Lajewardi, Farhad et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 30, 201915375238 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2019) 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. 15/375,238 12/12/2016 Farhad Lajewardi 091226-00061US 6707 27805 7590 10/30/2019 THOMPSON HINE L.L.P. 10050 INNOVATION DRIVE SUITE 400 DAYTON, OH 45342-4934 EXAMINER O BRIEN, JEFFREY D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3677 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/30/2019 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): ipdocket@thompsonhine.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FARHAD LAJEWARDI and MICHAEL K. FALKENSTEIN Appeal 2019-001867 Application 15/375,238 Technology Center 3600 BEFORE JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 13–15, 22, and 23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Hillman Group, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-001867 Application 15/375,238 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention relates to a hinge arrangement that provides substantial reduction or elimination of squeaks without requiring the use of a lubricant. Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and 23 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed invention: 1. A hinge arrangement adapted for reducing wear and noise, comprising: a first hinge component including a first hinge plate and at least first and second vertically spaced apart and aligned knuckles at a hinge side of the first hinge plate; a second hinge component including second hinge plate and at least a third knuckle at a hinge side of the second hinge plate, wherein the hinge side of the second hinge plate is disposed proximate the hinge side of the first hinge plate, wherein the third knuckle is disposed between and aligned with the first and second knuckles to provide a pin passage therethrough; a plurality of bushing washers comprised of plastic, including: a first bushing washer that functions both as a bushing and a washer, the first bushing washer having a first tubular bushing body inserted within the first knuckle, and a first annular washer rim unitary with the first tubular bushing body and disposed atop the first knuckle, a second bushing washer that functions both as a bushing and a washer, the second bushing washer having a second tubular bushing body inserted within the second knuckle, and a second annular washer rim unitary with the second tubular bushing body and disposed atop the second knuckle, and a third bushing washer that functions both as a bushing and a washer, the third bushing washer having a third tubular bushing body inserted within the third knuckle, and a third annular washer rim unitary with the Appeal 2019-001867 Application 15/375,238 3 third tubular bushing body and disposed atop the third knuckle; wherein the first, second and third bushing washers cooperate to support bearing loads, support lateral loads, provide alignment, and to limit wear and squeak noise in the hinge arrangement; wherein a bottom side of the first knuckle seats atop the third annular washer rim to prevent contact between the first knuckle and the third knuckle and to act as a reduced friction bearing between the first knuckle and the third knuckle that limits wear and noise resulting from relative movement between the first knuckle and the third knuckle, and a bottom side of the third knuckle seats atop the second annular washer rim to prevent contact between the third knuckle and the second knuckle and to act as a reduced friction bearing between the third knuckle and the second knuckle that limits wear and noise resulting from relative movement between the third knuckle and the second knuckle; a single hinge pin disposed through the pin passage formed by the aligned first, second and third knuckles and, correspondingly, through the first tubular bushing body, the second tubular bushing body and the third tubular bushing body, which collectively isolate the hinge pin from internal surfaces of the first, second and third knuckles, where the hinge pin includes a pin cap seated atop the first annular washer rim to reduce wear and noise resulting from relative movement between the pin cap and the first knuckle; each bushing washer is formed of a polyamide or polyacetal material with between 10% and 40% by weight glass fiber; wherein the first annular washer rim, the second annular washer rim and the third annular washer rim each have a thickness of between about 30 thousandths and about 50 thousandths of an inch; wherein an outer diameter of each of the first, second and third annular washer rims is substantially the same as an outer diameter of each of the first, second and third knuckles; wherein the first knuckle includes a substantially planar top portion upon which the first annular washer rim sits so that Appeal 2019-001867 Application 15/375,238 4 the first annular washer rim is not recessed into the first knuckle, the second knuckle includes a substantially planar top portion upon which the second annular washer rim sits so that the second annular washer rim is not recessed into the second knuckle, and the third knuckle includes a substantially planar top portion upon which the third annular washer rim sits so that the third annular washer rim is not recessed into the third knuckle; wherein a height the first knuckle is substantially the same as a height of the second knuckle, and a height of the third knuckle is at least thirty percent greater than the height of the first knuckle; wherein a length of the first bushing washer is substantially the same as a length of the second bushing washer, and a length of the third bushing washer is at least thirty percent greater than the length of the first bushing washer. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Suska US 3,921,225 Nov. 25, 1975 Tang US 5,689,855 Nov. 25, 1997 REJECTION2 Claims 1, 3, 4, 13–15, 22, and 233 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Suska and Tang. 2 Rejections of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn in the Answer. Ans. 3; Final Act. 3–4. 3 Although the heading of the rejection in the Final Action includes claims 8 and 9, claims 8 and 9 are canceled. Id. Appeal 2019-001867 Application 15/375,238 5 OPINION The Examiner finds that Suska discloses many of the limitations of the hinge arrangement of claim 1, including plastic bushing washers disposed in aligned knuckles, but that the bushing washers are not arranged atop the knuckles as claimed. Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that Tang teaches a hinge arrangement with bushing washers atop a knuckle as claimed, and considers that it would have been obvious to modify the hinge of Suska so that bushing washers “are disposed atop its respective knuckle … to allow for a reduced height of the hinge, due to having only a single annular rim being formed between each adjacent knuckle.” Id. at 6. As to the particular plastic material claimed, the Examiner states that it would have been a matter of obvious design choice “to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.” Id. at 7 (citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1960)). With respect to the claimed washer rim thickness, the Examiner notes that Suska teaches a gap between knuckles in the claimed range is aesthetically ideal and considers that having a rim thickness in the claimed range would have been obvious as “a mere change in the size of a component” and that such a change is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. The Examiner alternatively finds that rim thickness is a result[-]effective variable that could be optimized using “only routine skill in the art.” Id. (citing In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454 (CCPA 1955). As to the limitation “the [] knuckle includes a substantially planar top portion upon which the [] annular washer rim sits so that the [] annular Appeal 2019-001867 Application 15/375,238 6 washer rim is not recessed into the [] knuckle,” the Examiner relies on Tang to teach this feature and considers that it would have been obvious to replace the recessed knuckle surfaces of Suska with those of Tang as “a simple substitution of one known knuckle top surface for another in a manner that yields predictable results.” Id. at 8. Teaching Away Appellant argues that “Suska teaches away from” the Examiner’s proposed modification, which arranges the bushing washer atop the knuckle, because “Suska teaches that the hinge should include a plastic-to-plastic interface between the knuckles.” Appeal Br. 8 (citing Suska 1:62–2:2). According to Appellant, this teaching of Suska is not a comparison between metal-to-plastic and plastic-to-plastic, and “clearly teaches not to use a metal-to-plastic interface.” Id. Appellant asserts, moreover, that one of ordinary skill in the art would only use the teaching in Tang of eccentric bushings, and would not “create a metal-to-plastic interface, because doing so would be completely contradictory to the purpose and intent of the Suska bushing/hinge configuration.” Id. at 9. The Examiner responds that Suska’s disclosure that “a plastic-to- plastic interface is [] preferred over a plastic-to-metal interface … is not ‘teaching away,’ but is … evidence that a plastic-to-metal interface was known to Suska.” Ans. 3. “A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” Ans. 3–4 (citing In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the Appeal 2019-001867 Application 15/375,238 7 path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). A reference does not teach away “if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed.” Id. at 1327 (citation omitted). In this case, Suska discloses that “[a]lthough the wear resistant characteristics of plastic-to-metal interfaces are superior to metal- to-metal interfaces in this application, yet even plastic-to-metal interfaces are subject to a