Ex Parte Hashemi et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 28, 2019

13674778 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/674,778 11/12/2012
22145 7590 03/04/2019
KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP
16755 VON KARMAN AVENUE
SUITE 275
IRVINE, CA 92606
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Darush David Hashemi
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.
1165-002.301 3879
EXAMINER
MERLINO, ALYSON MARIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/04/2019 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):
KOS_Docketing@koslaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DARUSH DAVID HASHEM!, XIAOPING ZHOU, and
XIWENWANG
Appeal 2018-002029
Application 13/674,778 1
Technology Center 3600
Before: EDWARD A. BROWN, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Darush David Hashemi et al. ("Appellants") seek review under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 27-30, 32, 33,
35--46, 48-50, 57---64, and 66-69. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Accuride International Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 1-26, 31, 34, 47, 51-56, 65, and 70 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 21-
24 (Claims App.).
Appeal2018-002029
Application 13/674,778
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 27, 38, and 57 are independent. Illustrative claim 27 reads as
follows:
27. A lock mechanism comprising:
a latch receiver rotatably mounted to a base;
a lever arm rotatably mounted to the base, the lever arm
rotatable to a ready position in which a first end of the lever arm
blocks rotation of the latch receiver in a first direction when the
latch receiver is in a locked position; and
a motor rotationally coupled to a cam such that rotation of
the motor causes the cam to rotate the lever arm in at least one
direction to decouple the lever arm from the latch receiver, so
that the latch receiver is rotatable from the locked position to an
unlocked position, the motor drivably coupled to the lever arm
about a second end of the lever arm, the second end opposing the
first end, the lever arm having a length defined by and bounded
by the first end and the second end, with the lever arm rotatably
mounted to the base along the length and between the two ends;
the lever arm rotatable to the ready position when the latch
receiver is in the unlocked position.
Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 27-30, 32, 33, 35-37, 57---64, 66, and 69 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I02(a) as anticipated by Carabalona (US 2008/0252083 Al;
published Oct. 16, 2008).
Claims 38--46, 48-50, 57---62, and 67---69 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § I02(a) as anticipated by Kim (KR 20-0440074; published May 28,
2008). 3
3 An English-language translation of Kim is of record.
2
Appeal2018-002029
Application 13/674,778
Claims 38--46, 48-50, 57-62, and 67----69 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § I02(b) as anticipated by Youn (KR 10-0679309; published Feb. 5,
2007). 4
Claims 57----61 and 69 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(e) as
anticipated by Dziurdzia (US 2009/0236865 Al; published Sept. 24, 2009).
ANALYSIS
Anticipation of claims 27-30, 32, 33, 35-37, 57-64, 66, and 69
by Carabalona
Claims 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 35-37, 63, 64, and 66
Claim 2 7 recites, in part, "a lever arm ... in which a first end of the
lever arm blocks rotation of the latch receiver," and "the lever arm having a
length defined by and bounded by the first end and the second end." Appeal
Br. 21 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). The Examiner finds Carabalona
discloses a lock mechanism comprising a latch receiver (pawl 204) and a
lever arm (trigger 206) meeting these limitations. Final Act. 2-3 ( citing
Carabalona, Fig. 12). The Examiner provides two annotated versions
(Versions 1 and 2) of Figure 12 of Carabalona, in which Version 1 indicates
the locations of the "first end" and "second end" (Final Act. 4) of the lever
arm, and Version 2 indicates the "length" of the lever arm (id. at 5).
The Examiner submits Merriam-Webster defines the terms: (a) "end"
as "the part of an area that lies at the boundary" (Final Act. 22); (b) "define"
as "to fix or mark the limits of: demarcate" (Ans. 2); and ( c) "bound" as "to
form a separating line or the boundary of: enclose" (id. at 2-3). The
4 An English-language translation of Youn is of record.
3
Appeal2018-002029
Application 13/674,778
Examiner determines the claim language does not require the recited "ends"
to be terminal ends. Final Act. 22. The Examiner finds because, in
Carabalona, the first and second ends form the boundary of the lever arm,
and the length of the lever arm extends between these ends, the length of the
lever arm is bounded by the first and second ends. Id. The Examiner also
finds because at least "a portion of the first end and second end[]" indicated
in Version 1 define or mark the limits of, and bound or form the boundary
of, the "length" indicated in Version 2, the above-quoted claim limitations of
claim 27 are met. Ans. 3.
