Robert Milne et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 18, 2021

2020004365 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 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.
14/624,181 02/17/2015 Robert Milne IPL1062US2 1083
23413 7590 03/18/2021
CANTOR COLBURN LLP
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, MARK A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/18/2021 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte ROBERT MILNE, JOHN RICE,
DONALD M. PERKINS, and IAN DOW
__________

Appeal 2020-004365
Application 14/624,181
Technology Center 3600
__________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, 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, 3–5, 7, and 10, which constitute all
the claims pending in this application. Non-Final Act. 1 (Office Action
Summary).2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons
explained below, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection.

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 “Inteva
Products, LLC.” Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 2, 6, 8, 9, and 11–20 have been canceled. See Amendment filed
August 21, 2017.
Appeal 2020-004365
Application 14/624,181
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relate[s] to a latch and more
particularly, a vehicle latch.” Spec. ¶ 2. Apparatus claim 1 is the sole
independent claim. See Appeal Br. 2. Claim 1 is representative of the
claims on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A latch, comprising:
an actuator housing having a first pair of integrally formed
securement features; and
a latch housing having a second pair of integrally formed
securement features, wherein the first pair of integrally formed
securement features and the second pair of integrally formed
securement features provide reaction surfaces for each other in
order to maintain the actuator housing in a specific position with
respect to the latch housing when the actuator housing is secured
to the latch housing, and wherein the actuator housing is secured
to the latch housing by only a single screw.
REFERENCE

Name Reference Date
Kunst US 2006/0202488 A1 Sept. 14, 2006
THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 3–5, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kunst. Non-Final Act. 3.
ANALYSIS
Appellant provides separate arguments for independent claim 1, and
each of dependent claims 5 and 7. See Appeal Br. 3–9. Regarding the
remaining claims, Appellant states that they “[are] allowable for at least the
same reasons mentioned with regard to independent claim 1 as the above
references simply fail to teach or disclose each of the limitations of claim 1
in combination with the limitations of [claims 3, 4, and 10].” Appeal Br. 7–
Appeal 2020-004365
Application 14/624,181
3
9. Thus, we address claims 1, 5, and 7, with dependent claims 3, 4, and 10
standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2019).
Claim 1
Claim 1 is directed to a latch and includes “an actuator housing having
a first pair of integrally formed securement features” and “a latch housing
having a second pair of integrally formed securement features.” Appeal Br.
11 (Claims App.). Claim 1 further recites that the first and second pair of
securement features “provide reaction surfaces for each other in order to
maintain the actuator housing in a specific position with respect to the latch
housing” and also “the actuator housing is secured to the latch housing by
only a single screw.” Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Kunst primarily discloses these limitations.
Non-Final Act. 3–4. For example, the Examiner finds that Kunst discloses
an actuator housing (housing 7) having a first pair of integrally formed
securement features (connection webs 14a, 14b) and a latch housing (base
housing 6) having a second pair of integrally formed securement features
(connection webs 15a, 15b).3 Non-Final Act. 3–4 (citing Kunst ¶¶ 41–42,
Fig. 1). However, the Examiner acknowledges that “Kunst appears not [to]
provide the limitation of use of a single screw for assisting in securing the
two housing members together.” Non-Final Act. 4. Regardless, the
Examiner notes that “Kunst provides disclosure suggesting the use of screw
means for securing the two housings together (see the last 5 lines of
[0042]).” Non-Final Act. 4. To be clear, Kunst teaches, at this location, that

