Ex Parte Ash et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2017

13546140 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2017)

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.
1-21281 6114
EXAMINER
STRIMBU, GREGORY J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3634
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/546,140 07/11/2012
1678 7590 08/29/2017
MARSHALL & MET .HORN, LLC
FOUR SEAGATE - EIGHTH FLOOR
TOLEDO, OH 43604
Charles E. Ash JR.
08/29/2017 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 CHARLES E. ASH JR., BRIAN J. CLARK,
THOMAS S. HICKS, DAVID M. KOVACH,
MATTHEW A. RAPIN, KEITH H. SCHWADERER,
SHANE C. SEIPLE, CHARLES SITTERLET, and
ROBERT M. THOMAS
Appeal 2015-007962
Application 13/546,140
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charles E. Ash Jr. et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—23. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Pilkington Group Limited, which is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Nippon Sheet Glass Co. Limited, as the real party in
interest. Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-007962
Application 13/546,140
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is the only independent claim, and is
representative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A heated vehicle sliding window assembly, comprising:
a fixed glass panel having an opening defined therein;
a slidably movable glass panel configured to be capable of
closing the opening defined in the fixed glass panel;
a first plurality of electrically conductive grid lines
comprising two grid resistors electrically connected together as
a series circuit, the two grid resistors disposed on the fixed glass
panel;
a first set of at least two electrically conductive bus bars
disposed on the fixed glass panel having the series circuit of the
two grid resistors electrically connected therebetween;
a second plurality of electrically conductive grid lines
formed as a third grid resistor disposed on the slidably movable
glass panel; and
a second set of at least two electrically conductive bus bars
disposed on the slidably movable glass panel having the third
grid resistor electrically connected therebetween;
wherein the first and second sets of electrically conductive
bus bars are electrically connected together as a parallel circuit
independent of the position of the movable glass panel over the
fixed glass panel opening.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 5—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite.
II. Claims 1—4, 20, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Smith (US 2011/0030276 Al, published Feb.
10, 2011), Hebert (US 8,250,812 B2, issued Aug. 28, 2012), and
Muromachi (US 7,652,226 B2, published Jan. 26, 2010).
2
Appeal 2015-007962
Application 13/546,140
III. Claims 5—18 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Smith, Hebert, Muromachi, and Gipson
(US 2012/0291353 Al, published Nov. 22, 2012).
IV. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Smith, Hebert, Muromachi, and Durussel (US 4,023,008,
issued May 10, 1977).
DISCUSSION
Rejection I—Indefiniteness
Appellants do not present any arguments contesting this rejection.
See Br. 4—13. Thus, Appellants have waived any argument of error, and we
summarily sustain the rejection of claims 5—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. See In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding
that the Board did not err in sustaining a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, when the applicant failed to contest the rejection on
appeal); Hyatt v. Dndas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining
that summary affirmance without consideration of the substantive merits is
appropriate where an appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection).
Rejections II—IV-—Obviousness
Independent claim 1, and, thus, claims 2—23, which depend from
claim 1, require that the first set of electrically conductive bus bars (i.e., the
“bus bars disposed on the fixed glass panel having the series circuit of the
two grid resistors electrically connected therebetween”) and the second set
of electrically conductive bus bars (i.e., the “bus bars disposed on the
slidably movable glass panel having the third grid resistor electrically
3
Appeal 2015-007962
Application 13/546,140
connected therebetween) be “electrically connected together as a parallel
circuit independent of the position of the movable glass panel over the fixed
glass panel opening.” Br. 15—16 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that Smith discloses first (terminals 22a) and
second (terminals 36a, 38a) sets of electrically conductive bus bars that “are
electrically connected together as a parallel circuit independent of the
position of the movable glass panel over the fixed glass panel opening.”
Final Act. 4; Ans. 4.
Appellants submit that “since Smith does not provide a complete
electrical circuit diagram, one skilled in the art would merely be guessing as
to how Smith electrically connects its conductive bus bars together over its
panel opening between its separate fixed glass panels.” Br. 11 (emphasis
omitted).