Appellants disagree Carabalona discloses the above-quoted claim
limitations of claim 27. Appeal Br. 5. Appellants explain, in Carabalona, "a
notch 290 'receives and engages the first tooth 254 of the pawl 204 to hold
or retain the pawl 204 in the first latched position."' Id. ( citing Carabalona
,r 21 ). As noted by Appellants, the notch ( of trigger 206) and the first tooth
of pawl 204 are shown in Figure 12 of Carabalona, but are not numbered.
Id. 5 Appellants contend notch 290 "is on one side, near a midpoint, of the
trigger," whereas claim 27 specifies the first end of the lever arm blocks
rotation of the latch receiver. Id. Appellants also contend the "length" of
the lever arm does not extend between the first and second ends, as claimed,
but rather, only a small portion of the "length" of the trigger (Version 2) is
between the "ends" (Version 1). Id. at 6; see also Reply Br. 3 ("the 'ends'
identified by the [Final Office Action] bound and define a central part of the
5 This contention is consistent with other figures in Carabalona. For
example, Figure 77 shows pawl 204 with first tooth 254, and Figure 103
shows trigger 206 with notch 290. Based on these figures, we understand
the notch of trigger 206 receives the first tooth of pawl 204 in Figure 12.
4
Appeal2018-002029
Application 13/674,778
'lever arm' 206"); Reply Br. 4--5 ("the 'ends' do not lie at boundary of the
length"); id. at 5 ("the 'ends' do not demarcate or mark the limits of the
length as required by the definition of 'define' provided in the [Final Office
Action] and the [Answer]"). Appellants also disagree with the Examiner's
characterization of the "portions" of trigger 206 as the "first end" and
"second end" simply because the "portions" include the boundary of trigger
206. Appeal Br. 6. Appellants point out claim 27 recites the first end and
second end, not "a portion of the first end and second end," define and
bound the length of the lever arm. Reply Br. 4 ( emphasis added).
We agree with Appellants it is unreasonable for the Examiner to
consider the "length" of trigger 206 shown in Version 2 as being "defined
and bounded by" the "first end" and "second end" shown in Version 1.
Appeal Br. 3. Instead, consistent with the direction of the "length" shown in
Version 2, the "length" is properly "defined and bounded by" the curved
surfaces of trigger 206 corresponding to the left-most extent of the "first
end" and the right-most extent of the "second end" in Version 1. Id. It
appears the location and extent of the "first end" is drawn somewhat
arbitrarily in Version 1 as needed to include the "position at which the lever
arm is rotatably mounted to the base," as claimed. As noted by Appellants,
comparing Version 2 to Version 1 shows only a portion of the "length" of
trigger 206 extends "between" and is bounded by the regions identified as
the "first end" and "second end."
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 27, and of
claims 28-30, 32, 33, 35-37, 63, 64, and 66 depending therefrom, as
anticipated by Carabalona.
5
Appeal2018-002029
Application 13/674,778
Claims 57-62 and 69
Claim 57 recites, in part, "a lip extending parallel to the base for
coupling to a slide member of the drawer slide." Appeal Br. 23 (Claims
App.) ( emphasis added). The Examiner finds Carabalona discloses a base
( support plate 215) and a lip extending parallel to the base ("portion having
opening 212"). Final Act. 7 ( citing Carabalona Fig. 63).
Appellants contend, in Carabalona, the section of the housing with the
opening of U-shaped slot 212 ("housing section") is perpendicular to the
base 215. Appeal Br. 14 (citing Carabalona Fig. 63). In response, the
Examiner provides an annotated version of Figure 61 of Carabalona, which
shows the location of the "lip" (Ans. 16), and also provides an annotated
version of Figure 5 of Carabalona, which includes the annotation "portion of
base" (id. at 17). The Examiner submits Figure 5 shows the "lip" and the
"portion of base" extend parallel to each other ("directions of the extension
of the lip and portion of the base shown with dashed line arrow"). Id. at 15.
Even if Carabalona's "lip," as identified by the Examiner, can be
considered to extend parallel to support plate 215, we are persuaded
Carabalona does not anticipate claim 57. That is, claim 57 recites "a lip
extending parallel to the base for coupling to a slide member of the drawer
slide." Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.) ( emphasis added). The Examiner
determines the limitations "adaptable for use with the drawer slide"
(preamble) and "for coupling to a slide member of a drawer slide" are
recitations of intended use. Final Act. 7 ( emphasis omitted). The Examiner
states, "the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to [be]
employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art
apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations." Id. ( emphasis
6
Appeal2018-002029
Application 13/674,778
omitted). The Examiner also states the recited "slide member of a drawer
slide" is "not required" by claim 57. Ans. 17-18. The Examiner submits the
lip of Carabalona "is capable of coupling to another component separate
from the lock mechanism, such as striker 308 as shown in Figure 3, and
therefore, has the function of coupling to another component separate from
the lock mechanism." Id. at 18 ( emphasis added).