3 Kunst teaches “[t]he two connection webs 14a, 14b can be coupled to
connection webs 15a, 15b.” Kunst ¶ 42.
Appeal 2020-004365
Application 14/624,181
4
the two housings 6 and 7 “can be joined . . . by, e.g., screwing.” Kunst ¶ 42
(emphasis added). In the Answer, the Examiner states that,
[a]lthough the specific manner of the configuration of the screw
means for joining the two housings together is not explicitly
shown [in Kunst], it could be reasonably inferred that one of
ordinary skill in the art could have elected to use a single screw,
noting that the connection web structures of Kunst may be
designed to provide significant coupling structures for joining []
two housing together, as well known by those skilled in the art
for joining housing components. Thus, the use of a single screw,
in combination with the connection web elements of Kunst [i.e.,
14a, 14b, 15a, 15b], in the securing of the two housings would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, since
the resulting design would have produced the desired coupling
and securing function, as would be clearly understood and
desired by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Ans. 4–5 (emphasis added). The Examiner also reasons that,
a single screw, as opposed to multiple screws, used in securing
the two housing members together is considered an art
recognized equivalent structure to the utilization of multiple
screws. Thus, at least because the prior art element screw means
would perform the function specified in the claim in substantially
the same manner as the function of the single screw as described
in the specification, and such structure[s] are considered art
recognized equivalent structures and would have function[ed] at
least equally as well, it would have been obvious to modify the
device in this way for the purpose of providing an alternative
arrangement that would have functioned at least equally as well.
Ans. 5 (emphasis added).
Appellant disagrees contending that “[s]crew[] means is not a
disclosure of a single screw.” Appeal Br. 4 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 17–18).
Appellant argues that “Kunst does not teach such integrally formed features
that facilitate the use of a single screw nor is there any teaching of the use of
a single screw.” Appeal Br. 5 (citing Kunst ¶¶ 41–42); see also Reply Br. 2–
4.
Appeal 2020-004365
Application 14/624,181
5
However, Appellant does not explain how Kunst’s connection webs
14a, 14b, 15a, 15b are not integrally formed nor how Kunst’s teaching of
“screwing” precludes the use of a single screw. See Kunst ¶¶ 41, 42, Fig. 1.
Further, as the Examiner correctly points out, the phrase “facilitate the use of
a single screw” is not recited in the claim 1. Ans. 8. That is, claim 1 only
requires that “the actuator housing is secured to the latch housing by only a
single screw.” Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
Appellant further argues that Kunst’s
[f]raming an opening 16 [by the connection webs] is simply not
providing “reaction surfaces for each other in order to maintain
the actuator housing in a specific position with respect to the
latch housing when the actuator housing is secured to the latch
housing, and wherein the actuator housing is secured to the latch
housing by only a single screw”.
Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 4–5. However, Appellant does not direct
us to any portion of Appellant’s Specification that defines the term “reaction
surfaces” in a manner that might distinguish them from the abutting surfaces
of Kunst’s webs 14a, 14b, 15a, and 15b. Appeal Br., passim; see also Ans.
9. Appellant’s Specification merely states, “the integrally formed
securement features 20, 22, 24 and 26 provide reaction surfaces that will
maintain the actuator housing 16 in the correct position with respect to
housing 14 as the actuator 12 of the latch 10 is secured thereto as well as
during operation of the latch 10.” Spec. ¶ 17. As noted above, Kunst
provides similar teachings stating, “[t]he two connection webs 14a, 14b can
be coupled to connection webs 15a, 15b provided on the head of the base
housing 6.” Kunst ¶ 42 (underlining added). See also Ans. 6. In other
words, by Kunst’s connection webs 14a, 14b, 15a, and 15b being coupled
together, they can be regarded as teaching abutting (“reaction”) surfaces that
Appeal 2020-004365
Application 14/624,181
6
maintain housing 7 and base housing 6 in the correct position, in the same
manner as described in Appellant’s Specification. We thus are unpersuaded
by Appellant’s argument that Kunst does not disclose the recited “reaction
surfaces” of claim 1.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 10 as being obvious in view of
Kunst.
Claims 5 and 7:
Claim 5 recites
wherein the first pair of integrally formed securement features
and the second pair of integrally formed securement features
cooperate with each other to limit up/down and side to side
movement of the actuator housing with respect to the latch
housing, when the actuator housing is secured to the latch
housing.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). Claim 7 recites similar language, and
additionally “wherein the single screw prevents movement of the actuator
housing and the latch housing in a third direction that is different from the
first direction and the second direction.” Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.).
Appellant contends, “the outstanding office action simply fails to even
provide where th[ese] limitation[s] can be found in the cited reference.”
Appeal Br. 8–9; see also Reply Br. 5–6. The Examiner responds that
Kunst’s latch meets these limitations “by the inherent structural design of the
connection webs and when considering the intended coupling and securing
function of the webs and screw means together; thereby preventing
movement in all three directions.” Ans. 9. We agree with the Examiner’s
assessment that because of Kunst’s connection webs 14a, 14b, 15a, and 15b,
along with Kunst’s disclosure of “screwing,” Kunst’s housing 7 and latch
Appeal 2020-004365
Application 14/624,181
7
housing 6 would be limited in “up/down and side to side movement,” or
“movement in all three directions,” as claimed.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 7.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 7, 10 103 Kunst 1, 3–5, 7,
10

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED