Ex Parte Sawai

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 19, 2010

10669644 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 19, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MASAYOSHI SAWAI
____________________

Appeal 2009-0055381
Application 10/669,644
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: January 19, 2010
____________________

Before LEE E. BARRETT, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JAMES R. HUGHES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Filed September 25, 2003. The real party in interest is Yazaki Corporation.
Appellant presented oral arguments on this case in a hearing held on January
14, 2010.
Appeal 2009-005538
Application 10/669,644

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 8. (App. Br. 4.) We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008).
We affirm.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a method and apparatus for designing an optimal
wiring structure for use in a vehicle such that wire harness associated
therewith can withstand a specified vibration. (Spec. 1, ll. 8-13.) As shown
in Figures 1 and 3B of Appellant’s Drawings, the wiring structure includes a
plurality of elastic line streak members, each having a circular section (A)
and a plurality of beam elements (c1, c2, cn) linearly coupled to each other.
(Spec. 9, ll. 13-23, and 13, ll. 2-10.) In order to achieve the optimal design
for the wiring structure, the invention utilizes characteristics of each beam
element, such as length, sectional area, elasticity, inertia, density of the beam
to calculate the predicted shape of the wiring structure, as well as the natural
frequency that can withstand the specified vibration. (Spec. 13, 12-23, and
30, ll. 10-25.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. A method of assisting a wiring design of a wiring
structure comprising the steps of:
regarding the wiring structure constituted by a plurality
of pieces of line streak members as an elastic body having a
circular section, the elastic body having a plurality of beam
elements coupled with each other, a linearity of the plurality of
beam elements being maintained;
Appeal 2009-005538
Application 10/669,644

3
applying information concerning a shape characteristic, a
material characteristic and a constraining condition of the
wiring structure as a predetermined condition to a finite element
method;
calculating a predicted shape of a displaced wiring
structure such that the predetermined condition is satisfied;
further calculating a characteristic value with respect to
vibration for the calculated predicted shape; and
outputting the calculated predicted shape and the
calculated characteristic value.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Kodama 9,961,683 B2 Nov. 1, 2005

R. Neul, et al., A Modeling Approach to Include
Mechanical Microsystem Components into the System
Simulation, 1998 Proceedings of Design, Automation and Test
in Europe 510 (hereinafter “Neul”).

S. T. Peterson et al., Application of Dynamic System
Identification to Timber Beams, 2001 J. Structural Engineering 418
(hereinafter “Peterson”).

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
Claims 1 through 8 stand rejected as being unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Kodama, Neul and Peterson.
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends that Kodama, Neul and Peterson are not properly
combined, and that the proffered combination does not teach or suggest (1)
maintaining linearity between a plurality of beam elements, (2) calculating
Appeal 2009-005538
Application 10/669,644

4
the predicted shape of the beam using information pertaining to the shape
characteristic, material characteristic and constraining condition and (3)
calculating a characteristic value with respect to vibration for the predicted
shape, as recited in independent claim 1. (App. Br. 11-14.) According to
Appellant, Neul’s disclosure of a modeling approach that uses linear systems
cannot be properly combined with Kodama’s disclosure of calculating the
flexural rigidity of a wire harness to produce a plurality of beam elements
between which linearity is maintained. (Id., Reply Br. 4-5.)
Examiner’s Findings
The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Neul and Kodama
assume a linear relationship between a plurality of beam elements coupled to
one another. (Ans. 10.) Further, the Examiner concludes:
Because Kodama teaches inputting shape characteristics and
constraining conditions into a process to calculate the shape of a
wiring structure, and since Neul and Peterson are both directed to
modeling a mechanical structure with beam elements wherein material
characteristics determine the properties of the beam elements, the
Examiner concludes that the combinations of the teachings of
Kodama, Neul and Peterson teach or suggest that predetermined
characteristics of shape characteristics, material characteristics, and
constraining conditions must be satisfied in calculating the shape of a
wiring structure, wherein the wiring structure is modeled as a plurality
of beam elements.

(Id. at 11.)

II. ISSUE
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Kodama,
Neul, and Peterson are properly combined to teach or suggest (1)
maintaining linearity between a plurality of beam elements, (2) calculating
Appeal 2009-005538
Application 10/669,644

5
the predicted shape of the beam using information pertaining to the shape
characteristic, material characteristic and a constraining condition and (3)
calculating a characteristic value with respect to vibration for the predicted
shape of the beam, as recited in independent claim 1?

