Ex Parte Wieczorek et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 22, 201711450698 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 11/450,698 06/09/2006 Joseph P. Wieczorek 0942-01317 9540 26659 7590 02/22/2017 RAGGIO & DINNIN, P.C. 2701 CAMBRIDGE COURT, STE. 410 AUBURN HILLS, MI 48326 EXAMINER BRADFORD, CANDACE L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3634 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/22/2017 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOSEPH P. WIECZOREK, BRYAN BUSHA, LESLIE R. HINDS, and GARY JAMES CLARK Appeal 2015-0039851 Application 11/450,6982 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. FETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. According to Appellants, the invention “relates to security shades for use in an automotive vehicle.” Spec. 11. Claims 1, 9, and 19 are the only 1 Our decision references Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed June 9, 2006), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Aug. 8, 2014), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 3, 2015), as well as the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Dec. 4, 2014). 2 According to Appellants, “Irvin Automotive Products, Inc.” is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2015-003985 Application 11/450,698 independent claims on appeal. Appeal Br., Claims App. We reproduce the independent claims in the Analysis section of this Decision, as representative of the appealed claims. REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART3 The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Wieczorek (US 5,464,052, iss. Nov. 7, 1995). The Examiner rejects claims 2, 3, 6, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wieczorek, Torres (US 6,213,186 Bl, iss. Apr. 10, 2001), and Official Notice. The Examiner rejects claims 9—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wieczorek and Patmore (US 5,813,449, iss. Sept. 29, 1998). Answer 2—10. ANALYSIS Anticipation rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8 Independent claim 1, from which claims 4, 5, 7, and 8 depend, recites the following: 1. A support assembly for use on a shade in a vehicle, said support assembly including: an end cap having an end surface; an orifice arranged in said end surface; and an insert arranged within said orifice, said insert having a generally disc shape, said insert having a circumferential groove around an outer periphery thereof, said groove of said insert is 3 The Examiner withdraws an indefmiteness rejection made in the Final Office Action mailed March 11, 2013. Answer 2. 2 Appeal 2015-003985 Application 11/450,698 seated over said end surface of said end cap defined by said orifice. Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added). Appellants argue that the rejection is in error because, contrary to the Examiner’s finding, “Wieczorek . . . does not disclose an insert having a circumferential groove around an outer periphery thereof, wherein the groove of the insert is seated over the end surface of the end cap, wherein that end surface is defined by the orifice.” Appeal Br. 6; see also id. at 6—9; see also Reply Br. 2—3. For the below reasons, we conclude that the Examiner’s finding that Wieczorek discloses an insert with a groove is not adequately supported, and, thus, we do not sustain the rejection. Specifically, the Examiner finds that the claimed groove is taught by Wieczorek’s “shoulder/L-shaped groove” formed in outboard wall 244, for example as shown in the Examiner’s annotated version of Wieczorek’s Figure 6. Answer 13. Appellants argue that this finding is incorrect because a “groove is a long, narrow cut or depression for use in receiving a corresponding ridge.” Reply Br. 2. This argued definition of “groove” is consistent with a relevant dictionary definition of “groove,” which is “a long narrow channel or depression.” From https://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/groove, last visited Feb. 14, 2017. Inasmuch as the Examiner relies on a finding that a stepped projection in Wieczorek, rather than a cut, depression, or channel, for example, teaches the claimed groove, the Examiner’s finding is inadequate to support the rejection. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or the rejection of dependent claims 4, 5, 7, and 8. 3 Appeal 2015-003985 Application 11/450,698 Obviousness rejection of claims 2, 3, 6, 19, and 20 Claims 2,3, and 6 depend from claim 1. The Examiner does not establish that any reference remedies the above-discussed deficiency in the rejection of claim 1. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 6. Independent claim 19, from which claim 20 depends, recites the following: 19. A shade for use in a vehicle, said shade comprising: a cassette having a first slot arranged near one end thereof and a second slot arranged near another end thereof; a roll tube arranged within said cassette; a panel fixed to said roll tube; a bearing arranged in each end of said roll tube; a spring housing in contact with said cassette and arranged in each end of said cassette; a motor spring arranged in each of said spring housings; and an end cap arranged on each end of said cassette, each said end cap having an orifice in an end thereof and a stop member extending from an inside surface thereof wherein one of said stop members is slidingly arranged in said first slot and another of said stop members is slidingly arranged in said second slot. Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that “Torres . . . teaches ... an end cap 14, having a stop member 38.” Answer 8. Appellants argue that this finding is incorrect because “Torres . . . discloses a [‘jfloating end cap 14 separately formed and provided with guiderails 38 and 40.’ (See [c]ol. 4, [ljines 43 through 46). To a person skilled in the art a guiderail is a device used to ride on and is not a stop member.” Appeal Br. 11. The identified portion of Torres does 4 Appeal 2015-003985 Application 11/450,698 indeed describe element 38 as a guiderail. Conversely, the Examiner does not point to any particular portion of Torres describing that element 38 functions as a stop. Thus, the Examiner’s determination that Torres teaches the claimed stop is inadequately supported, and, therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 19 or its dependent claim 20. Obviousness rejection of claims 9—18 Independent claim 9, from which claims 10—18 depend, recites the following: 9. A shade for use in a vehicle, said shade comprising: a cassette having a slot therein; a roll tube arranged within said cassette; a shade panel fixed to said roll tube; a bearing arranged in an end of said roll tube; a spring housing having an outer periphery surface, said outer periphery surface in contact with an inside surface of said cassette and arranged in an end of said cassette; and an end cap having a stop member extending from an inside surface thereof, said stop member is arranged within said slot, said stop member slides within said slot. Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that “Wieczorek . . . discloses ... a cassette 116..., [and] a spring housing 264, having an outer periphery surface, said outer periphery surface in contact with an inside surface of said cassette and arranged in an end of said cassette, and an end cap 288, as best seen in Figure 6.” Answer 8—9. Appellants argue this finding is in error, however, because “element 264 at no time contacts element 116.... In fact, trim cover 116 ... is not even used with the embodiment relied on for the rejection by the Examiner, as shown in Figures 4 through 6.” Appeal Br. 14. Based on our review, it is 5 Appeal 2015-003985 Application 11/450,698 not apparent from Wieczorek’s Figure 6, or anywhere else in Wieczorek, that trim cover 116 is in contact with wall 264. Thus, the Examiner’s determination that Wieczorek teaches the claimed relationship is inadequately supported, and, therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 9 or its dependent claims 10—18. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections of claims 1—20. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation