Ex Parte Arbitter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2012

10899802 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2012)

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.
10/899,802 07/27/2004 Daniel Arbitter 81144340 (Coppiellie) 7002
28395 7590 09/27/2012
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
JANAKIRAMAN, NITHYA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2123
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DANIEL ARBITTER, DAVID ROBERTS, SEJAL SHREFFLER,
VINCENT PESCH, and WILLIAM PUTNAM
____________________

Appeal 2010-005363
Application 10/899,802
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG,
and JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005363
Application 10/899,802

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 8-22 (App. Br. 4). Claims 1-7 have been canceled (id.). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a system and method of evaluating
a physical “buck” (prototype of a new vehicle model) using a clearance
checking scheme that verifies the physical distance between component
parts using clearance rules and conditions; wherein, a summary of the results
of the clearance check is displayed on the user interface (Abstract; Figs. 1-4;
Spec. 2:18-23 and 9:10-17).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 8 is exemplary:
8. A method of dynamic clearance checking within a geometric model of
preassembled component parts using a computer system, said method
comprising:

periodically updating the geometric model wherein the geometric
model is a digital buck of preassembled component parts that is stored on a
data storage device associated with the computer system;

interactively selecting a predetermined clearance rule for each of the
preassembled component parts in the digital buck using an executable
clearance check software program resident on the computer system;

interactively selecting a predetermined clearance condition applicable
to the selected clearance rule for each of the preassembled component Parts
Appeal 2010-005363
Application 10/899,802

3
in the digital buck, wherein the clearance condition modifies the
corresponding selected clearance rule;

periodically checking clearance within the digital buck using the
clearance check software program by calculating a clearance value between
each of the preassembled component parts within the digital buck using the
selected clearance rule and the corresponding selected clearance condition
for each of the preassembled component parts in the digital buck;

summarizing the clearance check for each of the preassembled
component parts within the digital buck wherein the clearance check
summary includes the calculated clearance values between each of the
preassembled component Parts in the digital buck; and

using the clearance check summary to identify a noncompliant
clearance value in the clearance check summary using a predetermined
clearance criteria for each of the preassembled component parts.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Koenig US 5,729,463 March 17, 1998
Hill US 6,453,209 B1 Sep. 17, 2002
Rhodes US Pat. Pub. 2005/0096885 A1 May 5, 2005

Claims 8-14, 16-20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rhodes in view of Koenig.
Claims 15 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rhodes in view of Koenig and Hill.
Appeal 2010-005363
Application 10/899,802

4

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the combination of Rhodes and Koenig teaches or would
have suggested “summarizing the clearance check for each of the
preassembled component parts within the digital buck wherein the clearance
check summary includes the calculated clearance values between each of
the preassembled component parts in the digital buck” (claim 8, emphasis
added). In particular, the issue turns upon whether the combined teachings
of Rhodes and Koenig disclose a summarized list of calculated clearance
values for each of the preassembled component parts.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Rhodes
1. Rhodes discloses a frame design processing server configures
positions for the each of the specified components based upon processing
data in the frame design rules and based upon conducting interference
checks (Abstract; ¶ [0036]).
2. The configuration is the selection of a location for each piece of
geometry within each component of the vehicle; wherein, the location is
selected such that each piece does not interfere with any other configured
piece and that the location of each piece is within an acceptable range of
locations (¶ [0036]).
Appeal 2010-005363
Application 10/899,802

5
3. At the component processing stage, a user or a third party
provides inputs for location properties of each component, including those
that specify the location attributes that the frame design processing server
102 will use to locate the component (Fig. 10; ¶ [0046]). More particularly,
the inputs include a selection of a reference point 1004, an offset 1006, a
range specification of dimensions 1008, placement strategies 1010, and
interference clearance (id.). The interference clearance inputs enable
definition of the “Fore” and “Aft” measurements associated with the
component (Fig. 10).
4. After the component processing stage, the server conducts an
interference check determining whether interference exists between any
configured components at the current location for each geometry piece (Fig.
7, steps 712; ¶¶ [0049] and [0051]).
5. When interference occurs, the server selects the next location in
the possible range of locations and sets the next location as the current
location (Fig. 7, steps 714 and 716; ¶ [0051]). When no interference exists,
the server stores the current location of the component (Fig. 7, step 718;
[0052]).
6. The resulting configuration is stored in a custom frame design
database 124 and exported as manufacturing data and/or three-dimensional
representations of the frame design (Figs. 5 and 6; Abstract; ¶¶ [0036],
[0037], and [0039]). The manufacturing data is in the form of a textual file
including an identification of all components to be mounted on a frame and
dimensional data corresponding to a configured location for each piece of
geometry associated with the selected components (Fig. 6; ¶ [0039]).
Appeal 2010-005363
Application 10/899,802

6
Koenig
7. Koenig discloses a preassemble crash model (Fig. 2, item 66).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 8-14, 16-20, and 22
Appellants contend that Rhodes “shows a screen on which parameters
can be set [and] not one on which a check is summarized” (App. Br. 10).
Appellants argue that the screen does not “show a resulting clearance from a
clearance check, since the [screen is displayed before the interference
check], and thus clearance between [the components] would be unknown”
(App. Br. 12).
Although the Examiner finds that
the clearance check for each of the preassembled component
parts for the digital buck is summarized in the textual file,
wherein the clearance check summary includes the calculated
clearance values (shown here as dimensional and location data)
between each of the preassembled component parts in the
digital buck (frame design)

(Ans.14), we do not find any teaching of “summarizing the clearance check
for each of the preassembled component parts … include[ing] the calculated
clearance values between each of the preassembled component parts in the
digital buck” (claim 8) in the sections of Rhodes relied upon by the
Examiner.
Although we agree with the Examiner that Rhodes does disclose user-
defined inputs for Interference Clearance values for each component prior to
an interference checking routine (FF 4-6) and Koenig does disclose a
preassemble crash model (FF 8), we cannot find any suggestion in the
Examiner’s recited portion of Rhodes and Koenig that the combination
Appeal 2010-005363
Application 10/899,802

7
teaches or fairly suggests a summarized list of calculated clearance values
between each of the preassembled component parts of the buck (prototype)
as required by claim 8. More particularly, although a user may input
Interference Clearance values prior to the interference check routine, the
cited section of Rhodes is silent as to whether the textual file exported to the
manufacturer after the interference check routine includes a summary of the
interference clearance values (FF 4 and 7). That is, Rhodes discloses that
the dimensional data included within the textual file is related to the
configured location for each piece of geometry associated with the selected
components; however, the sections of Rhodes cited by the Examiner is silent
as to the textual file’s inclusion of a summary of the interference clearance
values, “Fore” and “Aft” (id.). We find that the Examiner’s conclusion that
the text file includes a summary of interference clearance values would
require us to resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions, or hindsight
reconstruction. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). We,
however, will not resort to such speculation or assumptions to cure the
deficiencies in the factual basis in order to support the Examiner’s rejection.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rhodes in view of
Koenig. Further, independent claim 17 having similar claim language and
claims 9-14, 16, 18-20, and 22 (depending from claims 8 and 17) stand with
claim 8.

Appeal 2010-005363
Application 10/899,802

8
Claims 15 and 21
As noted supra, we reversed the rejection of claims 8 and 17 from
which claims 15 and 21 depends.
The Examiner has not identified how Hill cures the noted deficiencies
of the combined teachings of Rhodes and Koenig. As such, we also reverse
the rejection of claims 15 and 21 over Rhodes in view of Koenig and Hill.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.

REVERSED

tkl