Ex Parte Mette

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 25, 2016

12814799 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/814,799 06/14/2010 81466 7590 04/26/2016 MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd, LLC - GM One Maritime Plaza 720 Water Street 5th Floor Toledo, OH 43604 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Richard K. Mette 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. P009721-NAPD-LCH 1120 EXAMINER CUMAR, NATHAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3675 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 04/26/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICHARD K. METTE Appeal2014-002559 Application 12/814,799 Technology Center 3600 Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Richard K. Mette (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant's invention "relates generally to vehicle doors and more particularly to rod and clip assemblies mounted to vehicle doors." Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: Appeal2014-002559 Application 12/814,799 1. A door rod and clip assembly for use with a door inner panel of a vehicle door, the assembly comprising: a lock rod configured to have a first portion attached to a door latch assembly and a second portion including a finger pull accessible by a vehicle occupant, the second portion on a same side of the door inner panel as the first portion with the lock rod configured to extend on only one side of the door inner panel; and a rod clip formed of an elastomeric material including a retention member configured to secure the rod clip to the door inner panel, a base portion configured to be mounted adjacent to the door inner panel, a pair of support arms extending from the base away from the door inner panel and having ends that define a receiving slot, and a plurality of flexible ribs extending from the support arms in a direction normal to the lock rod to define a flexibility slot aligned with the receiving slot, the flexible ribs including corresponding rod retention cutouts that receive and retain the lock rod in a predetermined orientation, whereby the predetermined orientation of the lock rod positions the lock rod for assembly of an interior door trim panel to the door inner panel. Appeal Br. 12. REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER Hill Bauer Rogers Siragusa us 3,784,242 us 3,811,725 us 5,253,906 US D484,784 S 2 Jan. 8, 1974 May 21, 1974 Oct. 19, 1993 Jan. 6,2004 Appeal2014-002559 Application 12/814,799 REJECTIONS ON APPEAL 1 (I) Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Rogers, Siragusa, and Bauer. (II) Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Rogers, Siragusa, Bauer, and Hill. ANALYSIS Rejection I Claims 1-3 and 5-7 The Examiner finds that Rogers discloses a lock rod 48 "configured to extend on only one side of the door inner panel" and a rod clip 50. Non- Final Act. 5 (citing Rogers, Fig. 2). The Examiner further finds that Rogers' rod 48 is a lock rod, because rod 48 "connects the door lock assembly 18 and the finger pull 32 (32 is considered as the finger pull and is located inside the vehicle).'' Ans. 10. The Examiner relies on Siragusa for teaching most of the features of the rod clip including retention member (1, fig B below),2 base portion (2, fig B below), a receiving slot (4, fig B below), a pair of support arms (3, fig B below), and plurality of flexible ribs (5, fig B below). 1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. Ans. 3. The Examiner also presents an objection to the drawings under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.83(a). See Non- Final Act. 2- 3 (mailed Apr. 22, 2013). An objection is a petitionable matter and not an appealable matter and is not within the jurisdiction of the Board. See In re Mindick, 371F.2d892, 894 (CCPA 1967); see also Ans. 3. 2 The Examiner's reference to "fig B below" refers to an annotated version of Figure 2 of Siragusa, which the Examiner includes on page 11 of the Non- Final Action. 3 Appeal2014-002559 Application 12/814,799 Non-Final Act. 6. The Examiner relies on Bauer as teaching an elastomeric rod clip. See id. (citing Bauer col. 3, 11. 9-12; Fig. 2). The Examiner reasons that "[i]t would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Rogers to include a rod clip in place of the existing clip" to provide "a better support for the rod," and to make the rod clip from an elastomeric material to provide "an improved locking system." Id. at 6-7. Appellant asserts that Rogers' element 48 is not a lock rod because, "it is the inside release handle rod" and rather, element 104 is the lock rod of Rogers because "Rogers specifically teaches that element 104 is a 'lock rod control rod."' Appeal Br. 7. Appellant also argues that "even if, for the sake of argument, element 48 of Rogers were a lock rod," rod 48 "passes through the door inner panel, so it is not even on only one side of the door inner panel 41 of Rogers." Id. at 8 (citing Rogers, Fig. 2). Appellant asserts that rod 48 must "pass through the door inner panel,'' because "the inside door handle to which the rod 48 attaches to is inboard of the door inner panel (must be for a passenger inside the vehicle to actuate the inside door handle) while the latch to which this rod attaches is outboard of the door inner panel." Id. Appellant provides an annotated copy of Rogers' Figure 2 and argues that "the broken section of figure 2 is where both rods 48 and 104 must pass through the door inner panel, otherwise the figures in Rogers are not compatible with each other and don't make sense," (Reply Br. 4) and also argues that "nothing in Rogers states that the rods 48, 104 do not pass through the door inner panel." Id. at 2. Appellant's arguments are not persuasive because Rogers' rod 48 is a lock rod that is configured as in claim 1. Specifically, Rogers' rod 48 4 Appeal2014-002559 Application 12/814,799 operates through lever 54 on latch 18 to tum lock bolt 24 (of latch 18) from a position in which bolt 24 is closed around striker pin 26 (see Rogers, Fig. 2) to an opened position (see Rogers, Fig. 4), when handle 32 is pulled. See Rogers, col. 2, 11. 62---68. As such, rod 48 is a rod for lock 24, i.e., a lock rod that is configured to have a first portion attached to a door latch assembly (18) and a second portion including a finger pull (32) accessible by a vehicle occupant. Thus, despite Rogers having "lock control rod 104," Appellant does not point to any portion of the Specification that defines a lock rod in such a way as to exclude Rogers' rod 48. Further, Roger's rod 48 works "[b]y pulling the handle 32 outwardly so that it turns on its pivot shaft 36 against the force of spring 42," so that "the rod 48 will be pulled toward the handle 32." Rogers, col. 3, 11. 27-29; Figs. 2 and 4. Considering the position of handle 32, slide bar 36, and lever 54, in Rogers' Figure 2, it is apparent that the view in Rogers' Figure 2 is a view of the inside of the door facing the driver so that the driver can pull handle 32 toward him/her, can move slide bar 96 (between positions 98, 100, and 102), and so that rotation of lever 54 is clockwise. See Rogers, col. 3, 11. 27-31 and col. 4, 11. 8-17; see also Appeal Br. 8. We reproduce Rogers' Figure 2 below. 5 Appeal2014-002559 Application 12/814,799 22 32 ~~-~~~ 48 RG-2 Rogers' Figure 2 is a side view of the door latch assembly including rod 48, handle 32, and part of panel 41. Pulling handle 32 depicted in Figure 2 of Rogers (see col. 3, 11. 27-31) moves handle 32 away from panel 41 (as opposed to toward panel 41). Therefore, contraP; to ,LA~ppellant's assertion (see ,LA~ppeal Br. 7-8), it is not necessary for rod 48 and rod 104 to pass through panel 41 in order for a passenger to actuate the inside door handle. That rod 48, handle 32, and the portion of rod 48 attached to latch assembly 18 are all on the same side of panel 41 is further evident from Rogers' Figure 6, which we reproduce below. 3 3 Although Rogers' Figure 6 does not depict handle 32, interior slide bar 96 is depicted in both of Figures 2 and 6 and provides a common point of reference. 6 Appeal2014-002559 Application 12/814,799 flG....._-......... 6 Rogers' Figure 6 is a top view of the control linkage (see Rogers, column 2, 11. 27-28) and which shows slide bar 96 facing downward (outwards - toward a driver) in order to be accessible by the driver. Moreover, Rogers discloses that rod 48 is "elongated" and "extends longitudinally," and shows that the elongated portion "terminates in a pivot connection 52." Rogers, col. 3, 11. 17-22; Figs. 2 and 4. As such, contrary to Appellant's contention, there is no suggestion in Rogers that "the rod 104 must pass through the inner panel to engage the latch assembly 18." Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis added). Rather, in Rogers' Figure 2, rod 48 would extend longitudinally from right-side cut-out including panel 41 to connection 52 in the left-side cut-out in the same longitudinal plane. See also Rogers, Fig. 1 (showing a cut-out of latch assembly 18/handle 32 within a cut-out of door 12). Thus, although nothing in Rogers states that rods 48 or 104 do not pass through the door inner panel, Appellant does not point to any portion of Rogers that would suggest that the rods do pass through the panel. Nor does Appellant provide a persuasive argument as to why this would be the case. Rather, based on the above discussion, a preponderance of the evidence suggests that Rogers' rod 48, including handle 32 and the portion attached to latch 18, would all be configured to extend on the same side of panel 41, namely, the side facing the inside of the vehicle. Thus, we agree with the 7 Appeal2014-002559 Application 12/814,799 Examiner's finding that rod 48 including handle 32 and the portion of rod 48 attached to latch assembly 18 are all on the same side of panel 41. Appellant also argues that "the examiner is in error when discussing why one skilled in the art would combine the rod guide clip of Siragusa with Rogers." Appeal Br. 9. Appellant asserts that Siragusa's "rod support would be worse, not better since the rods ( 104 or 48 for that matter) extend horizontally (see figure 2 of Rogers) and need full support not only in the horizontal direction, but relative to each other for assembly." Id. Appellant argues that the "pie-shaped sections of Siragusa are not flexible," because if they were flexible, "then they would not provide the support needed for the horizontal rods 48, 104 to engage and allow the interconnecting assembly (194, 220, 284, 208) to function as the rods would then be able to readily flex and move horizontally relative to each other." Id. Appellant's arguments on this point are not persuasive because Siragusa;s rod clip is an "anti-rattle rod guide clip.;; As such, the ribs of the clip would be sufficiently flexible to provide an anti-rattle function while still being able to guide the rod. Inasmuch as Appellant's ribs provide sufficient support and are still able to dampen vibrations (see Spec. i-f 14), Appellant does not point to requirement in claim 1 that would exclude Siragusa's ribs. Nor does Appellant provide an adequate technical reason why Siragusa's clip would not be able to guide and prevent rattling. Having reviewed all of the Appellant's arguments, we find them unpersuasive, and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-7 as unpatentable over Rogers, Siragusa, and Bauer. Claim 4 8 Appeal2014-002559 Application 12/814,799 Claim 4 recites, in part, that "the retention cutouts define a pass- through having a diameter larger than a diameter of the lock rod." Appellant asserts that "Rogers uses the retainers and guides 106, 50 (see figure 2) not only to allow for horizontal sliding of each rod in a predefined path but also to maintain the two rods 48, 104 in relation to each other." Appeal Br. 10. Appellant thus argues that "one skilled in the art would not employ a pass-through of Siragusa having a diameter larger than the diameter of the lock rod as this would defeat the purpose in Rogers of the retainers and guides guiding the rods 48, 104." Id. The Examiner replies that "[ o ]ne who is skilled in the art would realize that the purpose of the pass-through 8 of Siragusa is to allow a rod to pass through and to maintain a specified position of the rod." Ans. 11. The Examiner thus takes the position that in order to accomplish both of these purposes, one "would have the diameter of [pass-through] 8 larger than the diameter of lock rod depending on the situations.'' Id. We are not apprised of error in the Examiner's position. Siragusa's rod clip is an anti-rattle guide rod guide clip. Thus, as the Examiner correctly notes, the diameter of the pass-through of Siragusa is adjusted depending on the amount of rattle or depending on the amount of guidance required. Cf Spec. i-f 14. Appellant provides no objective evidence or persuasive technical reasoning as to why the Examiner's proposed guide, with a pass-through having a slightly larger diameter than the rod passing through it, would not still perform both functions as discussed supra with respect to claim 1. 9 Appeal2014-002559 Application 12/814,799 In view of this, we are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments and thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4 as unpatentable over Rogers, Siragusa, and Bauer. Rejection II Claims 8 and 9 depend from claim 1. Appellant expressly relies on the arguments advanced with respect to claim 1 for the patentability of these claims. Appeal Br. 11. For the same reasons discussed above, we sustain Rejection II. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-9 based on Rogers, Siragusa, Bauer, and Hill is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 10