degree of wear which would be desirable to eliminate.” Suska, 1:60–64. We agree with the Examiner that Suska has a preference for plastic-to-plastic interface but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage use of a plastic-to-metal hinge. Indeed, Suska describes the known plastic-to-metal hinge as “an already excellent hinge,” and states that a plastic-to-plastic hinge would “improve” upon a plastic-to-metal hinge. Suska, 1:59–60. We, thus, do not agree that Suska teaches away from the claimed invention nor that one of ordinary skill in the art would only use the teaching of Tang’s eccentric bushing because Tang’s metal to plastic interface is contradictory to the disclosure of Suska. Glass Fiber Material Appellant argues that the claimed polyamide or polyacetal material with 10% and 40% by weight glass fiber, would not have been an obvious design choice. Appeal Br. 9. Specifically, Appellant asserts that the Examiner does not provide a sufficient explanation in support of design choice in light of neither reference focusing on noise reduction, whereas Appeal 2019-001867 Application 15/375,238 8 Appellant “has demonstrated that bushing material is critical in the claimed application for the purpose of noise reduction.” Id. In response, the Examiner notes that Suska uses “both polyacetal material and material having between 10% and 40% by weight glass fiber, but is silent as to their combination.” Ans. 5. According to the Examiner, Appellant has not “invented any new material, but … ha[s] chosen this material for its known material properties,” which is what the court in Leshin stated “would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.” Id. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. As the Examiner correctly finds, Suska discloses that for the bushing material, “several plastics were found to yield excellent results. These include polycarbonate resin (Lexan) and an acetal resin.” Suska, 5:39–41; see also Final Act. 6–7. Suska also discloses that “[t]he bushings are essentially formed of the plastic materials discussed above. This language contemplates the addition of reinforcing substances such as glass fibers, cloth or paper which do not adversely affect the hinge bearing properties of the plastics.” Suska, 6:8–12. Based on Suska’s disclosure that “the plastic materials discussed above” could include glass fibers, Suska discloses using glass fibers with polycarbonate and acetyl resins. Suska also discloses an exemplary weight percent of fibers, stating “Lexan fortified with 40 percent by weight of glass fibers was also used.” Suska, 5:48–49. The Examiner’s rejection, therefore, is sufficiently supported by Suska’s explicit disclosure of a choice between polycarbonate or acetyl resins with glass fibers, including up to 40 percent by weight. As to Appellant’s assertion of criticality, although Appellant asserts that “a polyamide with a glass fiber content in the claimed range demonstrated only low noise” (Appeal Br. 9), Appellant has not directed us Appeal 2019-001867 Application 15/375,238 9 to any evidence to support this contention. Appellant’s contention that design choice is precluded because “neither of the references is focused on noise reduction” (Appeal Br. 9), is not persuasive. Appellant points to no authority, either in case law or statute, for the apparent proposition that the prior art must be “focused” on a particular benefit in order for the Examiner to properly rely on the doctrine of design choice. In any event, Suska’s hinges are disclosed as achieving the same purposes as Appellant’s hinges, i.e., Suska discloses that during operation of the plastic-to-metal “[s]ince the plastic bushing . . . never develops appreciable friction . . . the hinge is generally smoother and quieter than that of metal hinges.” Suska, 1:46–47 (emphasis added); see also Ans. 6. Thus, Suska does disclose noise reduction, and Appellant’s arguments to the contrary are not persuasive of Examiner error. Washer Rim Thickness Appellant argues that the recited washer rim thickness would not have been a matter of design choice, based on previous “design choice” cases, including In re Gal, 980 F. 2d 717 (Fed. Cir. 1992), in which the Federal Circuit noted that obvious design choice did not apply because “the different structures of Gal and Matsumara achieve different purposes.” Appeal Br. at 10 (citing id. 980 F.2d at 719). According to Appellant, the Examiner does not “explain how the recited elements perform the same function … of … noise reduction.” Id. In response, the Examiner notes that Suska is directed to avoiding “metal-to-metal interface between the hinge knuckles [which] is noise reduction.” Ans. 6. Specifically, the Examiner states that “[f]riction and Appeal 2019-001867 Application 15/375,238 10 wear between two metal knuckles of a hinge cause noise. Preventing such friction and wear reduces said noise.” Id. We agree with the Examiner that reducing friction reduces noise and unlike In re Gal, the prior art structures do not achieve different purposes than the claimed invention. This is supported by the disclosure of Suska, discussed above, namely, that operation of the plastic-to-metal “hinge is generally smoother and quieter than that of metal[-to-metal] hinges.” Suska, 1:46–47. Appellant’s argument that design choice is precluded because Suska does not disclose noise reduction is not persuasive. Washer Rim Diameters Appellant argues that, because Suska arranges the washers to create a “significant air gap” between the knuckles, “Suska fails to teach that an outer diameter of each of the first, second and third annular washer rims is substantially the same as an outer diameter of each of the first, second and third knuckles.” Appeal Br. 10 (citing Suska, Fig. 2). Appellant asserts that “Tang also fails to disclose this feature.” Id. (citing Tang, Fig. 4). In response, the “Examiner notes that this was identified in the final rejection as a matter of design choice … to form a more aesthetic design since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. … Appellant has made no argument against this.” Ans. 6. Although we appreciate Appellant’s position that the references do not disclose the claimed feature, Appellant does not address the Examiner’s rejection which proposes using “design choice to form the diameters of the washer rims to be substantially the same as an outer diameter of the Appeal 2019-001867 Application 15/375,238 11 knuckles, to form a more aesthetic design.” Final Act. 8. Appellant’s argument, thus, does not apprise us of Examiner error. Washer Rim Not Recessed Appellant argues that Suska does not teach that the washer rim has a substantially planar top and sits so that it “is not recessed into the [] knuckle,” and rather, “teaches the bushing rims should be within recesses atop the knuckles.” Appeal Br. 11 (citing Suska, Fig. 2). According to Appellant, Tang teaches an eccentric bushing to change the pitch, and because Suska “is not intended to be used for changing pitch, and eccentric bushings would not work in [] Suska … one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Tang with Suska to achieve the claimed feature.” Id. at 11–12. In response, the Examiner notes that Appellant’s arguments are against the references individually, whereas the combination of features of Suska and Tang is relied upon to “teach to form a knuckle having a planar top portion upon which the respective washer rims sit.” Ans. 6–7. The Examiner states, moreover, that the rejection is not based on a bodily incorporation of Tang into Suska, but “what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 7 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981)). Appellant’s contention is not persuasive for the following reasons. Suska teaches a washer-to-washer connection, with the rim of each washer in contact and in a respective recess. Suska, Fig. 2. Tang teaches a washer-to-washer connection with the bottom of one washer sitting on top of the rim of another washer and with no recess. Tang, Fig. 1. The Examiner Appeal 2019-001867 Application 15/375,238 12 proposes to replace the surface arrangement of the washer of Tang with the surface arrangement of Suska as “a simple substitution.” Final Act. 8. Appellant does not argue that it would be beyond the level of skill of an ordinary artisan to arrange Suska’s washers to connect a bottom and rim. As to Tang’s bushings being eccentric, we note that the rejection does not propose a bodily incorporation of Tang’s structure into the device of Suska and the Examiner can properly use Tang’s teaching of the bottom of one washer sitting on top of the rim of another washer and with no recess without also employing Tang’s eccentricity. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425 (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, and determine that the arguments fail to apprise us of error in the Examiner’s factual findings or rationales, quoted above, for the combination of Suska and Tang, which we determine to be reasonable and supported by rational underpinnings. We, thus, sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellant does not argue separately for the patentability of dependent claims 3, 4, 13–15, and 22, which depend from claim 1. See Appeal Br. 12. We, thus, sustain the rejection of claims 3, 4, 13–15, and 22. Appellant relies on the same arguments for claim 1 in support of independent claim 23. Appeal Br. 12. For the same reasons as for claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claim 23. Appeal 2019-001867 Application 15/375,238 13 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 13–15, 22, and 23 as unpatentable over Suska and Tang is affirmed. In summary: Claims Rejected Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 4, 13–15, 22, 23 § 103 Suska and Tang 1, 3, 4, 13–15, 22, 23 Overall Outcome 1, 3, 4, 13–15, 22, 23 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation