Ex Parte Kajiwara

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 18, 2017

14238034 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 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. 14/238,034 02/10/2014 Yasuhiro Kajiwara P45110 6048 7055 7590 12/20/2017 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. 1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE RESTON, VA 20191 EXAMINER CHOWDHURY, ROCKSHANA D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2835 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/20/2017 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): gbpatent@gbpatent.com greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YASUHIRO KAJIWARA Appeal 2017-006333 Application 14/238,034 Technology Center 2800 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1,3,4, and 6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We cite to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed February 10, 2014; Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated April 4, 2016; Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) dated October 4, 2016; Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated December 23, 2016; and Appellant’s Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) dated February 9, 2017. 2 Appellant identifies Sumitomo Wiring Systems, Ltd., as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2017-006333 Application 14/238,034 BACKGROUND The invention relates to a wire harness and method for producing a wire harness. Spec. Abstract; claims 1, 6. Appellant describes in the Specification a wiring harness that includes an inner protective covering provided over a wiring bundle, and an outer protective covering provided over the first covering. Id. | 6. The outer covering is made to be softer than the inner covering, such that the outer covering facilitates press-fit mounting, e.g. to a vehicle mount, while the relatively hard inner covering provides wire protection and harness rigidity. Id. 12, 13, 29. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A wire harness, comprising: a wire harness main body including at least one wire; and a protection member comprising: an inner peripheral protection portion formed by hot-pressing a nonwoven member covering at least a portion of the wire harness main body; and outer peripheral protection portions formed by hot-pressing a nonwoven member covering at least a portion of the inner peripheral protection portion in a longitudinal extending direction of the inner peripheral protection portion, wherein the outer peripheral protection portions are spaced apart from each other along the longitudinal extending direction of the inner peripheral protection portion, wherein the inner peripheral protection portion extends entirely through the outer peripheral protections portions in the longitudinal extending direction of the inner peripheral protection portion, and wherein the outer peripheral protection portions are softer than the inner peripheral protection portion. 2 Appeal 2017-006333 Application 14/238,034 App. Br. 15 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added to highlight the key recitation in dispute). Independent claim 6 recites a method for producing a harness having the characteristics recited in claim 1. REJECTION Claims 1,3,4, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hideki3 in view of Atsushi.4 OPINION A dispositive issue in this case is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Atsushi teaches providing an outer harness covering that is softer than an inner harness covering. Compare Final Act. 4 (“Atsushi teaches wherein the outer peripheral protection portions (24, see para [0027] are softer than the inner peripheral protection portion (30, See para [0029]”), with App. Br. 9 (“ATSUSHI does not disclose the outer peripheral portions being softer than the inner peripheral protection portion.”). The Examiner finds that Hideki discloses a wiring harness and method for its production that meet all of the claimed features, except that Hideki fails to teach the claimed relative softness of the outer protection portion. Final Act. 2—6. For that feature, the Examiner points to paragraphs 27 and 29 of Atsushi as providing a reason to make the outer covering softer than the inner covering. Id. at 4, 6. 3 WO2011158393 Al, published December 22, 2011 (“Hideki”), as translated. 4 WO2011102013 Al, published August 25, 2011 (“Atsushi”), as translated. 3 Appeal 2017-006333 Application 14/238,034 Atsushi discloses a wiring harness having an inner tubular protection layer 30 and spaced outer protection elements 24. Atsushi 119, Fig. 1. At the passages relied on by the Examiner, Atsushi explains that the spaced outer protection elements 24 may be formed from nonwoven fabric to have various cross-sectional shapes, id. 127, and that the inner protection element 30 is cylindrical and configured for “easy bending,” id. 129. Regarding the former, Atsushi teaches that nonwoven fabric refers to fibrous material that is hardened by adhesive resin. Id. Tflf 21—23. Regarding the latter, Atsushi teaches that the inner protection element 30 may be formed as a corrugated tube formed from “deformation easy materials,” such as rubber. Id. 120. Appellant argues that the foregoing passages in Atsushi fail to provide any information regarding softness of the outer protection material relative to that of the inner protection material. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 5—6. We agree. While Atsushi teaches nonwoven fabric for forming the outer protection elements 24 and rubber for forming the inner protection tube 30, Atsushi does not address the relative softness of those materials. Moreover, as Appellant persuasively argues, the fact that Atsushi refers to the inner protection material as “deformation easy” and configured for ease of bending (as is depicted in Hideki’s Figure 3) suggests a need for relative softness of the inner tube material, not the spaced outer elements. App. Br. 11. The Examiner’s responsive interpretation of the term, “soft,” to mean having a smooth surface that is subjectively pleasant to touch, Ans. 3—4, is neither dispositive as to the relative softness of materials in Atsushi nor consistent with Appellant’s use of the term in the Specification. See Spec. 1113, 38, Figures 2, 3 (explaining that the relative softness of the outer 4 Appeal 2017-006333 Application 14/238,034 protection material facilitates press-fitting into a smaller-dimensioned gap for mounting to a vehicle). Neither does the Examiner’s proffered definition of “nonwoven fabric,” see Ans. 4 (stating that nonwoven fabrics “provide specific functions” including absorbency, liquid repellence, softness, thermal and acoustic insulation, filtration, and sterility), comport with Atsushi’s teaching that the disclosed nonwoven material refers to adhesive resin- hardened fibrous materials. We are persuaded that the Examiner fails to present evidence sufficient to support a finding that Atsushi teaches providing an outer protective material that is softer than an inner protective material. Because the Examiner’s obviousness determination is premised on such a finding, it is not sustained. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 are reversed. REVERSED 5