Ex Parte Kolar et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 7, 2018

14633428 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/633,428 02/27/2015
121691 7590 08/09/2018
Ford Global Technologies, LLC/
King & Schickli, PLLC
800 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 200
Lexington, KY 40503
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Theodore Victor Kolar JR.
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.
83503641 8045
EXAMINER
WILHELM, TIMOTHY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/09/2018 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):
uspto@iplawl.net
laura@iplawl.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THEODORE VICTOR KOLAR JR., SUSHIL SHASTRY,
MATTHEW B. MAKOWSKI, AILEEN M. DEVOE, SE KYOON SHIN,
and SHAWN MICHAEL MORGANS
Appeal2017-009861
Application 14/633,428 1
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Ford Global Technologies, LLC ("Appellant") is the applicant under
37 C.F.R. § 1.46 and is the real party in interest. Appeal Brief (January 9,
2017) (hereinafter "Appeal Br."), at 3.
Appeal2017-009861
Application 14/633,428
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-8, 10-13, and 15-18. Final Office
Action (August 12, 2016) (hereinafter "Final Act."). 2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
The claimed subject matter relates to "energy absorbing/dissipating
structures for motor vehicles." Specification (February 27, 2015)
(hereinafter "Spec.") ,r 1. Specifically, the claimed subject matter relates to
"a hood inner panel and assembly incorporating features to absorb/dissipate
energy in a collision, and to reduce collision-induced rearward displacement
of the hood structure causing damage to other elements of the vehicle." Id.
The Examiner rejected the claims as either anticipated by or obvious over
the prior art. For the reasons explained below, we do not find error in the
Examiner's rejections. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 8, and 13 are the independent claims. Claim 8 is
representative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below.
8. An inner panel for a vehicle hood assembly,
including a plurality of slots or apertures at a front right hand
comer and a front left hand comer of an edge of the inner panel
for encouraging a controlled deformation of a left side edge and
a right side edge of the inner panel on receiving a frontal
impact.
Appeal Br. 19, Claims Appendix.
2 Claims 2, 9, and 14 are canceled. Appeal Br. 18.
2
Appeal2017-009861
Application 14/633,428
REJECTIONS
The Final Office Action includes the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Wisniewski et al. (US 8,991,902 B2,
issued March 31, 2015) ("Wisniewski").
2. Claims 4, 11, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Wisniewski and Benson et al. (US 9,216,771
B2, issued December 22, 2015) ("Benson").
3. Claims 5, 6, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Wisniewski.
ANALYSIS
First Ground of Rejection: Anticipation of claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, and
15 by Wisniewski
Appellant argues the claims subject to the first ground of rejection as a
group. Appeal Br. 10-13. We select claim 8 as representative of the group,
and claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 12, 13, and 15 stand or fall with claim 8. 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8 as
anticipated by Wisniewski because Wisniewski does not disclose apertures
in the inner panel. Appeal Br. 11. The Examiner found that Wisniewski' s
second or lower panel member 22 is the claimed inner panel, and that lower
panel member 22 includes a plurality of apertures 118. Final Act. 3. As
discussed below, the Examiner's finding is supported by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Wisniewski discloses that lower panel member 22 can be formed
monolithically, i.e., as a single piece, that includes panel portion 50 and
3
Appeal2017-009861
Application 14/633,428
support member 52. Wisniewski, col. 4, 11. 11-12, 35-38, Figs. 2, 9A.
Wisniewski discloses that "the panel portion 50 may include one or more
holes 118 (e.g., perforations) extending through the front wall 110, the rear
wall 112, the first lateral wall 114, and/or the second lateral wall 116 in
order to adjust the stiffness of the second panel member 22." Id. at col. 8,
11. 45-49, Fig. 9A.
Figure 9A of Wisniewski is reproduced below.
Figure 9A shows lower panel member 22 of the hood assembly of
Figure 1. Wisniewski, col. 2, 11. 47-49. Appellant's argument points to
Figure 9A of Wisniewski as support for its position that "the holes 118 in
Wisniewski are not in the inner panel, i.e., hood panel 50." Appeal Br. 2.
This argument fails for two reasons.
First, Appellant's argument is contrary to the explicit disclosure of
Wisniewski. As shown in the text quoted above, Wisniewski describes that
holes 118 are disposed in panel portion 50. Appellant seeks to have us
disregard the explicit disclosure of Wisniewski, apparently because
Appellant believes that Wisniewski's description is inconsistent with the
depiction in Figure 9A. We disagree with Appellant's reading of this
4
Appeal2017-009861
Application 14/633,428
reference. Wisniewski's description of the location of holes 118 is
consistent with the depiction provided in Wisniewski's Figures. For
instance, Figures 9C-9F of Wisniewski depict alternative versions of
support member 52. Wisniewski, col. 2, 11. 53-64, col. 9, 11. 15-30. As is
clear from these Figures, support member 52 is a substantially flat plate
having perforations 92 formed therein. Id. at col. 8, 11. 49-59. As visible in
Figures 9A and 9B, support member 52 is located atop walls 110, 112, 114,
and 116 of panel portion 50. Thus, we understand front wall 110, rear wall
112, first lateral wall 114, and second lateral wall 116, in which holes 118
are formed, to be part of panel portion 50. Id. at col. 8, 11. 42--44.
Second, Appellant's argument does not address the finding made by
the Examiner. The Examiner found that lower panel member 22, comprised
of both panel portion 50 and support member 52, is the inner panel of
claim 8. Final Act. 3. Thus, regardless of whether holes 118 are formed in
panel portion 50 or support member 52, the holes are disposed in inner panel
22. For these reasons, Appellant has not identified an error in the
Examiner's finding that Wisniewski discloses apertures in the inner panel.
Appellant also argues that Wisniewski does not anticipate claim 8
because holes 118 are not at a front right hand comer and a front left hand
comer of an edge of the inner panel. Appeal Br. 11-12. To determine
whether the holes of the prior art are disposed in the claimed region of the
inner panel, we must interpret the scope of "a front right hand comer and a
front left hand comer of an edge of the inner panel."
The Examiner determined that the claim language is recited broadly.
For example, the Examiner stated that "the term 'comer' itself is a very
broad and general term that may be considered to constitute a significant
5
Appeal2017-009861
Application 14/633,428
area in the vicinity of the junction of one edge with another." Final Act. 5.
The Examiner also noted that the word "at" is defined as "in, on, or near."
Ans. 3. 3 The Examiner also noted that the claim language is not specific as
to which edge of the inner panel is recited. Id.
For the reasons that follow, we agree with the Examiner that the term
"comer," when read in light of the Specification, is broad and encompasses a
significant area in the vicinity of the junction of edges of the inner panel.
First, the Examiner's interpretation comports with an ordinary meaning of
the term. "Comer" is defined as "the point where converging lines, edges,
or sides meeting : angle" and "the angular part or space between meeting
lines, edges, or borders near the vertex of the angle - the southwest corner
of the state - the corners of the tablecloth." Merriam-Webster On-line
Dictionary, available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
comer, defns. l(a), 2 (last accessed August 2, 2018) (emphasis added).
Second, the Examiner's interpretation is consistent with the use of
"comer" in Appellant's Specification. The Specification does not define
precisely where the front comers begin and end. Rather, the Specification
describes generally that the front right hand comer and front left hand comer
are "distal to the end of the hood assembly 10 that is attached to the vehicle
frame." Spec. ,r 21. The Specification further describes that in Figures 2
and 3, apertures 14 are provided in front left hand comer 16 and front right
3 Appellant provided a definition of "at" as meaning "expressing location or
arrival in a particular place or position." Reply Br. 3 ( citing
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com). We do not find it necessary to construe
"at" for purposes of this appeal.
6
Appeal2017-009861
Application 14/633,428
hand comer 18. Id. ,r,r 22-23. Figures 2 and 3 of the application on appeal
are reproduced below.
7
Appeal2017-009861
Application 14/633,428
These figures show apertures 14 within a significant angular space or
area defined generally by the junction of edges or borders of the sides and
front of inner panel 22. Thus, "comer" refers to the significant angular
space or area defined by junction of the edges of the inner panel, and does
not require the apertures to be on the edges or exactly at a point at which the
edges meet.
