Ex Parte Terashima et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2017

13319931 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2017)

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.
13/319,931 11/10/2011 Yasutsune Terashima NS-US105081 8102
22919 7590 02/02/2017
GLOBAL IP COUNSELORS, LLP
David Tarnoff
1233 20TH STREET, NW
Suite 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20036-2680
EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, ARUN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2017 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):
mailpto @ giplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YASUTSUNE TERASHIMA,
TAKESHI KAKIUCHI, and MASAHIRO ATAKA
Appeal 2015-006559
Application 13/319,931
Technology Center 2800
Before MARKNAGUMO, GEORGE C. BEST, and
MICHAEL G. MCMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1—6, 8—14, and 16—20 of
Application 13/319,931 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious and indicated
that claims 7 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
Final Act. (June 5, 2014). Appellants1 seek reversal of the rejection of
claims 1—6, 8—14, and 16—20 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
1 Nissan Motor Co. is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2015-006559
Application 13/319,931
BACKGROUND
The ’931 Application describes a vehicle charging port support
structure and arrangement for a vehicle that uses an electric motor as a
power source. Spec. 12. In particular, the charging port support member is
located on the front end portion of the vehicle. Id. Furthermore, the
charging support member includes an energy absorbing structure that, in a
front impact collision, deforms toward a support structure of the vehicle
front end and into an energy absorbing area that is forward of the support
structure. Id. ]f 8.
Claim 1—the only independent claim on appeal—is representative of
the ’931 Application’s claims and is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix in the Appeal Brief:
1. An impact energy absorbing vehicle charging port
support arrangement comprising:
a vehicle body including a vehicle front end portion;
a charging port support member supported on the vehicle front
end portion
with the charging port support member including an
energy absorbing structure that is configured and
arranged
to deform towards a support structure of the
vehicle front end portion and
into an energy absorbing area that is disposed
forward of the support structure of the vehicle
front end portion during a frontal impact; and
2
Appeal 2015-006559
Application 13/319,931
an electric charging port attached to the charging port support
member, with the electric charging port being configured to
receive an electric charging connector.
Appeal Br. 14 (some paragraphing and indentation added).
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1—4, 10-12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Kuki2 and Campbell.3
Final Act. 3.
2. Claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Kuki, Campbell,
and Czopek.4 Final Act. 5—6.
DISCUSSION
Appellants argue for patentability of all of the claims on appeal based
upon the limitations of claim 1. Appeal Br. 12. We, therefore, limit our
discussion to claim 1. Dependent claims 2—6, 8—14, and 16—20 will stand or
fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
Kuki describes a connecting system for charging the electric
automotive vehicle. Kuki col. 1,11. 7—9. In particular, Kuki’s connection
system inserts a primary coil into a receptacle located in the front bumper of
an automobile. See id. Figs. 1, 4. The receptacle contains a secondary coil
2 US 5,850,135, issued December 15, 1998.
3 US 2007/0046042 Al, published March 1, 2007.
4 US 2009/0160204 Al, published June 25, 2009.
3
Appeal 2015-006559
Application 13/319,931
that can be used to charge the vehicle’s battery by electromagnetic
induction. Id. at col. 9,1. 19-col. 10,1. 44.
Campbell describes an integrated upper fascia support member and
bumper energy absorber for an automobile. Campbell 1 5. Campbell’s
integrated member is attached to the vehicle sheet metal and to the structural
members of the vehicle. Id. 23—24; Fig. 2. As shown in Figures 2A and
2B, Campbell’s integrated member includes an energy absorbing structure
that is configured to deform toward the support structure and into an energy
absorbing area disposed forward of the support structure during a frontal
impact. Id. 127, Figs. 2, 2A, 2B; see also Figs. 3A, 3B.
As found by the Examiner, at the time of the invention, a person
having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Kuki’s
electric charging port with Campbell’s integrated upper fascia and bumper
because Campbell’s integrated member helps minimize vehicle damage in
the event of an untoward impact event. See Final Act. 4 (citing Campbell
17). Furthermore, Campbell’s integrated upper fascia support member and
bumper energy absorber provides additional advantages in terms of
achieving better fits between components, while controlling cost and
increasing production efficiency. Campbell 14.
In the alternative, at the time of the invention, a person having
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kuki’s
electric charging port in Campbell’s integrated member to avoid the
cumbersome process of having to manually connect a power supply
connector to the vehicle in order to charge the battery. See Kuki col. 1,11.
21—40.
Appellants argue that the rejection should be reversed because the
modification of Kuki to incorporate Campbell’s load isolator is not
4
Appeal 2015-006559
Application 13/319,931
physically possible. Appeal Br. 9-10. This argument is not persuasive
because “[i]t is well-established that a determination of obviousness based
on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical
substitution of elements.” In reMouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
2012). We agree with the Examiner’s implicit determination that a person
having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to use the teachings
from Kuki and Campbell to arrive at that and embodiment of the claimed
invention using no more than ordinary creativity. See Perfect Web Techs.,
Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc. 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (an analysis of
obviousness “may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense
available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require
explication in any reference or expert opinion”).
Furthermore, Appellants’ argument that Kuki teaches away from
using a configuration in which misalignment forces are absorbed by the
charging port support member instead of the charging port is not persuasive.
Kuki does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the use of a
configuration in which misalignment forces are absorbed by the charging
port support member and, thus, does not constitute a teaching away from the
claimed invention. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In sum, we are of the opinion that the Examiner correctly found that
the combination of Kuki and Campbell describes or suggests each of the
limitations recited in claim 1 and concluded that the differences between the
claimed invention taken as a whole and the prior art would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
5
Appeal 2015-006559
Application 13/319,931
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of claims 1—6,
8—14, and 16—20 of the ’931 Application.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
6