Ex Parte Young

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2017

13371488 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 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.
13/371,488 02/13/2012 Darryl Leigh Young 83218457 9945
86397 7590 01/02/2018
Ford Global Technology LLC c/o Joseph E. Root
1809 Jones Cove Rd.
Clyde, NC 28721
EXAMINER
SWIATOCHA, GREGORY D.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3725
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/02/2018 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):
ip_docket @ qualipat. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DARRYL LEIGH YOUNG
Appeal 2016-008569
Application 13/371,488
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Daryl Leigh Young (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—5, 7—11, 13, and 15—19.1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant submits the real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies,
LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-008569
Application 13/371,488
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to “air venting systems in dies during
sheet metal stamping operations.” Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A die for forming sheet metal, the die comprising:
an upper die plate and a lower die plate, and a sheet metal
positioned between the upper and the lower die plate, wherein each of
the upper and the lower die plates has a die body having an outer
surface and a sheet metal facing surface facing the sheet metal;
at least one passage extending through a die body, to form an
escape route to purge air trapped between the die plates and the sheet
metal during a sheet metal operation, each passage including:
an entry port formed through the sheet metal facing surface;
an exit port formed through the outer surface; and
a bore connecting the entry port to the exit port, the bore having
a generally uniform cross-sectional diameter; and
transition areas extending from each entry port and each exit
port to the bore, each transition area having a convex surface,
wherein the cross-sectional area of each exit port and each entry
port, measured perpendicular to the axis of the passage, is greater than
the cross-sectional area of the bore measured perpendicular to the axis
of the passage.
REJECTIONS
1) Claim 19 is rejected under 35U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as
failing to comply with the written description requirement.
2) Claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 13, 15, and 19 are rejected as indefinite under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.2
2 In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 3 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph and certain parts of the rejection of claims 1,
3, 7, 10, 11, 13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Ans. 10—
11. The Examiner maintained certain other portions of the rejection of
2
Appeal 2016-008569
Application 13/371,488
3) Claims 1—5, 7—11, 13, and 15—19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Rashid (US 6,253,588 Bl, issued
July 3, 2001) and Abbott (US 5,377,518, issued Jan. 3, 1995).
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
The Examiner rejects claim 19 for failure to comply with the written
description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, because “[t] he
specification does not disclose a hyperboloid of revolution of one sheet.”
Final Act. 3. Appellant identifies this rejection as a ground presented in the
Final Office Action (Appeal Br. 4), but does not request “particular review”
of or otherwise address this rejection (Appeal Br. 4—10). Therefore, we
summarily sustain the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(explaining that summary affirmance without consideration of the
substantive merits is appropriate where an appellant fails to contest a ground
of rejection); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c) (“An appeal, when taken, is
presumed to be taken from the rejection of all claims under rejection unless
cancelled by an amendment filed by the applicant and entered by the
Office.”); 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(a)(1) (“An examiner’s answer is deemed to
incorporate all of the grounds of rejection set forth in the Office action from
which the appeal is taken . . . unless the examiner’s answer expressly
indicates that a ground or rejection has been withdrawn.”); § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
claims 1,3,7, 10, 11, 13, and 15 as well as the original rejection of claim 2.
Id. at 12.
3
Appeal 2016-008569
Application 13/371,488
(“Each ground of rejection contested by appellant must be argued under a
separate heading”).
Rejection 2
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 13, 15, and 19 as indefinite
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, on a variety of different bases.
Ans. 12. Appellant does not substantively dispute any of these rejections.
Appeal Br. 5—7; Reply Br. 2—3. Rather, Appellant argues that all of the
rejections were cured by an after final amendment that the Examiner refused
to enter. See Appeal Br. 5—7; Reply Br. 2—3. Appellant did not file a
petition contesting the Examiner’s refusal to enter the amendment. See In re
Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that the refusal of an
examiner to enter an amendment after final rejection of claims is a matter of
discretion that may be challenged by a petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181, but
may not be reviewed by the Board in connection with a rejection of claims).
Thus, the claims before us for review are not the proposed amended claims.
See Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief, mailed April 12, 2016; 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(2) (“A brief shall not include any new or non-admitted
amendment, or any new or non-admitted affidavit or other Evidence”). As
Appellant has not addressed the Examiner’s rejection of the currently
pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we summarily
sustain the rejection of these claims.
Rejection 3
Appellant argues claims 1—5, 7—11, 13, and 15—19 as a group. Appeal
Br. 7—10. We select claim 1 as representative and claims 2—5, 7—11, 13, and
15—19 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal 2016-008569
Application 13/371,488
The Examiner finds that Rashid discloses the limitations in claim 1
including “at least one passage (66)... to form an escape route to purge air
trapped between the die plates,” but the passage 66 does not have “transition
areas having a convex surface wherein the cross-sectional area of each exit
port and each entry port, measured perpendicular to the axis of the passage,
is greater than the cross-sectional area of the bore measured perpendicular to
the axis of the passage.” Final Act. 6—7. The Examiner finds that Abbott
discloses transition areas for vent passages comprising transition areas with
convex surfaces and with the cross-sectional area of each exit port and entry
port greater than the cross-sectional area of the bore. Id. at 7 (citing Abbott,
Fig. 3). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Rashid’s passage 66 to have transition areas with a convex surface and
cross-sectional areas of the entry port and exit ports greater than the cross-
sectional area of the bore, as taught by Abbott, “in order to vent gases from
the cavity.” Id.
Appellant admits “that Abbott shows a vent with round edges” but
argues that Abbott does not suggest “that rounding the edges would be
useful or beneficial,” which would leave one of ordinary skill in the art
“with the understanding that square edges are equally as good as rounded
ones.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant also argues that “the only basis for
combining Abbott with Rashid is pure hindsight.” Id.
The Examiner responds that “it is well known in the art and it is a
well-known fluid dynamic property that round edges [as taught by Abbott]
provide a smoother airflow, greater mass transfer, and decreased turbulent
flow.” Ans. 13. In reply, Appellant contends that this reasoning by the
5
Appeal 2016-008569
Application 13/371,488
Examiner is merely a “conclusory statement.” Reply Br. 4. For the
following reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Abbott
discloses vent passages with transition areas as claimed. Nor does Appellant
dispute the Examiner’s reasoning for combining Rashid with Abbott as
stated above. Although we appreciate Appellant’s argument that Abbott
does not specifically disclose advantages of transition areas as recited in
claim 1, claim 1 recites specific structure, not advantages or functional
limitations of the transition areas. Even if claim 1 did recite advantages or
functions of the transition areas, we note that when “determining whether
the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular
motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls.” KSR Intern.
Co. v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007).
Appellant’s arguments, thus, fail to persuasively apprise us of error in
the Examiner’s factual findings or rationale, quoted above, for the
combination of Rashid and Abbott, which we determine to be reasonable
and supported by rational underpinnings. See id. at 416 (“[t]he combination
of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious
when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). Appellant’s hindsight
argument is of no import where the Examiner states a rationale for the
modification that we determine is supported adequately by sufficient facts.
See In re Cree, 818 F.3d 694, 702, n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
We thus, sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 2—5, 7—11, 13, and 15—19 fall with claim 1
6
Appeal 2016-008569
Application 13/371,488
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—5, 7—11, 13, and 15—19 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7