Appellants contend the Specification "supports an interpretation
where the feature 'for coupling to a slide member of a drawer slide' is an
actual state of configuration required by the claim." Appeal Br. 15
( emphasis added). Therefore, Appellants contend, the recitation of this
feature "does not merely describe an intended use." Id. ( emphasis added).
Appellants also contend the Examiner does not allege the "lip" in
Carabalona "is capable of coupling to a slide member of a drawer slide,"
which is a required capability of the claimed lip. Reply Br. 8. Appellants
add Carabalona's "lip" is not configured to couple to a slide member of a
drawer slide. Id.
Appellants' contentions are persuasive. The Examiner fails to explain
how Carabalona's "lip" has a structure making it capable of "coupling to a
slide member of the drawer slide," or is positioned in Carabalona's device to
be able to provide this capability. Reply Br. 8. Indeed, as acknowledged by
the Examiner, the purported "lip" engages with striker 308. See, e.g.,
Carabalona, Fig. 3. The Examiner does not assert striker 308 is "a slide
member of the drawer slide." In fact, striker 308 is provided on trunk lid
300. See, e.g., Carabalona ,r 9, Fig. 2.
Because the Examiner has not established, with sufficient evidence,
Carabalona discloses "a lip extending parallel to the base for coupling to a
7
Appeal2018-002029
Application 13/674,778
slide member of the drawer slide," as claimed, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 57, or claims 58---62 and 69 depending therefrom.
Anticipation of claims 38-46, 48-50, 57-62, and 67-69 by Kim
Claims 38--43, 45, 46, 48-50, 67, and 68
As for claim 3 8, Appellants contend Kim does not disclose the
limitation "the cam configured to contact a second portion of the lever arm
on a second side of the rotatable mounting position, [] to rotate the lever arm
out of the ready position, decoupling the lever arm from the latch receiver,
and wherein the lever arm is rotatable to the ready position with the
latch receiver rotated away from the lever arm." Appeal Br. 9.
The Examiner finds Kim discloses a lock mechanism comprising a
latch receiver (lock means 40), a lever arm (lever member 50), and a motor
(motor 41) drivably coupled to the lever arm by a cam (eccentric cam 48).
Final Act. 9 (citing Kim, Figs. 3, 4a, 4b, and 5). The Examiner finds Kim
also discloses "decoupling the lever arm from the latch receiver" ( citing
Kim, Fig. 5) and the lever arm is rotatable to the ready position with the
latch receiver rotated away from the lever arm ("the latch receiver being
rotated or rotatably mounted to the base at a distance from the location of the
lever arm"). Id. ( citing Kim, Fig. 4b ).
The Examiner explains the coupling between lever arm 50 and latch
receiver 40 in Kim is the engagement of first portion 53 of the lever arm
with notch or recess 46 of the latch receiver, as shown in Figure 4b. Ans. 7.
The Examiner determines Kim discloses cam 48, driven by motor 41, rotates
the lever arm such that the first portion disengages from the notch or recess,
thereby, releasing the coupling of lever arm with the latch receiver, or
8
Appeal2018-002029
Application 13/674,778
decoupling the lever arm from the latch receiver. Id. According to the
Examiner, claim 3 8 "does not require that all other connections between the
lever arm and the latch receiver be released during the decoupling." Id.
Referencing Figure 5 of Kim, Appellants contend Kim's lock means
40 is directly in contact with lever member 50 by springs 57, 58 during
unlocking, opening, closing, and unlocking stages. Appeal Br. 9.
Appellants contend lock means 40 "can never be rotated to a position away
from the lever member 50 when the lever member 50 is in the ready
position" because lever member 50 is fully engaged with lock means 40 in
this position. Id. at 10.
Appellants' contentions are persuasive. We disagree with the
Examiner's construction of the limitation "the lever arm is rotatable to the
ready position with the latch receiver rotated away from the lever arm."
Ans. 7-8 ( emphasis added). The Examiner's finding, "the latch receiver
being rotated or rotatably mounted to the base at a distance from the
location of the lever arm" in Kim, appears to be premised on construing the
language "the latch receiver rotated away from the lever arm" to mean the
point of rotation (pivot point) of the lever arm, rather than the lever arm
itself, is "away from the lever arm." Final Act. 9 (emphasis added). This
construction allows for direct contact between the latch receiver and lever
arm in the recited ready position. Kim discloses such direct contact between
lock means 40 and lever member 50 in Figures 4b (locked position) and 5
(unlocked position).
Consistent with the claim language, however, we note Appellants'
Figure 2 shows the "ready position" of the lever arm, with latch receiver 218
positioned in an orientation in which latch receiver 218 is "rotated away
9
Appeal2018-002029
Application 13/674,778
from" lever arm 23 8, that is, with no contact between lever arm 23 8 and
latch receiver 218. See also Spec. ,r 41.
As the Examiner's finding that Kim discloses a lever arm rotatable to
the ready position with a latch receiver rotated away from the lever arm, as
claimed, is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 38, or of claims 39--46, 48-50, 67, and 68
depending therefrom, as anticipated by Kim.
Claims 57-62 and 69
The Examiner finds Kim discloses a lip extending parallel to the base
("the lip extending parallel to the portion of the base on which the latch
receiver and lever arm are mounted." Final Act. 12 (citing Kim, 10, Fig. 3).
The Examiner again determines the limitation "for coupling to a slide
member of the drawer slide" recites an intended use. Id.
Appellants again contend it is improper for the Examiner to not give
this limitation patentable weight. Appeal Br. 16. The Examiner responds
the "lip" shown in annotated Figure 3 of Kim (see Ans. 14) "is capable of
indirectly coupling to another component separate from the lock
mechanism" via the structure of the base (support table 42) and the latch
receiver, such as the striker (lock pin 30) shown in Figure 4b, and therefore,
the "lip" "has the function of coupling to another component separate from
the lock mechanism." Ans. 19 (emphasis added).
Appellants' contentions are persuasive. First, the Examiner does not
explain adequately how the "lip" shown in annotated Figure 3 of Kim would
be capable of "coupling" to lock pin 30 shown in Figure 4b. Second, the
claim recites "coupling to a slide member of the drawer slide." We note
10
Appeal2018-002029
Application 13/674,778
Figure 2 of Kim shows slide rail 22. By comparing Figure 2 to Figure 3 of
Kim, it can be seen the purported "lip" is not "coupled to" slide rail 22, or to
any slide member of a drawer slide. Nor does the Examiner explain how it
could be.
As the Examiner's finding that Kim discloses a lip, as claimed, is not
supported by a preponderance of the evidence, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 57, or of claims 58-62 and 69 depending therefrom, as
anticipated by Kim.
Anticipation of claims 38-46, 48-50, 57-62, and 67-69 by Youn
Claims 38--43, 45, 46, 48-50, 67, and 68
As for claim 3 8, Appellants contend Youn does not disclose the
limitation "the cam configured to contact a second portion of the lever arm
on a second side of the rotatable mounting position, [] to rotate the lever arm
out of the ready position, decoupling the lever arm from the latch receiver,
and wherein the lever arm is rotatable to the ready position with the latch
receiver rotated away from the lever arm." Appeal Br. 11.
The Examiner finds Youn discloses a lock mechanism comprising a
latch receiver (second locker 46), a lever arm (first locker 45), and a motor
(drive motor 42) drivably coupled to the lever arm by a cam (cam 43). Final
Act. 14 ( citing Kim, Fig. 5). The Examiner determines Youn discloses
"decoupling the lever arm from the latch receiver" ( citing Youn, Figs. 2---6)
and the lever arm is rotatable to the ready position with the latch receiver
rotated away from the lever arm ("the latch receiver being rotated or
rotatably mounted to the base at a distance from the location of the lever
arm"). Id. ( citing Youn, Fig. 9). The Examiner explains the coupling
11
Appeal2018-002029
Application 13/674,778
between lever arm 45 and latch receiver 46 is the engagement of first portion
451 of the lever arm with notch or recess 462 of the latch receiver, as shown
in Figure 9. Ans. 10. The Examiner determines Youn discloses cam 43,
driven by motor 42, rotates the lever arm such that the first portion
disengages from the notch or recess, thereby releasing the coupling of lever
arm with the latch receiver, or decoupling the lever arm from the latch
receiver. Id. Again, the Examiner states claim 38 "does not require that all
other connections between the lever arm and the latch receiver be released
during the decoupling." Id.
Reproducing Figure 8 of Youn, Appellants contend motor 42 rotates
cam 43, which rotates first locker 45, which, in tum, simultaneously rotates
second locker 46 connected to first locker 45 by return spring 4 7, to unlock
the drawer type safe. Appeal Br. 8. Appellants contend first locker 45 is
directly in contact with second locker 46 by return spring 47. Id. Appellants
also contend "the geometry of the second locker 46 prevents it from being
rotated to a position away from first locker 45 when first locker 45 is in the
ready position" because first locker 45 is only in the ready position when
fully engaged with lock means 40. Id. Appellants disagree with the
Examiner's position claim 38 "does not require that all other connections
between the lever arm and the latch receiver be released during the
decoupling." Reply Br. 6; see also Ans. 7. Appellants state, "Youn does not
teach the decoupling [ ofJ the lever arm and the latch receiver because
[Youn] teaches a system in which a spring connects the lever and the lock to
coordinate the rotation of the components." Reply Br. 6.