In response, the Examiner explains:
As shown in figure 6 of Smith et al., two elements, i.e., bus bars
36a and 38a, are used to connect the sliding window heating grid
24 to a power source, i.e., the battery of the vehicle. Since there
are only two bus bars, one of the bus bars 36a or 38a must be
connected to the positive side of the power source while the other
one of the bus bars 36a or 38a must be connected to the negative
side of the power source. As shown in figure 2 of Smith et al.,
each of the grid resistors 22 is connected to the power source via
bus bars 22a. Because Smith et al. fails to disclose any electrical
connection between the bus bars 22a and the bus bars 36a and
3 8[a], the grid resistors of Smith et al. are not connected in series.
Since there are only two choices to wire a circuit, the process of
elimination leads one to the only possible conclusion that the grid
resistor 24 is wired in parallel with the grid resistors 22.
Ans. 12—13. For the reasons that follow, Smith does not support the
Examiner’s conclusion by a preponderance of the evidence.
4
Appeal 2015-007962
Application 13/546,140
Terminals 22a are provided on the fixed window panel of Smith’s
modified device2 to electrically connect heater grids 22 to connectors of a
vehicle wire harness in a “known,” but unspecified manner. Smith | 67,
Fig. 2. Smith also provides flexible cable 32, which has one end connected
to a pair of terminals or busbars at the fixed window panel “where the
terminals may be electrically conductively connected to the terminals 22a of
the heater grid 22 of fixed window panel 18” and the other end connected to
a pair of terminals or busbars at the movable window panel. Id. 1 68
(boldface and italics omitted). More specifically, electrical connector 34 is
provided on the movable window panel. Id. 1 69. Connector 34 includes a
pair of electrically conductive traces each having one end 36a, 38a
electrically conductively connected to respective terminals of heater grid 24
and each having terminals 36b, 38b at the other end. Id. One end 32a of
flexible cable 32 connects to terminals 36b, 38b, and the opposite end 32b of
flexible cable 32 connects to connector 40 on the fixed window panel.
Id. 69, 70. Connector 40 receives end 32b of cable 32 such that the ends
of the wires of cable 32 are electrically conductively connected to terminals
40a, 40b, which, in turn, are connected to conductive traces on the fixed
window panel, “such as at or near the connectors or terminals 22a of heater
grid 22.” Id. 170 (boldface omitted). Thus, the Examiner’s finding that
Smith fails to disclose any electrical connection between the bus bars
(terminals) 22a and the bus bars (terminals) 36a and 38a is not entirely
correct. More importantly, however, Smith provides insufficient details
2 The rejection proposes to modify Smith by making the two fixed glass
panels “as one single pane, as taught by Hebert. . ., to improve the strength
and the aesthetics of the vehicle sliding window assembly.” Final Act. 5;
Ans. 5.
5
Appeal 2015-007962
Application 13/546,140
about the manner in which terminals 22 a are connected via a vehicle wire
harness to power heater grids 22, as well as the manner in which terminals
36a, 38a are connected to terminals 22a and heater grid 24 to draw any
conclusions about whether the set of busbars (terminals 22a) for heater grids
22 on the fixed glass window panel are connected in series or in parallel
with the set of busbars (terminals 36a, 38a) for heater grid 24 on the
movable glass window panel. The Examiner’s finding that Smith discloses a
parallel connection of these sets of busbars is based on speculation.
Consequently, the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness of the subject
matter of claim 1, which is predicated in part on this speculative finding,
lacks the requisite factual support and, thus, cannot stand. See In re Warner,
379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“The legal conclusion of obviousness
must be supported by facts. Where the legal conclusion is not supported by
facts it cannot stand.”). Moreover, this unsupported finding pervades the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 2—23, which depend from claim
1, as well. The Examiner does not rely on Hebert, Muromachi, Gipson, or
Duressel in any manner that would make up for the deficiency in the
Examiner’s findings with respect to Smith. See Final Act. 5—10; Ans. 5—10.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 1—23 under
35U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 5—19 under 35 U.S.C.
§112, second paragraph, is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is REVERSED.
6
Appeal 2015-007962
Application 13/546,140
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7