Ex Parte Takao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 18, 2018

14349889 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 18, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/349,889 04/04/2014 Yuki Takao 8989-000124-US-NP 8366
27572 7590 01/22/2018
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
EXAMINER
CUMAR, NATHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2018 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):
troymailroom @hdp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUKI TAKAO, KUNIAKI MIYAKE,
SHINYA NAKAOKA, and NORIYUKI SHINBO
Appeal 2017-0050201
Application 14/349,8892
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claim
1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Sept. 20,
2016) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Jan. 31, 2017), and the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 5, 2016) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,”
mailed Apr. 29, 2016).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is NOK Corporation.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-005020
Application 14/349,889
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, “[t]he present invention relates to a seal
structure according to a sealing technique. The seal structure according to
the present invention is used for sealing a section where three surfaces are
joined together, for example, in an electric equipment device and an engine.”
Spec. 1.
CLAIMS
Claim 1 is the only claim on appeal and recites:
1. A seal structure comprising:
a casing which is provided in its wall portion with a notch­
like grommet installation portion;
a grommet which is installed to said grommet installation
portion;
a cover which is put on said wall portion and the grommet;
and
a metal base plate gasket which is installed between said
wall portion and the grommet, and said cover,
wherein said grommet is provided with a seal projection at
least on a surface which faces to an inner surface of said grommet
installation portion,
wherein said seal projection seals between said wall
portion and the grommet by coming into close contact with the
inner surface of said grommet installation portion, and is
provided with a protruding portion generated by a protrusion of
a part of said seal projection toward said metal base plate gasket
in the case that the seal projection comes into close contact with
the inner surface of said grommet installation portion,
wherein said metal base plate gasket is provided with two
seal lines which are parallel to each other, the two seal lines being
provided on a surface that faces toward said wall portion and
continuously extend to face said grommet, and is further
2
Appeal 2017-005020
Application 14/349,889
provided with a groove-like concave portion between said two
seal lines,
wherein the protruding portion in said seal projection is
closely compressed within the groove-like concave portion in
said metal base plate gasket,
wherein said grommet installation portion is provided with
a chamfer portion at an edge of the inner surface, and
wherein said seal projection is enlarged little by little to
correspond to a shape of said chamfer portion.
Appeal Br. 10-11.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sawara3 in view of Takahashi.4
DISCUSSION
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner has not
shown that the art of record teaches or otherwise makes obvious a grommet
installation portion including a chamfer portion at an edge of the inner
surface, as required by claim 1. With respect to this limitation, the Examiner
indicates that Sawara includes a grommet installation portion with a chamfer
because Sawara’s grommet installation portion includes a groove. See Ans.
“Response to VII. Arguments”5 (defining chamfer as a furrow or groove).
In contrast, Appellants argue that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
chamfer is a symmetrical sloping surface at an edge or comer. Appeal Br. 7;
see also Reply Br. 5. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with
Appellants.
3 Sawara, JP 2006129545 A, pub. May 18, 2006.
4 Takahashi et al., US 2008/0246232 Al, pub. Oct. 9, 2008.
5 We note that the Answer does not include page numbers.
3
Appeal 2017-005020
Application 14/349,889
We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely
on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims “their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” and “in light of
the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the
art.” In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2004). Here, we first note that the plain language of the claim does not
appear to require any specialized definition of the term “chamfer.” With
respect to the definition of chamfer proffered by the Examiner, we agree
with Appellants that this appears to be a specialized meaning of the term. In
particular, as noted by Appellants, the full definition of chamfer in the
source cited by the Examiner is “A furrow or groove, as in a column.” See
The Free Dictionary at https://www.thefreedictionary.com/chamfer (last
visited on Jan. 16, 2018). And where we have found chamfer used in other
sources in the manner proffered by the Examiner, it is used in the context of
forming a groove or furrow in a column. See, e.g., Merriam-Webster at
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chamfer (defining chamfer as
a verb meaning “to cut a furrow in (something, such as a column)”) (last
visited on Jan. 16, 2018).
Further, where chamfer is defined as a noun, it appears to be primarily
defined consistent with Appellants’ proposed definition. See, e.g., id.
(defining chamfer as a noun meaning “a beveled edge”) (last visited on Jan.
16, 2018); see also The Free Dictionary at
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/chamfer (first defining chamfer as a
noun meaning “A flat surface made by cutting off the edge or comer of a
block of wood or other material) (last visited on Jan. 16, 2018);
Dictionary.com at http://www.dictionary.com/browse/chamfer (defining
4
Appeal 2017-005020
Application 14/349,889
chamfer as a noun meaning “a cut that is made in wood or some other
material, usually at a 45° angle to the adjacent principal faces”) (last visited
on Jan. 16, 2018); English Oxford Living Dictionaries at
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defmition/chamfer (defining chamfer as a
noun meaning “A symmetrical sloping surface at an edge or comer”) (last
visited on Jan. 16, 2018). Each of these definitions supports Appellants’
proposed definition as the plain and ordinary meaning of the term chamfer
and indicates that the Examiner’s proposed interpretation is a specialized
interpretation of the term.
Turning to the Specification, we find that the Specification is
consistent with Appellants’ proposed interpretation. Although the
Specification does not provide an express definition of chamfer, each
embodiment described as showing a chamfer refers to a symmetrical sloping
edge at a comer of the inner surface of the grommet installation portion. See
Spec. 16, 17, 19, 32-33, 41^12; Figs. 6A, 6B, 12A, 12B.
Based on the foregoing, we find that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claimed chamfer, consistent with the Specification,
requires a symmetrical sloping surface at an edge of the inner surface of the
grommet installation portion. Because the Examiner has not identified such
a chamfer in Sawara or the other art of record or otherwise shown that the
inclusion of such a chamfer would have been obvious, we are persuaded of
reversible error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the rejection.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 1.
REVERSED
5