Ex Parte Austin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 27, 2012

11285539 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 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. 11/285,539 11/22/2005 Donald M. Austin TPL 0145 PUS 7022 22045 7590 09/28/2012 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. 1000 TOWN CENTER TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075 EXAMINER MCPARTLIN, SARAH BURNHAM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3636 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/28/2012 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 DONALD M. AUSTIN and ANDREW R. MCINTYRE ____________________ Appeal 2010-006124 Application 11/285,539 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before EDWARD A. BROWN, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006124 Application 11/285,539 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15. (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Independent claims 1 and 9, reproduced below, are representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A child seat restraint anchorage comprising: an elongated tube; a plurality of latch wires coupled to said tube for positioning intermediate a seat bench and a seat back; at least one support bracket having a channel at least partly enclosing said tube, wherein said bracket includes a portion extending longitudinally along the tube aligned with an edge of said channel; and a fastener mechanically joining said portion to said tube. 9. A method for mounting a support bracket to a child seat restraint anchorage tube having a plurality of latch wires, comprising: conforming a portion of said bracket to peripherally engage a portion of said tube; extending a portion of said bracket longitudinally and peripherally along said tube at said conforming portion to abut the tube along at least spaced areas; connecting said portion to the tube by mechanical engagement with a fastener. Appeal 2010-006124 Application 11/285,539 3 THE REJECTIONS We review the following rejections:1 1. Claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Medvecky (US 2004/0080194 A1; pub. Apr. 29, 2004). 2. Claims 1-5 and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Smallwood (US 2004/0227384 A1; pub. Nov. 18, 2004) and Medvecky. 3. Claims 9, 10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Medvecky. ANALYSIS Claims 1 and 2 â€“ Anticipation- Medvecky Claim 1 recites, inter alia, "a fastener mechanically joining said portion to said tube." The Examiner found Medvecky discloses a child restraint seat comprising an elongate tube 84, a support bracket 82 including a portion extending longitudinally along the tube 84, and a fastener 87 mechanically joining the portion to the tube 84. (Ans. 4). Medvecky discloses that "the retaining bracket 82 is welded to tube 84 as shown at 87." (See Medvecky para. [0056]). As such, reference number 87 represents a weld. The Examiner found that the weld 87 corresponds to the claimed "fastener." Appellants contend that the Examiner has given the claim limitation, "fastener mechanically joining," an unreasonably broad construction in light of the Specification. (App. Br. 4-6; Reply Br. 4-5). 1 The following rejections have been withdrawn by the Examiner: claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as anticipated by Duffy (US 2005/0168024 A1; pub. Aug. 4, 2005), and claims 9 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Duffy. (Ans. 3). Appeal 2010-006124 Application 11/285,539 4 Appellants contend that the Examiner improperly construed the term "fastener" in light of the Specification to include a weld. (App. Br. 5). The Patent and Trademark Office gives claim limitations their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, reading the claim language as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants' Specification describes the terms "fastener" and "welding. For example, the Specification states: The present invention overcomes the above- identified problems by reducing the need for welding, if not eliminating welding completely in anchorage structure for child seat restraint, in the attachment of the Isofix bar to a mounting bracket by at least partially encompassing the tube within a bracket recess or channel, and extending a portion of the bracket along the tube adjacent the recess. Preferably, the extended portion is mechanically locked, preferably by a fastener, to the tube. (Spec. 2, ll. 2-8) (emphasis added). The Specification also describes, "[i]n addition, the brackets 32 may be mounted to the vehicle framing 44 such as flooring, structural beams, or a seat frame, by welding, fasteners 46 or the like." (Spec. 4, ll. 10-12) (emphasis added). In addition, the Specification describes, "[r]eferring now to Figures 2-6, the present invention includes embodiments that improve construction of restraint anchorages 12 by addressing the manner in which a rail 30 may be secured to brackets 32. Preferably, the embodiments eliminate the need for, if not the use of, welding in that assembly." (Spec. 4, ll. 17-20) (emphasis added). Further, the Specification describes: As shown in Figure 2, the hollow tube 50 is received in aperture 54 in a flange 52. Adjacent to Appeal 2010-006124 Application 11/285,539 5 the aperture 54, a flange 64 extends outwardly along the tube 50 at the periphery of the opening 54 to form an extending portion 60 of the bracket that can be mechanically joined with the tube. In the preferred embodiment, such mechanical joinder may be accomplished by rivets, although other fasteners or bonding may physically join the parts. Preferably, the tube 50 and the flange 64 include apertures 62 and 58, respectively, that may be aligned in a predetermined position so that they may be registered for receiving the rivet 65 and aligning the bracket along the tube 50 in a desired mounting location. The bracket 56 also includes a mounting flange 66, preferably formed by stamping that engages the frame 44. The flange 66 may be provided with positioned fastener openings, for example, as shown at 67, to permit the flange to be secured to the frame 44 at a predetermined location. Likewise rivets, bolts, welding or other securing may be practiced to mount the restraint anchorage bracket 32 of the present invention to the vehicle frame. (Spec. 4, l. 27 â€“ 5, l. 10) (emphasis added). Appellants' Specification discourages the use of welding for securing the rail to brackets, and clearly distinguishes between mechanical fasteners, such as rivets and bolts, and welds, in the context of the application. We also note that each of the embodiments of the bracket and tube assemblies depicted in Figures 2-4 and 6 of the application utilizes rivets to attach the bracket (32, 86, 106) to the respective tube 50. (See also Spec. 4, l. 27 â€“ 5, l. 30; 6, ll. 9-20). The Specification does not describe a weld as a fastener, but, in contrast, describes welding as a separate, different means of securing from rivets and bolts. As such, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not given the term "fastener" the broadest reasonable interpretation Appeal 2010-006124 Application 11/285,539 6 consistent with the Specification, but has given the term "fastener" an overly-broad construction. The Examiner found Dehli (US 7,410,215 B2; iss. Aug. 12, 2008) discloses "mounting brackets 18 mounted to the support structure 19 by a mechanical fastener, such as a weld" (Ans. 8) (citing Dehli para. [0020]), and Stone (US 7,484,336 B2; iss. Feb. 3, 2009) discloses "an anchor fin 54d attached to anchoring section 24d by a mechanical fastener, such as a bolt, screw, weld" (Ans. 8) (citing Stone para. [0012]). While Dehli and Stone both describe a "weld" as a "mechanical fastener" in the context of their applications, as discussed supra, we find that Appellants' Specification clearly conveys that the claim term "fastener" should not be construed as encompassing a "weld" in the context of the present application. While the Specification does not expressly exclude the use of welds to join the tube to a support bracket, claim 1 requires the portion to be mechanically joined to the tube with a "fastener," and we agree with Appellants that the claim term "fastener" does not encompass Medvecky's weld. The Examiner did not find that Medvecky discloses securing the tube 84 to the support bracket 82 by using a "fastener" other than the weld 87. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 2 as anticipated by Medvecky. Claims 9, 10 and 12 â€“ Obviousness â€“ Medvecky Claim 9 is directed to a method for mounting a support bracket to a child seat restraint anchorage tube having a plurality of latch wires, comprising, inter alia, the step of "connecting said portion to the tube by mechanical engagement with a fastener." (Emphasis added). The Examiner's conclusion of obviousness for claim 9 is also premised on the Appeal 2010-006124 Application 11/285,539 7 erroneous construction of "fastener" to encompass Medvecky's weld 87. (Ans. 4-5). Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9, and claims 10 and 12 which depend therefrom, for reasons similar to those discussed supra for claim 1. Claims 1-5 and 9-12 â€“ Obviousness â€“ Smallwood and Medvecky Regarding claim 1, the Examiner contends that Smallwood discloses all of claimed elements except for "a fastener mechanically joining said portion to said tube." (Ans. 5-6). The Examiner relied on Medvecky for disclosure regarding "a fastener in the form of a weld (87) mechanically joining a portion of a bracket (82) to a tube (84)." (Ans. 6). As the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness for claim 1 is premised on the erroneous construction of "fastener," we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-5 which depend therefrom. The Examiner's findings and conclusion of obviousness for claim 9 also rely on the finding that Medvecky discloses the claimed "mechanical engagement with a fastener." Accordingly, we also do not sustain the rejection of claim 9, and claims 10- 12 which depend therefrom for similar reasons. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15 is reversed. REVERSED mls