Ex Parte Brancheriau

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 8, 2017

12864096 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 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. 12/864,096 07/22/2010 Christian Brancheriau 0512-1621 2114 466 7590 03/10/2017 YOUNG fr THOMPSON EXAMINER 209 Madison Street BLACK, MELISSA ANN Suite 500 Alexandria, VA 22314 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3612 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/10/2017 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): DocketingDept@young-thompson.com y andtpair @ firsttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHRISTIAN BRANCHERIAU Appeal 2014-0033701 Application 12/864,0962 Technology Center 3600 Before KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, SHEILA F. Me SHANE, and MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—15, and 17—22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed September 3, 2013), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed January 22, 2014), the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 22, 2013), and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed January 31, 2013). 2 Appellant identifies “Faurecia Interieur Industrie, of Nanterre, France” as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2014-003370 Application 12/864,096 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention “relates generally to devices for attaching a first structural or functional sub-assembly to a second structural or functional sub-assembly in a motor vehicle, and in particular to a device for attaching a dashboard to the body of a vehicle” (Spec. 1,11. 4—7). Claims 1 and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. An assembly for attaching a first structural or functional sub-assembly to a second structural or functional subassembly of a motor vehicle, the attachment assembly comprising: [a] an attachment device arranged to attach the first sub- assembly in a predetermined use position relative to the second sub-assembly, the attachment device comprising: [b] a female member which is connected to the second sub-assembly and defines an inner cavity on the inside, [c] a male member connected to the first sub- assembly, the male member being configured to be inserted into the inner cavity of the female member in an insertion direction, and [d] a blocking member which is movable relative to the female member, inside the inner cavity, between a rest position, in which the blocking member allows the male member to be inserted into the female member in the insertion direction, and an operative position, in which the blocking member cooperates with the male member in order to block the male member relative to the female member at least in the insertion direction; and [e] an actuator arranged outside the inner cavity and being a distinct and separate device with regard to the attachment device, [f] wherein the blocking member is movable from the rest position to the operative position by the actuator. 2 Appeal 2014-003370 Application 12/864,096 REJECTION Claims 1, 2, 4—15, and 17—22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Arroupe (US 2006/0138806 Al, pub. June 29, 2006) and Brancheriau (FR2874582 Al, pub. Mar. 3, 2006). ANALYSIS Independent claims 1 and 15, and dependent claims 2, 4—14, and 17—22 We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the combination of Arroupe and Brancheriau fails to disclose or suggest “an actuator arranged outside the inner cavity and being a distinct and separate device with regard to the attachment device, wherein the blocking member is movable from the rest position to the operative position by the actuator,” as recited by limitations [e] and [f] of independent claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 9— 14; see also Reply Br. 2—3). In the Final Office Action, the Examiner acknowledges that “Arroupe et al fails to disclose an actuator arranged outside the inner cavity and being a distinct and separate device with regards to the attachment device, wherein the blocking member is movable from the rest position to the operative] position by the actuator” (Final Act. 5), but finds that Figure 9 of Brancheriau discloses the argued limitations (see id.). In an Advisory Action (“Advisory Act.,” mailed June 6, 2013), the Examiner finds the argued limitations “can be seen in figure 2, of Brancheriau, the actuator (spring) are on the outside of female member 13 and meet the limitations of the claim language” (see Advisory Act. 2). We cannot agree. 3 Appeal 2014-003370 Application 12/864,096 Arroupe is directed to a motor vehicle structural element of the type comprising a cross-member and, [] at least one end of the cross-member, a first nut presenting a tapped bore for receiving a screw for fastening the cross-member to an upright of the vehicle, the axis of the bore being substantially parallel to the director line of the cross member. (Arroupe 12). More particularly, Arroupe relates to “a portion of the body 1 of a motor vehicle, which body typically has two substantially vertical side uprights 2 and a structural element 3 interconnecting the two uprights 2” (id. 134). Arroupe further discloses, inter alia [mjeans 62 for turning the element 44, e.g. means in the form of a metal ring provided with spring blades 63, can be received in the bore 60. These means 62 can enable the shank 24 of the screw 11 to be inserted towards the right, but can rub against it so as to be caused to rotate together therewith. The means 62 for providing rotary drive can be fastened, e.g. snap-fastened, to the bearing element 44 in order to transmit thereto any rotary movement from the screw 11 about the line L. (Id. 1 63). In this regard, Arroupe discloses that “[t]he screw 11 can continue to be turned until, for example, a predetermined lateral clamping force is obtained between the cross-member 4 and the upright 2 via the spacer device 12” (id. 177). Brancheriau is directed to a “[djashboard fixing device for [a] motor vehicle” (Brancheriau, Title). Brancheriau discloses a centering pin (15) and a complementary ring (13) that are co axially engaged. The centering pin and the ring are connected to respective two units among a dash board and a body shell. The pin and the ring are provided with complementary elastic engagement units (45, 59) which mutually engage radially during axial engagement of the pin and the ring. (Id., Abstract). 4 Appeal 2014-003370 Application 12/864,096 We have reviewed the cited figures of Brancheriau, in view of Arroupe, and agree with Appellant (see Appeal Br. 13—14) that Brancheriau fails to disclose or suggest “an actuator arranged outside the inner cavity and being a distinct and separate device with regard to the attachment device, wherein the blocking member is movable from the rest position to the operative position by the actuator,” as recited by limitations [e] and [f] of independent claim 1. Responding to Appellant’s argument in the Answer, the Examiner takes the position that Figure 9 of Brancheriau shows the breakdown of the blocking member (45) wherein the actuator (41) is outside the inner cavity (of 13) and movable from the rest position to the operate position by the actuator (41), and as claimed in claims 1 and 15, the actuator is distinct and separate from the attachment device, for the spring elements are a separate device and are not integral with the attachment device. Even if Examiner would be using spring 47, it is still a separate device, it is not integral with the attachment device and would still read on the claim language. (Ans. 5). The difficulty with the Examiner’s position, as Appellant points out, is that “only the springs 47 . . . would cause the latches 45 to move” (see Reply Br. 2 (citing Brancheriau at Figs. 3, 4). We agree with Appellant that the springs (41) in Brancheriau, which the Examiner found correspond to the “actuator,” as called for by limitation [e] of independent claim 1, “do not cause . . . the alleged blocking members (latches 45) to move from a rest position to an operative position,” as further required by limitation [f] of independent claim 1 (Reply Br. 2; see also Brancheriau at Fig. 4). And, to the extent the Examiner finds the “spring 47 ... is still a separate device, it is not integral with the attachment device and would still read on the claim 5 Appeal 2014-003370 Application 12/864,096 language” (Ans. 5), the Examiner fails to establish that “spring[s] 47” (see Brancheriau at Fig. 4) are “arranged outside the inner cavity,” as required by limitation [e] of independent claim 1. Thus, we fail to see, and the Examiner does not adequately explain, how any of the elements depicted in Figures 2 and 9 of Brancheriau disclose or suggest the “actuator” recited by independent claim 1. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 4—14, and 17—22, which depend therefrom. Independent claim 15 and dependent claims Independent claim 15 includes limitations similar to limitations [e] and [f] in independent claim 1, and are rejected based on the same rationale applied with respect to independent claim 1 (see Final Act. 2—5; see also Ans. 5). Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 15 for the same reasons set forth above with respect to independent claim 1. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,2, 4—15, and 17—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 6