2008 ("Takikawa"). The rejection refers to claims 1, 2, and 4 as anticipated by Takikawa, but claim 4 depends from claim 3, and the Examimer rejected claim 3 under § 103 as obvoius over Takikawa. See Final Act. 3--4; Appeal Br. 14--15 (Claims App.). Because the Examiner did not find that Takikawa anticipates claim 3, the rejection of claim 4 should have been for obviousness under § 103, and we treat it in that manner in this Decision. Appellant does not address this discrepancy, or separately argue claim 3 or claim 4 from claim 1. 3 Appeal2018-002218 Application 14/151,963 fastening seat 33 does not correspond to the claimed locking pin because it does not extend into the shift gate and does not block the travel path of the shifter because it travels with the shifter. Id. at 8. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner's findings do not adequately establish that Hu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. More specifically, non-specific references with respect to Ru's disclosure of the claimed aperture and locking pin fail to inform us of the basis for the Examiner's findings. The specific structures relied on to disclose these limitations are important, because claim 1 requires these and other parts of the claimed structure to interact in a specific manner-i.e., not any aperture and pin will meet the claim requirements and remain capable of operating in the claimed manner. Id. at 14 ( Claims App.) ( claim 1 requiring "a locking aperture ... adjacent the drive position ... extending across a travel path of the shifter; and a locking pin, including: an elongated portion, adapted to fit into the locking aperture ... wherein the locking pin ... prevent[ s] movement ... when the locking pin is inserted in the locking aperture"). As to the locking aperture, the finding refers to Ru's "aperture for lock seat 3" but does not specify which potential aperture in lock seat 3 corresponds to the claimed aperture. See Final Act. 2. As to the locking pin, the finding refers to the same Hu structure, "3," without specifying which portion of lock seat 3 discloses the locking pin. Id. The Examiner's position that virtually any opening can meet the "aperture" requirement and any protrusion can meet the "pin" requirement adds to the confusion. See Adv. Act. 2. In addition, the finding that fastening seat 33 and ratcheting teeth 42 disclose the claimed "elongated portion" of the "locking pin" lacks sufficient explanation and support. Final Act. 2. Those structures arguably define a 4 Appeal2018-002218 Application 14/151,963 portion of a potential opening or aperture on lock seat 3, but by defining an aperture they do not appear to "fit into the locking aperture" as the Examiner found. Id. The Answer does not clear up the confusion, as it refers to Ru's disclosure of the "locking aperture" and "locking pin" without referring to any specific structure in Hu, by reference number, figure, or further explanation. See Ans. 5. Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or claims 2--4 that depend from claim 1, as anticipated by Hu. Takikawa The Examiner found that Takikawa discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, and more specifically found that Takikawa's position hole 8 discloses the claimed "locking aperture" and position pin 24 discloses the claimed "locking pin." Final Act. 3. The Examiner also found that Takikawa's description of a different intended use does not establish that it fails to disclose a structure capable of performing the claimed function. Adv. Act. 2. Appellant argues that Takikawa discloses position pin 24 between upper rod 20 and lower rod 21, and that a button on the shifter engages those rods with the lever body. Appeal Br. 9-10. Appellant further argues that "Takikawa does not provide a description of how the shift mechanism operates" but submits that "position pin 24 is not stationary but rather travels with the lever." Id. at 11-12. According to Appellant, this position finds support in the Background of Takikawa, which discloses a position pin 105 that travels with the lever in a prior art version of a shifter/pin arrangement. Id. at 12 (citing Takikawa ,r,r 6-7). Appellant argues that Takikawa cannot 5 Appeal2018-002218 Application 14/151,963 disclose a pin that blocks lever movement if it cannot move independently of the lever. Id. In the Answer, the Examiner found that Takikawa's locking pin 24 blocks the travel path of the shift lever, relying on "regulators 9 [that] hold [the] pin in position." Ans. 5. The Examiner agrees with Appellant that position pin 24 "travels with the shift lever," but found that even though this is so, "when the pin is held in position, the shift leve[ r] is also held in position," and the claim does not prevent the locking pin from traveling with the shift lever. Id. Appellant has not apprised us of error in the Examiner's findings regarding the anticipation of claim 1 by Takikawa. We agree with Appellant that both Takikawa's preferred embodiment that employs position pin 24, and the prior art embodiment Takikawa describes in the Background, disclose position pins that travel with the shifter. See Appeal Br. 12 ( citing Takikawa ,r 6). The position pins also prevent movement of the shifter when the button on the shifter is not depressed by a user. See Takikawa ,r 6 ("[W]hen the knob button (not shown) provided on the upper end of the lever main unit 102 is pressed, ... the position pin 105 is moved downwardly ... against a spring force."). We agree with the Examiner that as long as Takikawa discloses a pin capable of being "positioned to block the travel path of the shift lever" and therefore "preventing movement" of the shift lever as claimed, it does not matter that in other configurations, with the button depressed, the pin does not prevent the shifter from moving and 6 Appeal2018-002218 Application 14/151,963 moves with the shifter. See Ans. 5. 4 That is, the language of claim 1 does not preclude those other configurations. Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Takikawa. Appellant does not raise any additional arguments with respect to the anticipation of claim 2 by Takikawa, or the obviousness of claims 3 and 4 over Takikawa, and we therefore sustain the rejections of those claims for the same reason as discussed above with respect to claim 1. DECISION We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1--4 as anticipated by Hu. We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 2 as anticipated by Takikawa and claims 3 and 4 as unpatentable over Takikawa under 35 U.S.C. § 103. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 4 Appellant does not address this point or the related findings made in the Answer, and has not apprised us of error in those findings. 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation