Ex Parte GALLAGHER et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 201815137664 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 15/137,664 04/25/2016 28395 7590 09/27/2018 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L 1000 TOWN CENTER 22NDFLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Steven William GALLAGHER 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 83642560 6810 EXAMINER PEDDER, DENNIS H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3612 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2018 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): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEVEN WILLIAM GALLAGHER and DAVID SCHMIDT 1 Appeal2018-002820 Application 15/137,664 Technology Center 3600 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Ford Global Technologies, LLC (Appellant) is the Applicant, as provided in 37 C.F.R. § 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2018-002820 Application 15/137,664 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 7, and 12 are independent. Claims App. 1-3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A vehicle comprising: bodyside pillars; a roof defining a periphery and attached to and supported by the bodyside pillars; and a support structure attached to the roof, the support structure having a mounting ring extending substantially around the periphery, and a panel disposed within a section defined by at least two leg portions of the mounting ring, the panel being configured to support a plurality of sensors having a weight, and the mounting ring defining attachment from the roof to the bodyside pillars to distribute the weight of the panel across the roof and the bodyside pillars. Id. at 1. REJECTI0NS 2 I. Claims 1, 2, 6-13, and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ordonio et al. (US 2009/0174229 Al, published July 9, 2009, hereinafter "Ordonio") and Ganz et al. (US 5,545,261, issued Aug. 13, 1996, hereinafter "Ganz"). II. Claims 3, 4, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ordonio, Ganz, and Bojanowski et al. (US 2015/0343887 Al, published Dec. 3, 2015, hereinafter "Bojanowski"). 2 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claims 4 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) in view of the Amendment filed August 22, 2017. See Ans. 5; Advisory Act. (Sept. 1, 2017); Final Act. 2. 2 Appeal2018-002820 Application 15/137,664 III. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ordonio, Ganz, Regnier et al. (US 2006/0284450 Al, pub. Dec. 21, 2006, hereinafter "Regnier"), and Khaykin et al. (US 8,998,297 Bl, issued Apr. 7, 2015, hereinafter "Khaykin"). DISCUSSION Rejection I Appellant groups all independent claims 1, 7, and 12 together, and does not present any separate arguments for the dependent claims, aside from their dependence from one of claims 1, 7, and 12. See Appeal Br. 2--4. We decide the appeal of this rejection on the basis of claim 1, with claims 2, 6-13, and 15-17 standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv) (permitting the Board to select a single claim to decide the appeal as to a single ground of rejection of a group of claims argued together). The Examiner found that Ordonio discloses substantially all of the limitations of claim 1, including, in pertinent part, a "transparent panel lacking sensors. " 3 Final Act. 3. The Examiner found that Ganz "teach[ es] that a sunroof panel 10 may support solar cells 12, comprising solar sensors." Id. The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to provide Ordonio with the sensors of Ganz "in order to use solar electrical energy." Id. at 4. 3 Notably, claim 1 does not positively recite sensors as an element of the vehicle. Rather, claim 1 recites "the panel being configured to support a plurality of sensors having a weight." Claims App. 1 (emphasis added). 3 Appeal2018-002820 Application 15/137,664 Citing Ordonio' s statement that "there is a need in the art for a roof frame portion for supporting an adjustable roof panel" (Ordonio ,r 10), Appellant contends that the "Examiner's rejection must remove adjustability from the disclosure [ of] Ordonio" and, thus, "ignores an explicitly stated object of the disclosure [ofJ Ordonio." Appeal Br. 3. Appellant argues that, therefore, the "Examiner's proposed combination of Ordonio in view of [Ganz] is inoperable." Id. In response, the Examiner points out that Ordonio "discloses that the panel may 'optionally be adjustable."' Ans. 5. Ordonio states that "there is a need in the art for a roof frame portion for supporting an adjustable roof panel" (Ordonio ,r 10), but does not specifically restrict the teachings of the invention to a frame for an adjustable roof panel. In this regard, Ordonio discloses that "sunroof 218 can optionally be adjustable, for example, to at least partially retract in a rearward direction relative to the roof panel 212." Id. ,r 24 (boldface omitted). This suggests that adjustability of the sunroof panel is optional, and not critical or required. Moreover, the Examiner emphasizes that Ganz is relied on only for its teaching "that a sunroof panel, such as the panel of Ordonio ... , may support solar cells." Ans. 6. Appellant does not cogently explain, and we do not discern, why the modification proposed by the Examiner (i.e., mounting a sunroof panel supporting solar cells, as taught by Ganz, in the roof frame of Ordonio) would remove adjustability from the frame of Ordonio. In the Reply Brief, Appellant presents new arguments not presented in the Appeal Brief. See Reply Br. 2. Appellant argues that "[i]t is unclear how a non-transparent panel of solar cells (See column 2, lines 39 and 40 4 Appeal2018-002820 Application 15/137,664 [ of] Ganz) can be a sunroof as defined by Ordonio, which requires transparency." Id. Appellant also argues that Ganz discloses a roof lining (13) underneath the solar cover. Id. According to Appellant, the opaque solar cover and roof lining of Ganz would "render Ordonio' s sunroof system unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, given that one could not see through such a combined system."4 Id. These arguments are not responsive to an argument raised in the Answer, and Appellant has not shown good cause why these arguments could not have been raised earlier and should be considered now. Accordingly, these arguments are not timely, and we do not consider them. See 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.41 (b )(2) ("Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner's answer ... will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown."). For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or claims 2, 6-13, and 15-17, which fall with claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ordonio and Ganz. Rejections II and III Appellant does not present any separate arguments contesting the rejections of claims 3-5 and 14. See Appeal Br. 4 (relying on dependency 4 Should Appellant persist in this line of argument, we note that, although Ganz discloses an opaque solar cover embodiment, the bottom of which is lined by inside roof lining 13 (Ganz, col. 2, 11. 39-40, 43--45; Fig. 1), Ganz also discloses a modified embodiment comprising a solar cover equipped with a transparent solar module (id., col. 2, 11. 61-62; Fig. 2). The modified embodiment of Ganz "is therefore partially transparent overall." Id., col. 2, 1. 65. 5 Appeal2018-002820 Application 15/137,664 from claims 1, 7, and 12 for patentability of the dependent claims). Thus, for the reasons set forth above, Appellant also fails to apprise us of error in the rejections of claims 3-5 and 14. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 3, 4, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ordonio, Ganz, and Bojanowski, and the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ordonio, Ganz, Regnier, and Khaykin. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-17 is AFFIRMED. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation