Ex Parte Bodem et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 2017

13316898 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 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. 13/316,898 12/12/2011 Jack Bodem 710240-5900 8739 59582 7590 08/31/2017 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 2600 WEST BIG BEAVER ROAD SUITE 300 TROY, MI 48084-3312 EXAMINER SONG, ZHENG B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2875 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2017 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 JACK BODEM, DAVID E. RAMEY, JOHNNY D. BRYANT, JEFFREY D. SIMCHAK, and MARK MOLINARO ____________________ Appeal 2016-006177 Application 13/316,898 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Specification dated December 12, 2015 (Spec.), Final Office Action dated May 29, 2015 (Final), the Appeal Brief dated November 20, 2015 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner’s Answer dated March 29, 2016 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief dated May 27, 2016 (Reply Br.). Appeal 2016-006177 Application 13/316,898 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants2 appeal from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4–14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM for the reasons provided by the Examiner in the Answer. We add the following for emphasis. The claims are directed to an integral lamp assembly (see, e.g., claim 1) and a method of constructing it (see, e.g., claim 8). The integral assembly is meant to replace the conventional two-piece assembly in which the bulb is installed into a socket, but is removable. Spec. ¶¶ 3–4. The integral assembly includes terminals welded to the bulb such that the bulb is inseparable from the socket. Spec. ¶¶ 5, 18; claim 1. To further illustrate the integral assembly of the claims, we reproduce claim 1 with the portion of the claim at issue highlighted: 1. An integral lamp assembly, comprising: a bulb; a plurality of terminals fixed to said bulb, wherein said terminals are a single, monolithic piece of material and have a proximal end portion welded to said bulb and a distal end portion, said proximal end portion extending along a first axis and said distal end portion extending along a second axis, said first axis and said second axis extending in inclined relation to one another; a socket having at least one through passage, said terminals extending through said at least one through passage; and 2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Federal-Mogul Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2016-006177 Application 13/316,898 3 a housing overmolded in bonded relation to at least one of said socket and said terminals, said housing preventing said bulb from being removed from said socket such that said bulb, said terminals, said socket, and said housing are inseparable from one another without breaking at least one of said bulb, said terminals, said socket, and said housing. Appeal Br. Exhibit A (emphasis added). The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4–14 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ogawa3 in view of Hall.4 OPINION The issue on appeal for all the claims is whether Appellants have identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s finding of a suggestion within Hall for welding the proximal end portion of terminals to the bulb of Ogawa. Compare Final 2–6, and Ans. 5–7, with Appeal Br. 4–7, and Reply Br. 2–4. Appellants have not identified such an error. There is no dispute that Ogawa teaches a socket assembly adapted to receive, and make electrical contact with, a light bulb as was known in the art. Compare Appeal Br. 4–7; Reply Br. 2–4, with Ans. 2; see also Ogawa col. 1, ll. 22–24. The bulb is to be received within bulb insertion opening 5. Ogawa col. 1, ll. 22–24; col. 2, ll. 36–41; Fig. 1. As shown in Ogawa’s Figure 1, one end of the one-piece terminal 6, i.e., the end with terminal portions 6A–D, resides within bulb insertion opening 5 for making good electrical contact with the bulb. Ogawa col. 1, ll. 34–36; col. 2, ll. 42–43. 3 Ogawa, US 5,846,100, Dec. 8, 1998. 4 Hall et al., US 5,121,304, June 9, 1992. Appeal 2016-006177 Application 13/316,898 4 Hall explains that two-piece assemblies, like that of Ogawa, in which the bulb is inserted into a wire end socket to couple with spring loaded contacts, was probably the most common assembly for taillight bulbs. Hall col. 1, ll. 19–23. Hall seeks to overcome problems with the coupling of the lamp base to the bulb to provide a strong mating that can endure the extreme temperature and environmental stresses that exist over the life of a vehicle. Hall col. 1, ll. 26–43. One aspect of Hall’s improved coupling is a weld between the electrically powered light source 14 of the light bulb and the electrical leads 20 that protrude from the seal end 18 of the light bulb. Hall Fig. 2; col. 2, ll. 19–34. Although, as pointed out by Appellants, Hall includes a more complex assembly procedure involving a further weld at 44 to lugs 38, this fact does not overshadow the teaching in Hall showing it was known to directly connect the light source of a bulb to electrical leads or terminals instead of using springloaded contacts in a wire socket. The two modes of electrical coupling between light bulbs and terminals were known in the art and each provides the predictable result of establishing an electrical connection between the bulb and terminals. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding of a suggestion to substitute the welded connection between the light source and electrical terminals taught by Hall for the press-fitted springloaded connection of Ogawa. Appeal 2016-006177 Application 13/316,898 5 CONCLUSION We sustain the Examiner’s rejection. DECISION The Examiner’s decision is affirmed. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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). AFFIRMED