Musleh, Thomas et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 2, 2019

14689426 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2019)

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.
14/689,426 04/17/2015 Thomas Musleh 83513506 1477
121691 7590 10/02/2019
Ford Global Technologies, LLC/
King & Schickli, PLLC
800 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 200
Lexington, KY 40503
EXAMINER
SAETHER, FLEMMING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3677
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2019 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):
laura@iplaw1.net
uspto@iplaw1.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte THOMAS MUSLEH, MICHAEL MUSLEH,
LINDA D. VANFLETEREN, JAMES T. COLLIFLOWER, and
DARRELL DWIGHT HUDDLESTON
____________

Appeal 2019-001738
Application 14/689,426
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARNER, 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, 3–10, and 13–20, which are all the
pending claims. Appeal Br. 1, 5. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford
Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-001738
Application 14/689,426

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosed invention “relates to the fastener field and to a
nameplate assembly including a fastener for securing a nameplate to a motor
vehicle,” in particular, to “a new and improved fastener which effectively
prevents mounting post corrosion over an extended service life.” Spec.
¶¶ 1, 3. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below
with emphasis added, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A fastener, comprising:
a screw body having a head and a tip; and
a cap secured to said head, said cap including an end
overlying said head and a sidewall defining a blind bore, said
sidewall extending concentrically around said screw body
toward said tip such that an annular space is formed between
said screw body and said sidewall.

EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Brooks US 1,616,438 Feb. 8, 1927
Roper US 1,658,573 Feb. 7, 1928
Balderrama US 9,470,257 B2 Oct. 18, 2016

REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. Claims 1 and 3–9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as
anticipated by Balderrama. Final Act. 2; Ans. 3.
II. Claims 10 and 13–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Roper and Balderrama. Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2019-001738
Application 14/689,426

3
III. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Brooks and Roper. Id. at 4.
IV. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Brooks, Roper, and Balderrama. Id. at 4–5.

ANALYSIS
Rejection I – Claims 1 and 3–9 as anticipated by Balderrama
Appellant presents argument against the rejection of independent
claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 9–11), and relies on the same argument when
addressing the dependent claims (see id. at 11). We select claim 1 as
representative of the issues that Appellant presents in the appeal of this
rejection, with claims 3–9 standing or falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner found that Balderrama discloses all the elements as
recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 3–4 (including annotated
reproductions of comparative figures from Balderrama and the present
invention, and noting structural correspondences).
Appellant argues that Balderrama discloses neither a blind bore nor an
annular space formed between the screw body and the sidewall, as recited in
the claim. See Appeal Br. 9–10. After careful consideration of the record
before us, Appellant’s assertion does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s reliance on the identified disclosure of Balderrama, which is
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
In particular, the Examiner’s finding that Balderrama sufficiently
discloses a blind bore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof,
is adequately supported. As the Examiner explains, Balderrama’s wall 37
Appeal 2019-001738
Application 14/689,426

4
forms a sidewall defining a blind bore as recited in the claim, albeit “with a
different shape” (namely, somewhat “shallower”) than that depicted in
Appellant’s drawings. Ans. 3. Similarly, the Examiner sufficiently
identifies an area of annular space formed between the screw body 45
(depicted as an element with interior threading, but disclosed as optionally
being reversed to be an element with exterior threading) and the
sidewall 37—again, admittedly somewhat “shallower” than that depicted in
Appellant’s drawings, but still an annular space nonetheless. Id. at 4.
Although we appreciate Appellant’s observation that its blind bore
and annular space are depicted as being “deeper” than those disclosed in
Balderrama, we note than an examiner must constrain the review to the
recitations of the claims themselves (which, here, recite no details as to any
particular depth or shape to the blind bore or annular space). As stated by
our reviewing court in In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
1998), “the name of the game is the claim.” It is well established that
limitations not appearing in the claim cannot be relied upon for patentability.
See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Although the claims are
interpreted in light of the Specification, details or other limitations from the
Specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As the Examiner explains, Balderrama sufficiently discloses the
elements as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 3–4. In short, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 based on the reasoned positions set forth
therein and in light of the Examiner’s thorough responses to Appellant’s
arguments. See Final Act. 2; Ans. 3–4. Claims 3–9 fall therewith.

Appeal 2019-001738
Application 14/689,426

5
Rejection II – Claims 10 and 13–18 as unpatentable over
Roper and Balderrama
Appellant presents argument against the rejection of independent
claim 10 (see Appeal Br. 12–15), and relies on the same argument when
addressing the dependent claims (see id. at 15). We select claim 10 as
representative of the issues that Appellant presents in the appeal of this
rejection, with claims 13–18 standing or falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
With respect to the rejection of claim 10, Appellant essentially repeats
the same alleged deficiency discussed above in the context of Rejection I of
claim 1—namely, that the art fails to disclose a sidewall extending
concentrically around the screw body toward the tip such that an annular
space is formed between the screw body and the sidewall. See Appeal
Br. 13. Similar to the discussion above, after careful consideration of the
record before us, Appellant’s assertion does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s reliance on the identified disclosures of Roper or Balderrama,
which are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
For example, as the Examiner explains, “Roper discloses the annular
space in the same manner as Balderrama.” Ans. 5 (including an annotated
reproduction of Figure 2 from Roper). In short, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 10 based on the reasoned positions set forth therein and in
light of the Examiner’s thorough responses to Appellant’s arguments. See
Final Act. 3; Ans. 5–6. Claims 13–18 fall therewith.

Appeal 2019-001738
Application 14/689,426

6
Rejection III – Claim 19 as unpatentable over
Brooks and Roper
With respect to the rejection of claim 19, Appellant essentially repeats
the same alleged deficiency discussed above in the context of Rejections I
and II. See Appeal Br. 15–16. For essentially the same reasons explained
supra, Appellant’s argument is likewise not persuasive with respect to
Rejection III of claim 19. Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection of
claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks and
Roper.

Rejection IV – Claim 20 as unpatentable over
Brooks, Roper, and Balderrama
With respect to the rejection of claim 20, Appellant relies solely on
the argument made previously with respect to Rejection III of base claim 19.
Appeal Br. 16. Thus, for the same reasons explained supra, Appellant’s
argument is not persuasive; hence, we sustain the rejection of claim 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks, Roper, and Balderrama.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3–9
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Balderrama.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10 and 13–18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Roper and Balderrama.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks and Roper.
Appeal 2019-001738
Application 14/689,426

7
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks, Roper, and Balderrama.
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).

CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1 and 3–9 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2)
Balderrama 
1 and 3–9
10 and 13–18 35 U.S.C. § 103
Roper and
Balderrama
10 and 13–18
19 35 U.S.C. § 103
Brooks and Roper
19
20 35 U.S.C. § 103
Brooks, Roper, and
Balderrama
20
Overall Outcome 1, 3–10, and
13–20

AFFIRMED