MITSUBISHI AIRCRAFT CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 24, 2021

2020003243 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2021)

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.
14/446,953 07/30/2014 Hiroyasu ARUGA OBA-53059 7368
116 7590 03/24/2021
PEARNE & GORDON LLP
1801 EAST 9TH STREET
SUITE 1200
CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
EXAMINER
THEIS, MATTHEW T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3734
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2021 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):
patdocket@pearne.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIROYASU ARUGA
Appeal 2020-003243
Application 14/446,953
Technology Center 3700
BEFORE JEREMY J. CURCURI, AMEE A. SHAH, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, 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, 4, 6–10, 13–19, and 21–24.2
Advisory Action 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as MITSUBISHI
AIRCRAFT CORPORATION. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 11 and 12 are withdrawn. Appeal Br., Claims Appendix.
Appeal 2020-003243
Application 14/446,953

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a “[l]ife jacket case and aircraft.” Spec.,
Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed limitation
emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A life jacket case for housing a life jacket, the life
jacket case including:
a main body defining an opening through which the life
jacket is taken in and out;
a cover for opening and closing the opening, the cover
comprising two or more folding pieces that extend from the main
body and are folded inward relative to the main body to close the
opening, each folding piece being folded inward at a joint of the
main body and the folding piece, and
a tag fitting part on which a security tag is fitted, the
security tag indicating whether or not the cover has been opened,
wherein the cover is made of a first material and a region
of the life jacket case other than or larger than the cover is made
of a second material,
wherein the second material is more lightweight than the
first material and the first material is stiffer than the second
material,
wherein the opening is closed by the two or more folding
pieces being overlapped such that the cover blocks the entire
opening,
wherein the tag fitting part is fixed on one of the folding
pieces such that the tag fitting part extends from a surface of the
one of the folding pieces and passes through the another one of
the folding pieces, and
wherein the security tag is fitted on a portion of the tag
fitting part that protrudes from the other of the folding pieces.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Appeal 2020-003243
Application 14/446,953

3
Name Reference Date
Rice US 829,087 Aug. 21, 1906
Vallerga US 4,783,978 Nov. 15, 1988
Mrocki US 2008/0257673 A1 Oct. 23, 2008
McSweeney US 2012/0243809 A1 Sept. 27, 2012
White GB 2492913 A Jan. 16, 2013

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 13–18, and 21–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over White, Vallerga, and Rice. Final Act. 5–12.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
White, Vallerga, Rice, and McSweeney. Final Act. 12–13.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over White,
Vallerga, Rice, and Mrocki. Final Act. 13.
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 13–18, and 21–24 over
White, Vallerga, and Rice
The Examiner finds White, Vallerga, and Rice teach all limitations of
claim 1. Final Act. 5–7.
In particular, the Examiner finds
White further is silent with respect to the cover comprising two
or more folding pieces that extend from the main body and are
folded inward relative to the main body to close the opening,
each folding piece being folded inward at a joint of the main body
and the folding piece.
Final Act. 6.
In particular, the Examiner finds
Appeal 2020-003243
Application 14/446,953

4
Vallerga teaches the ability to have a security bag
including a cover is formed of two or more folding pieces
(27/28/17/18/6) including steel inserts (which are stronger,
stiffer, and heavier than the body material), which are folded
inward from a part on the rear side of a peripheral edge of the
opening, and the opening is closed by at least two of the folding
pieces being overlapped (Figs. 3 and 4), the cover is formed of
the folding pieces, which are folded from four sides, into a
rectangular shape (Fig. 4).
Final Act. 6–7; see also Ans. 13, 14–16.
Among other arguments, Appellant presents the following principal
argument:
Vallerga discloses a pouch 1 having a main body 2 and a
cover 6 for closing an opening of the main body 2 (see FIG. 1,
reproduced below). However, V[a]llerga’s cover 6 fails to
include two or more folding pieces, particularly two or more
folding pieces that are each folded inward at a joint with the main
body 2 such that a tag fitting part fixed to one of the folding
pieces passes through another one of the folding pieces. Rather,
V[a]llerga’s cover 6 is a single flap.
Appeal Br. 9; see also Appeal Br. 12–13 ([A] person of ordinary skill in the
art would not reasonably construe the Vallerga’s cover 6 as including
folding pieces 17, 18, 27, 28, because the folding pieces are separate from
its cover 6 and do not cover its opening . . . . Even if one were to construe
Vallerga’s cover 6 as including the folding pieces 17, 18, 27, 28, none of the
folding pieces 17, 18, 27, 28 is folded inward at its joint with the main
body 1, as recited in claims 1 and 24.”), Reply Br. 3–4.
Appellant’s argument persuades us the Examiner erred in finding
Vallerga teaches the key disputed limitation: “the cover comprising two or
more folding pieces that extend from the main body and are folded inward
Appeal 2020-003243
Application 14/446,953

5
relative to the main body to close the opening, each folding piece being
folded inward at a joint of the main body and the folding piece,” as recited in
claim 1.
This appeal turns on the content depicted in Fig. 2 of Vallerga.
Vallerga discloses “[t]he locking system is completed by two strips or belts
27 and 28 secured at one end to the back wall 3 in the area below flap 6 and
projecting longitudinally towards side walls 4 and 5.” Vallerga, col. 4,
ll. 46–49. Thus, we determine Vallerga’s belts 27 and 28 are not claim 1’s
folding pieces because Vallerga’s belts 27 and 28 are not folded inward
relative to the main body to close the opening. Rather, belts 27 and 28 are
used as part of the locking system to secure the already closed opening.
When comparing Vallerga to the claimed invention, as best shown in
Appellant’s Fig. 3, Vallerga’s belts 27 and 28 correspond to Appellant’s
coupling belts 231 and 241.
Vallerga further discloses “[t]he action of closing the mouth 40
produces a retractible displacement movement of the retaining side walls 4
and 5 having the tempered steel plates 15, 16, 17 and 18 inserted in the
upper portions thereof and attached to them by rivets 19, 20, 21 and 22.”
Vallerga, col. 4, ll. 31–35. Thus, we determine Vallerga’s steel plates 15, 16,
17, and 18 are not “folded inward relative to the main body to close the
opening, each folding piece being folded inward at a joint of the main body
and the folding piece,” as recited in claim 1. Rather, Vallerga’s steel plates
do not fold inward relative to the main body at a joint of the main body, but
instead are moved together with the main body to constrict the opening. See
Vallerga, Fig. 2.
Appeal 2020-003243
Application 14/446,953

6
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We
also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 6, 9, 10, 13–18, and
21–23, which depend from claim 1.
Independent claim 24 also recites the key disputed limitation.
We, therefore, also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 24.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 7 and 8 over White, Vallerga, Rice,
and McSweeney
The Examiner does not find McSweeney cures the deficiency of
White, Vallerga, and Rice. See Final Act. 12–13.
We, therefore, also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7
and 8.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 19 over White, Vallerga, Rice, and
Mrocki
The Examiner does not find Mrocki cures the deficiency of White,
Vallerga, and Rice. See Final Act. 13.
We, therefore, also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 19.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4, 6–10, 13–19, and
21–24 is reversed.
Appeal 2020-003243
Application 14/446,953

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 6, 9,
10, 13–18,
21–24
103 White, Vallerga,
Rice
1, 4, 6, 9,
10, 13–18,
21–24
7, 8 103 White, Vallerga,
Rice, McSweeney
7, 8
19 103 White, Vallerga,
Rice, Mrocki
19
Overall
Outcome
1, 4, 6–10,
13–19,
21–24

REVERSED