Ex Parte Krause

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 25, 2013

10897863 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte FRITZ KRAUSE ____________________ Appeal 2011-005469 Application 10/897,863 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and BARRY L. GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-005469 Application 10/897,863 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 5, 9, 10, 12, and 16. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.§ 6(b). We affirm. The claims are directed to a weatherseal assembly, particularly for sealing a fixed window pane of a motor vehicle. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A weatherseal assembly for sealing a fixed window pane of a motor vehicle, comprising: a weatherseal made of an elastomeric material, the weatherseal comprising a mounting portion adapted to enclose a fixed window pane of a motor vehicle and a sealing portion joined to the mounting portion, the sealing portion comprising an inner leg on which at least one sealing lip is arranged and an outer leg angled from the inner leg and connected to the mounting portion; a rigid component comprising a first portion adapted to extend along a lateral surface of the fixed window pane of a motor vehicle, and a second portion angled from the first portion and adapted to extend along a front surface of the fixed window pane between the mounting portion and the sealing portion; a fastening means connecting the weatherseal to the first portion of the rigid component; and an insert reinforcing the mounting portion and extending at least along the first portion of the rigid component the insert adapted to be disposed on a same side of the lateral surface as the first portion of the rigid component, wherein the inner leg defines a contact face supporting the sealing portion at the second portion of the rigid component, and wherein the sealing portion comprises a trimming part having an L-shaped cross-section defining a first leg extending along the outer leg of the sealing portion and a Appeal 2011-005469 Application 10/897,863 3 second leg extending in the inner leg of the sealing portion and being connected to the sealing portion. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Gueneau Adorni Legrand Kaye Iwata US 5,319,883 US 6,241,306 US 6,347,491 US 6,409,251 JP 62-026115 Jun. 14, 1994 Jun. 5, 2001 Feb. 19, 2002 Jun. 25, 2002 Feb. 4, 1987 REJECTIONS Claims 1-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gueneau and Iwata. Ans. 4. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gueneau, Iwata and Adorni. Ans. 7. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gueneau, Iwata, and Legrand. Ans. 8. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gueneau, Iwata, and Kaye. Ans. 9. OPINION Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 16 are argued as a group based on limitations appearing in independent claim 1, the sole independent claim. App. Br. 4-9. Claim 1 is selected as representative of claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 12, and claims 9, 10 and 16 are argued based only on dependency . Appeal 2011-005469 Application 10/897,863 4 The Examiner correctly found that Gueneau discloses the subject matter of claim 1 but without the trimming part. Ans. 4-6. Appellant takes issue with the Examiner’s interpretation of the uppermost and vertically oriented portions of rigidification panel 40a and slide holder 40c (branch 40b) as viewed in Figures 31 and 8 (see Ans. 6 annotating Gueneau Figure 8 by labeling that portion “a”), as the recited “first portion” of the “rigid component” and the lower, horizontally oriented portions of those same structures as the recited “second portion” of the “rigid component” (see Ans. 6 annotating Gueneau Figure 8 by labeling that portion “b”). App. Br. 7. Appellant contends that although the horizontal section of 40c may extend along a front surface of the fixed window pane, the inner leg does not define a contact face supporting the sealing portion at that same portion of the rigid component. And while the horizontal portion of reference numeral 40a may be contacted by a contact face of the inner leg, that portion of reference numeral 40a is not adapted to extend along a front surface of the fixed window pane. App. Br. 7. The underlying premise of this argument appears to be that is was unreasonable for the Examiner to interpret the portion labeled “b” as the recited second portion due to the fact that it is bifurcated.. We understand the term “portion,” without more, when read in light of the Specification, to simply mean a part of a whole of something. Appellant does not direct our attention to any language in the claim or elsewhere that serves to exclude bifurcated parts of structures from that which is reasonably interpreted as a “portion” according to the claim. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1 While the Examiner relies on the embodiment depicted in Figure 8, the embodiment depicted and described in association with Figure 3 of Gueneau provides additional illustration and description of the relevant structures 40a, b, c of the Figure 8 embodiment. Col. 4, ll. 18-46, col. 6, ll. 20-44. Appeal 2011-005469 Application 10/897,863 5 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Branch 40b of slide holder 40c is fixed to rigidification profile 40a by welding or weld-brazing. Col. 4, ll. 32-40. Appellant has not apprised us of any reason why then this entire structure is not reasonably interpreted as the recited “rigid component.” Nor has Appellant apprised us of any reason why the portions of that structure identified by the Examiner (Ans. 6) are not reasonably interpreted as the first and second portions recited. Ans. 10. Next, Appellant challenges the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness regarding incorporation of Iwata’s molding 6 or “trimming part” into Gueneau. App. Br. 8-10. We cannot agree with Appellant (App. Br. 8), however, that applying Iwata’s technique, of using a positioning hole 2j, to accommodate a boss 6b of a trimming part, in order to incorporate such a part on to the structure forming the visible trim in Gueneau would be to “totally redesign the sealing portion of Gueneau” as Appellant suggests. Creating a hole and boss are minor structural modifications that are easily created and we are not apprised of any reason why they would detract from the functionality of Gueneau’s device. Ans. 12. Finally, Appellant argues that it would not have been obvious to incorporate Iwata’s trimming part because Gueneau already provides what amounts to an integrated aesthetically pleasing trimming part. App. Br. 9, citing Gueneau col. 4, ll. 15-17. If anything, the cited portion of Gueneau suggests that the proposed combination is the product of simple substitution yielding only a predictable result that is recognized in the art as desirable. While there may be some benefit to an integrated part as used by Gueneau, a Appeal 2011-005469 Application 10/897,863 6 multi-piece design may facilitate satisfaction of many different consumers. Ans. 12. See Winner Int'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n. 8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another.”). Appellant’s sole argument concerning claim 3 essentially pertains to notice. App. Br. 10. We find ourselves in agreement with the Examiner (Ans. 13) that identification of the “fastening means” for purposes of parent claim 1 as Gueneau’s clamp 11, was adequate notice as to the structure used to meet the limitation of claim 3 further defining that same fastening means: “wherein the fastening means is a clip fastener.” DECISION The Examiner’s rejections are 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED mls