Appellants' contentions are persuasive. We again disagree with the
Examiner's construction of the limitation "the lever arm is rotatable to the
12
Appeal2018-002029
Application 13/674,778
ready position with the latch receiver rotated away from the lever arm."
Ans. 10-11. As discussed above for the rejection of claim 3 8 of Kim, the
Examiner's finding, "the latch receiver being rotated or rotatably mounted
to the base at a distance from the location of the lever arm" in Youn (Final
Act. 14 ( emphasis added)), appears to be based on an improper construction.
Youn discloses direct contact between second locker 46 and first locker 45
in Figures 8 (unlocked position) and 9 (unlocked position).
As the Examiner's finding that Youn discloses a lever arm rotatable to
the ready position with a latch receiver rotated away from the lever arm, as
claimed, is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 38, or of claims 39-46, 48-50, 67, and 68
depending therefrom, as anticipated by Youn.
Claims 57-62 and 69
For the limitation "a lip extending parallel to the base/or coupling to
a slide member of the drawer slide" (Appeal Br. 15 (emphasis added)), the
Examiner finds Youn discloses a lip extending parallel to the base ("the lip
extending parallel to the portion of the base on which the latch receiver and
lever arm are mounted"). Final Act. 17 ( citing Youn, 19, Fig. 5). The
Examiner again determines the limitation "for coupling to a slide member of
the drawer slide" recites an intended use. Id. at 17-18. The Examiner finds
the "lip" shown in annotated Figure 5 of Youn "is capable of indirectly
coupling to another component separate from the lock mechanism" via the
structure of the base and the latch receiver, such as the striker (locking pin
41) shown in Figure 9, and therefore, the "lip" "has the function of coupling
to another component separate from the lock mechanism." Ans. 20.
13
Appeal2018-002029
Application 13/674,778
We agree with Appellants that Youn does not disclose the claimed lip.
Appeal Br. 1 7. First, the Examiner does not explain adequately how the
"lip" shown in annotated Figure 5 of Youn is capable of "coupling" to
locking pin 41 shown in Figure 9. Second, the Examiner does not show
locking pin 41 is a slide member of a drawer slide, or otherwise show the
"lip" is capable of being coupled to any such slide member of a drawer slide.
As the Examiner's finding that Youn discloses a lip, as claimed, is not
supported by a preponderance of the evidence, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 57, or of claims 58---62 and 69 depending therefrom, as
anticipated by Youn.
Anticipation of claims 57-61 and 69 by Dziurdzia
As for claim 57, Appellants contend Dziurdzia does not disclose "a lip
extending parallel to the base for coupling to a slide member of the drawer
slide," as claimed. Appeal Br. 1 7-18. The Examiner finds Dziurdzia
discloses, in part, a lip (hub-like end 3 1) extending parallel to the base ("the
lip 31 extending parallel to the portion of the base on which the lever arm
and latch receiver are rotatably mounted"). Final Act 20 ( citing Dziurdzia,
Fig. 2). The Examiner determines "the lip 31 of Dziurdzia is a structure that
is capable of coupling to another component or component 2 (Figure 2) or
has the function of coupling to another component." Id. at 25.
Appellants again contend the language "for coupling to a slide
member of the drawer slide" is not a mere recitation of intended use. Appeal
Br. 18. Appellants also contend, in Dziurdzia, hub-like end 31 is used to
capture hook 2 to allow venting without completely opening the oven door.
Id. at 19. Appellants assert any other use of hub-like end 31, such as
14
Appeal2018-002029
Application 13/674,778
coupling to a slide member of a drawer, would destroy the purpose ofhub-
like end 31 because hub-like end 31 cannot rotate to latch the oven door in a
venting position. Id.
Appellants' contentions are persuasive. Even if hub-like end 31
shown in Figure 2 of Dziurdzia is capable of "coupling" to hook 2, the claim
recites "coupling to a slide member of the drawer slide." The Examiner
does not show hook 2 is a slide member of a drawer slide, or otherwise show
the "lip" is capable of being coupled to any such slide member of a drawer
slide. As the Examiner's finding that Dziurdzia discloses a lip, as claimed,
is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, we do not sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 57, or of claims 58---61 and 69 depending
therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 27-30, 32, 33, 35--46, 48-50, 57-
64, and 66---69.
REVERSED
15