Ex Parte La Paglia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 9, 2017

14002777 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 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.
14/002,777 09/03/2013 Anthony La Paglia DP-319740 1863
22851 7590
Delphi Technologies, Inc.
P.O. Box 5052
M/C 483-400-402
Troy, MI 48007-5052
05/11/2017 EXAMINER
MILLISER, THERON S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2835
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/11/2017 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):
kandace.k.powell@delphi.com
patent@delphi.com
michele.m.piscitelli@delphi.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTHONY LA PAGLIA and
FREDERUC PRIGENT1
Appeal 2016-005589
Application 14/002,777
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1, 3—8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Yamaguchi et al. (US 2007/0074473 Al, published Apr. 5, 2007;
hereinafter “Yamaguchi”) and of claims 2 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Ohnishi (US 2006/0225995 Al,
published Oct. 12, 2006). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
1 Delphi Technologies, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-005589
Application 14/002,777
We REVERSE.
Appellants claim a control panel comprising a flat base 22 with
detectors, an elastomer sheet 24 defining openings 36 through the sheet, and
a decorative fascia 12 provided with “control buttons [e.g., knobs 16] in
communication with the detectors via the openings” (sole independent claim
1, Figs. 2-4).
A re-formatted copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A control panel configured to be placed in a substantially vertical
plane, the panel comprising:
a flat base that includes detectors;
an elastomer sheet mounted against the base, wherein the sheet
defines openings through the sheet; and
a decorative fascia configured to define an inside face that faces a
main surface of the sheet, wherein the decorative fascia is provided with
control buttons in communication with the detectors via the openings,
wherein
the base, the sheet, and the fascia are arranged such that the actuation
of a control button causes a detection by at least one of the detectors;
wherein
the control panel is in addition provided with a protection means
formed of elements arranged such that when a liquid penetrates between the
sheet and the inside face of the decorative fascia, the liquid is guided along a
determined course and reemerges from the panel having avoided critical
zones leading to the detectors, wherein
the protection means includes a plurality of linear elements with a
slope relative to the vertical plane such that the liquid flows from one
element to another from the top of the panel and converges at an outlet
situated at the bottom of the panel.
2
Appeal 2016-005589
Application 14/002,777
In the § 102(b) rejection of claim 1, the Examiner finds that
Yamaguchi discloses an elastomer sheet 17 defining openings through the
sheet and control buttons 16 in communication with detectors via the
openings (Final Action 2—3, citing Yamaguchi Fig. 2(a)).
Appellants point out that “Fig 2a in Yamaguchi. . . clearly shows a
sheet 17 between the pushbutton 16 and the detector” (Br. 9) and argue that
“there is no opening through the sheet 17 through which the pushbutton 16
communicates with the detector” (id.).
In response, the Examiner interprets claim 1 as defining two different
types of openings. Specifically, the Examiner interprets the claim recitation
“the sheet defines openings through the sheet” as referring to openings “all
the way through the sheet” (Ans. 4) but interprets the claim recitation
“control buttons in communication with the detectors via the openings” as
referring to “non-through openings” (id.). According to the Examiner,
Yamaguchi shows such non-through openings as elements 23 and 24 located
under pushbutton 16 (id.).
The Examiner’s claim interpretation is not well founded. The
subsequent claim recitation “via the openings” (emphasis added) makes a
positive reference back to the openings of the earlier recitation “openings
through the sheet.” Accordingly, it is unreasonable for the Examiner to
interpret the subsequent recitation as defining “non-through openings” that
3
Appeal 2016-005589
Application 14/002,777
are different from the earlier recited openings which the Examiner concedes
refer to openings “all the way through the sheet” {id.).2
Under these circumstances, we are persuaded by Appellants’
argument that Yamaguchi fails to anticipate claim 1 because “there is no
opening through the sheet 17 through which the pushbutton 16
communicates with the detector” (Br. 9).
We do not sustain, therefore, the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of
claims 1, 3—8, and 10. Because the Examiner does not rely on Ohnishi to
supply the deficiency of Yamaguchi, we also do not sustain the § 103(a)
rejection of claims 2 and 9.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
2 Furthermore, there is questionable merit in the Examiner’s finding that
elements 23 and 24 of Yamaguchi are openings (i.e., “non-through
openings”) located under pushbutton 16. This is because Yamaguchi does
not disclose elements 23 and 24 as openings of any kind but rather as
channel portions defined by protrusions 21 {see, e.g., 59-61).
4