Ex Parte Schwenke et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 11, 2013

11616058 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ROBERT A. SCHWENKE and STEVEN M. GASWORTH
____________________

Appeal 2011-008834
Application 11/616,058
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before GAY ANN SPAHN, JOHN W. MORRISON, and
MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.

OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-008834
Application 11/616,058

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), of: claims 2-6, 15, 16, 21, 22, and 25 as
unpatentable over Ruelle (GB 2 091 527 A, pub. Jul. 28, 1982) and Leon
(US 4,755,659, iss. Jul. 5, 1988) (Ans. 4-7); and claims 11-14, 23, 24, and
27-29 as unpatentable over Ruelle, Leon, and Kochman (US 6,369,369 B2,
iss. Apr. 9, 2002) (Ans. 7-9).2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 2, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below:
2. A window defroster assembly for use in a
motor vehicle, the assembly comprising:
a transparent glazing panel having a
protective layer and a conductive ink in the form
of a window defroster grid integrally formed with
the transparent glazing panel, wherein the defroster
grid includes electrically conductive first and
second busbars and a plurality of electrically
conductive grid lines extending between and

1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Exatec, LLC. Br. 2.
2 Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s position that should claims 15
and 16 be found allowable, claims 21 and 22 will be objected to under 37
C.F.R. § 1.175 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. Br. 4-5; see also
Ans. 3-4. Any claim objection under 37 C.F.R. § 1.75 is a petitionable,
rather than an appealable, matter. 37 C.F.R. § 1.181(a)(1) (“Petition may be
taken to the Director: . . . . From any action or requirement of any examiner
in the ex parte prosecution of an application”); see also 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
(“An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected,
may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial
and Appeal Board” (emphasis added)). Thus, any claim objection will
properly be reviewed by way of petition to the Director rather than by appeal
to the Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.181(a)(1).
Appeal 2011-008834
Application 11/616,058

3
connected to the first and second busbars, wherein
the first and second busbars comprise a series of
substantially parallel busbar lines, the parallel
busbar lines extending the full length of the
busbars and forming ends thereof.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that Ruelle teaches, inter alia, “first and second
bus bars [that] comprise a series of substantially parallel bu[s]bar lines (2, 3,
8, 16, 17, 18, 24, 25), the parallel bu[s]bar lines extending the full length of
the bus bars and forming ends thereof as shown in Figures 1-4.” Ans. 5; see
also id. at 10-12 (finding that Ruelle’s busbars are similar to those of
Appellants’ Figure 2).
Appellants contend that at most Ruelle discloses “bus bar lines that
extend only a portion of the length of the bus bars,” rather than the full
length of the busbars. Br. 5-6 (citing Ruelle, figs. 2, 4). In particular,
Appellants explain that “[t]he bus bar lines 12 extend along a portion of the
bus bar 8 to a solid terminal portion 14.” Id. at 6; see also Ruelle 3, ll. 118-
121 (“The bus strip 8 illustrated is formed by a plurality of conductive lines
12 spaced apart by interstices 13 and joined together at their upper ends by a
solid terminal portion 14 . . . .”). Appellants further contend that Ruelle
discloses “a solid terminal portion 14 form[ing] the end of the bus bar,”
rather than “the parallel busbar lines forming the ends of the bus bar.” Br. 6.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Ruelle does not
disclose “first and second busbars compris[ing] a series of substantially
parallel busbar lines, the parallel busbar lines extending the full length of
the busbars and forming ends thereof” as recited in claim 2. Br., Claims
App’x. (emphasis added). The Examiner has not established by a
Appeal 2011-008834
Application 11/616,058

4
preponderance of the evidence that Ruelle discloses this limitation merely by
reference to Figures 1-4 of Ruelle. In particular, Ruelle’s Figures 1-4 depict
four different embodiments. Ruelle 3, ll. 52-63. With respect to Ruelle’s
first embodiment depicted in Figure 1, the Examiner pointed to bus strips 2
and 3 as constituting the series of parallel busbar lines of claim 2. Ans. 5.
However, Ruelle’s bus strips 2 and 3 are akin to the conventional busbars 12
shown in Appellants’ Prior Art Figure 1, and a person of ordinary skill in the
art would not consider Ruelle’s bus strips 2 and 3 to constitute a series of
substantially parallel busbar lines. Ruelle 3, ll. 64-80.
With respect to Ruelle’s second embodiment depicted in Figure 2, the
Examiner pointed to bus strip 8 as constituting the busbar lines. Ans. 5.
Ruelle’s bus strip 8 is formed by a plurality of conductive lines 12
terminating at a solid terminal portion 14. Ruelle 3, ll. 118-122. Thus,
while a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider the plurality of
conductive lines 12 to constitute the claimed busbar lines, the plurality of
conductive lines 12 do not satisfy the claim recitation of “extending the full
length of the busbars and forming ends thereof,” because the solid terminal
portion 14 forms the end of the bus strip 8, not the ends of the conductive
lines 12.
With respect to Ruelle’s third embodiment depicted in Figure 3, the
Examiner pointed to bus strips 16, 17, and 18 as constituting the busbar
lines. Ans. 5. For reasons similar to those discussed above in connection
with the first embodiment, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
consider Ruelle’s bus strips 16, 17, and 18 to constitute a series of
substantially parallel busbar lines. See Ruelle 4, ll. 13-41.
Appeal 2011-008834
Application 11/616,058

5
Finally, with respect to Ruelle’s fourth embodiment depicted in Figure
4, the Examiner pointed to bus lines 24 and 25 as constituting the claimed
busbar lines. Ans. 5. Bus lines 24 and 25 terminate in terminal portion 23
and together the bus lines 24 and 25 and the terminal portion 23 form a bus
strip 22. Ruelle 4, ll. 42-67. Thus, for reasons similar to those discussed
above in connection with the second embodiment, a person of ordinary skill
in the art would not consider bus lines 24 and 25 to satisfy the claim
recitation of “extending the full length of the busbars and forming ends
thereof,” because the terminal portion 23 forms the end of the bus strip 22,
not the ends of the bus lines 24 and 25.
Since the Examiner’s findings do not provide sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that is it more likely than not that Ruelle discloses “first and
second busbars compris[ing] a series of substantially parallel busbar lines,
the parallel busbar lines extending the full length of the busbars and forming
ends thereof,” the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is thus based on an
erroneous finding as to the scope and content of Ruelle.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have shown the Examiner erred
in concluding that the subject matter of independent claim 2 would have
been obvious from the combination of Ruelle and Leon, and we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claim 2, and claims 3-6, 15, 16, 21, 22,
and 25 which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ruelle and Leon.
Additionally, since the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11-14, 23, 24,
and 27-29 relies on the same erroneous findings as discussed supra and the
Examiner has not relied upon Kochman to teach “busbar lines extending the
full length of the busbars and forming ends thereof,” we likewise do not
Appeal 2011-008834
Application 11/616,058

6
sustain the rejection of claims 11-14, 23, 24, and 27-29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ruelle, Leon, and Kochman.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 2-6, 11-16, 21-25, and 27-29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are REVERSED.

REVERSED

mls