Turning now to the prior art, some of Wisniewski' s apertures 118, as
shown in Figure 9A reproduced above, lie in the angular area defined by the
junction of the edges of inner panel 22. Thus, we agree with the Examiner's
finding that Wisniewski discloses a plurality of apertures 118 at the front left
and right hand comers of an edge of the inner panel 22, inasmuch as
Appellant's apertures 14 are likewise disposed in the recited comers.
Appellant also argues that Wisniewski does not anticipate claim 8
because Wisniewski does not contain an express or inherent teaching that
controlled deformation of the hood panel specifically at the left side edge
and the right side edge of the hood assembly would occur. Appeal Br. 12.
Claim 8 recites that the slots or apertures at the front comers of an edge of
the inner panel are "for encouraging a controlled deformation of a left side
edge and a right side edge of the inner panel on receiving a frontal impact."
Appeal Br. 19, Claims Appendix.
We examine Appellant's Specification to determine the structure
described therein for enabling the recited function of "encouraging a
controlled deformation." Appellant's Specification describes that the slots
or apertures in the front comers of the hood inner panel "provide a structural
weakening of the inner panel 12" so that upon receiving a frontal impact, "a
controlled buckling of along a left side edge and a right side edge of the
8
Appeal2017-009861
Application 14/633,428
hood assembly 1 O" will occur. Spec. ,r 21 ( describing Fig. 1 ); see also id.
,r 24 (describing Fig. 3). The Specification does not provide any further
explanation of the controlled buckling due to these apertures. As we
understand the claim language, the portion of the inner panel in which the
apertures reside is structurally weaker than a panel without such apertures,
and thus, upon receiving a frontal impact, these areas of the inner panel
containing the apertures will buckle.
The Examiner found that "the apertures in Wisniewski will affect a
controlled deformation that occurs differently than that which would occur
without said apertures as that is the mechanical nature of adding perforations
or apertures to an item that is impacted upon." Ans. 3. We agree with this
finding. The portions of Wisniewski's inner panel 22 that contain apertures
118 inherently are structurally weaker than portions of inner panel 22
without the apertures due to the nature of having apertures in the panel. This
weakness controls deformation during a frontal impact by affecting the
deformation in these portions differently as compared to portions of inner
panel 22 that are devoid of apertures.
Appellant responds that "the positioning of the holes in Wisniewski,
i.e., being evenly distributed along the support portion 52, would appear to
provide at most expected uniform deformation of the entire support panel
52, not localized deformation required by the claimed invention." Reply
Br. 3. Even if this assertion were true, it would not evince error because the
argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 8. The claim does
not require "localized" deformation. Instead, the claim recites "controlled"
deformation. We do not read the claim to preclude other areas of buckling
in the inner panel. In other words, we do not interpret the claim language to
9
Appeal2017-009861
Application 14/633,428
limit the apertures to only the front left and right comers. The claim is open-
ended. It recites the inner panel "including" apertures in the front comers.
See Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 525 F.3d 1200, 1214 (Fed. Cir.
2008) ("This court has consistently interpreted 'including' and 'comprising'
to have the same meaning, namely, that the listed elements ... are essential
but other elements may be added."). In fact, Appellant's embodiment shown
in Figure 3 depicts additional apertures 20 disposed along the left and right
hand sides of inner panel 22. Spec. ,r 23, Fig. 3.
For these reasons, Appellant has not identified error in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 8 as anticipated by Wisniewski. Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 12, 13,
and 15 fall with claim 8.
Second Ground of Rejection: Unpatentability of claims 4, 11, and 16 over
Wisniewski and Benson
Appellant argues claims 4, 11, and 16 as a group. Appeal Br. 13-16.
We select claim 11 as representative of the group. Claims 4 and 16 stand or
fall with claim 11. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 11 depends from
claim 8, and recites "at least one lateral groove defining at least one crest
line in a portion of a width dimension of the inner panel." Appeal Br. 20,
Claims Appendix.
The Examiner found that Benson teaches a hood structure including
an inner panel having a groove defining a bow in the panel extending
laterally across the width of the panel, where the groove induces a moment
in the inner panel during impact. Final Act. 4; see also id. at 6 (identifying
the "center lateral groove"); Ans. 4 (finding brace 38 forms a lateral groove
along line 13). The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to
modify Wisniewski's inner panel to add Benson's groove to help induce a
10
Appeal2017-009861
Application 14/633,428
moment during impact and thus further control deformation of the hood and
attenuate kinetic energy. Final Act. 5.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding that Benson discloses
a crest line defined in a portion of a width dimension of a good panel.
Appeal Br. 14. Appellant asserts that "Benson is completely silent about
providing the ribs to define a crest line which deforms more rapidly than the
remainder of the structure of the inner hood panel and in a controlled
fashion." Reply Br. 5.
Benson discloses an inner panel 26 that includes ribs 36 running
longitudinally (i.e., from top to bottom in Figure 3) and braces 38 running
laterally (i.e., from left to right in Figure 3) through a central portion 34.
Figure 4 of Benson, reproduced below, shows a cross-section taken through
central portion 34 of inner panel 26 along line 4-4, shown in Figure 3.
Figure 4 is annotated to identify bowed ribs 36 and braces 38 in inner
panel 26. As is visible in Figure 4, ribs 36 bow upwardly from either end
thereof as they approach the center. Ribs 36 intersect in the center with
braces 38. Braces 38 include a channel that opens downwardly. Col. 5,
11. 29-32. This channel is offset by second distance 46 from ribs 36. Fig. 4.
Benson describes that "[ w ]hen the central portion 34 is provided with the
11
Appeal2017-009861
Application 14/633,428
ribs 36 and braces 38, the bow 42 extends along the ribs 36 in a direction
generally parallel to the longitudinal direction 12." Col. 5, 11. 18-20. The
channel of braces 38 run perpendicular to the bow 42. Benson describes,
"[T]he bow 42 defines a plurality of second distances 46 relative to the outer
panel 24. The locations ... of these second distances 46 define a line 13 that
is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis 12 of the vehicle 10." Col. 6, 11. 31-
35. Benson further describes, "The shape of the inner panel 26 ... operates
to define a moment acting through the location of the second distance 46"
that acts in an upward direction relative to the vehicle upon a frontal impact.
Col. 5, 11. 58-67.
We understand from this description that Benson's inner panel 26
includes grooves formed by the channels in braces 3 8 that align across a
portion of the width of inner panel 26 to form a crest line that defines a
moment to promote predetermined deformation of the inner panel. Thus,
Benson's inner panel 26 includes at least one lateral groove defining at least
one crest line in a portion of a width dimension of the inner panel, as recited
in claim 11.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner's stated reason to combine
is "unfounded" and "conclusory" and "completely ignores that Wisniewski
already discloses ribs 68" and would have no need for the groove of Benson.
Appeal Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 5 (Appellant arguing that "Wisniewski
was aware of the use of ribs to control deformation" and chose not to use
them to form a groove to define a crest line in a portion of the width
dimension of its inner panel).
First, we disagree with Appellant that the Examiner's proposed
modification to add grooves to define a crest line in Wisniewski' s inner
12
Appeal2017-009861
Application 14/633,428
panel 22 is redundant to ribs 68 of Wisniewski. Wisniewski's ribs 68 are
disposed in middle panel member 28, not inner panel member 22.
Second, Wisniewski teaches, "Each of the respective panel members
20, 22, and 28 may be independently engineered, by virtue of their
individual structural characteristics - i.e., geometric and material
characteristics, to have relatively high tensile and compressive strength or
stiffness, providing a preferred impact performance when the hood assembly
14 is subjected to load B." Wisniewski, col. 5, 1. 64- col. 6, 1. 3. As
discussed above, Benson explicitly teaches adding a crest line to an inner
panel of a hood assembly to control deformation of the hood upon impact.
The Examiner's reasoning, drawn from the explicit teaching of Benson in
this regard, is based upon rational underpinnings.
For these reasons, Appellant has not identified error in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 11 as unpatentable over Wisniewski and Benson. Claims
4 and 16 fall with claim 11.
Third Ground of Rejection: Unpatentability of claims 5, 6, 17, and 18 over
Wisniewski
Appellant does not present any additional arguments asserting error in
the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 5, 6, 17, and 18 as
unpatentable over Wisniewski. Appeal Br. 16 (Appellant arguing only that
"these dependent claims depend from allowable amended independent
claims as explained above"). We sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6, 17, and
18 based on the same reasons discussed above in the analysis of the first
ground of rejection.
13
Appeal2017-009861
Application 14/633,428
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 3-8, 10-13, and 15-
18 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
14