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Kodama
1. Kodama discloses a method and system for designing a wiring
structure by calculating the flexural rigidity and the shape of a target wire
harness having a plurality of branches. (Abst., Figs. 1 and 8.)
2. As shown in Figure 5, for each wire branch, Kodama discloses
a beam element of the wire structure having circular section and an elastic
body. (Col. 7, ll. 24-33.) Upon an operator entering beam element
characteristics such as curvature, thickness, tangential direction, and length
of the wire harness, the disclosed system calculates the flexural rigidity (E)
and the shape of the wire harness. (Col. 8, ll. 15-60, col. 10, ll. 25-58.)
Neul
3. Neul discloses a beam modeling approach wherein a
mechanical structure is split into finite beam elements, and a linear system is
used to couple the beam elements to one another. (P. 511, Fig. 2 and p. 514,
last para. - p. 515, 1st para.) The disclosed approach calculates the behavior
of each beam element using characteristics such as density, and elasticity.
(P. 512, 2nd para.)
Appeal 2009-005538
Application 10/669,644

6
4. Neul discloses calculating natural frequencies with reference to
a desired vibration for each beam element. (P. 515, 2nd para.)
Peterson
5. Peterson discloses a finite element model for dynamically
identifying timber beams. (Abst.) In particular, Peterson discloses
evaluating the frequency response function (FRF) for each measurement
point to obtain the natural frequencies of vibration and the corresponding
mode shapes thereof to subsequently calculate the experimental and
reconstructed mode shape associated therewith. (P. 419, 422.)

IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness
“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection [under
§ 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by
rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness.” In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior
art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.”

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized “the need for caution in
granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior
art,” and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to
be obvious. Id. at 415 (citation omitted). The Court reaffirmed principles
based on its precedent that “[t]he combination of familiar elements
Appeal 2009-005538
Application 10/669,644

7
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416. The operative question in this
“functional approach” is thus “whether the improvement is more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions.” Id. at 415, 417.
In identifying a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary
skill in the relevant field to combine the prior art teachings, the Examiner
must show “‘some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” Id. at 418 (quoting In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).

V. CLAIM GROUPING
Appellant argues the patentability of the claims on appeal as a group
by arguing the rejection of claim 1. In accordance with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we will consider the claims on appeal as standing and
falling with representative claim 1.

VI. ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 requires, in relevant part, (1) maintaining
linearity between a plurality of beam elements, (2) calculating the predicted
shape of the beam using information pertaining to the shape characteristic,
material characteristic and a constraining condition and (3) calculating a
characteristic value with respect to vibration for the predicted shape of the
beam.
As set forth in the Findings of Facts section, Kodama discloses a
system for designing a wire harness including a beam element having a
Appeal 2009-005538
Application 10/669,644

8
circular section and an elastic body. (FF. 2.) Kodama further discloses
using the curvature, length, and thickness of the beam to thereby calculate
the shape and the flexural rigidity therefor. (FF. 1-2.) Next, Neul discloses
a modeling structure that splits a mechanical structure into finite beam
elements that are subsequently added to one another in a linear system. (FF.
3.) Neul also discloses using the density and elasticity of each beam element
to calculate its behavior, as well as its frequency with respect to vibration.
(FF. 3-4.) Additionally, Peterson discloses a modeling approach that uses
the natural frequencies of vibration for timber beams to thereby calculate the
expected shape of the beam structure. (FF. 5.)
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the proffered combination
teaches the disputed limitations. In particular, we find that Neul’s disclosure
teaches or suggests using a linear system to couple beam elements that were
split from a mechanical structure. We thus find that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have readily appreciated that the combination of Neul and
Kodama would have predictably resulted in a designing wire harness by
coupling a plurality of beam elements of the wire in a linear fashion.
Similarly, we find that Neul’s disclosure of using the density and elasticity
characteristics of a beam element, taken in combination with Kodama’s
disclosure of using the thickness, curvature and length of the beam, would
predictably result in using the cited beam characteristics to calculate the
predicted shape of the wiring structure. Further, we find that Peterson’s
disclosure of calculating the expected shape of the beam reinforces the
disclosures of the Kodama-Neul combination as it pertains to calculating the
predicted shape of the wire harness. Additionally, we find that Peterson’s
system of using natural frequencies of vibration for each beam element
Appeal 2009-005538
Application 10/669,644

9
reinforces Kodama-Neul combination as it pertains to using the beam
characteristics to determine its frequency with respect to vibration. We
consequently find that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have readily
recognized that the combination of Kodama, Neul and Peterson discloses
known elements that perform their ordinary functions to predictably result in
a modeling system that couples beam elements to one another in a linear
fashion, and further uses the characteristics of the coupled beam elements to
determine the shape of a wiring structure, as well as the natural frequency
that corresponds to a desired vibration. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-419.
Therefore, Appellant’s argument that there is insufficient rationale to
combine the references is not persuasive.
It follows that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
concluding that the combination of Kodama, Neul and Peterson renders
claim 1 unpatentable. As claims 2-8 were argued based on the argument set
forth with respect to claim 1, we find that the Appellant has not shown the
Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Kodama, Neul and
Peterson renders claims 2-8 unpatentable.

VII. CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellant has not established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1 through 8 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

VIII. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 8.

Appeal 2009-005538
Application 10/669,644

10
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

nhl

SUGHRUE-265550
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. NW
WASHINGTON DC 20037-3213