Ex Parte Murakami et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

12923305 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 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.
12/923,305 09/14/2010 Kazuhiro Murakami 1451562.267US2 4460
21874 7590
Locke Lord LLP
P.O. BOX 55874
BOSTON, MA 02205
EXAMINER
ZIMMERMAN, JOHN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1784
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2017 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):
patent@lockelord.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAZUHIRO MURAKAMI and
YOSHIHIKO WATANABE1
Appeal 2015-005699
Application 12/923,305
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, GEORGE C. BEST, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 5—7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Ishimatsu.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Yazaki Corporation.
Appeal Br. 3.
2 In our opinion below, we reference the Specification filed September 14,
2010 (Spec.), the Appeal Brief filed December 3, 2014 (Appeal Br.), the
Examiner’s Answer of March 11, 2015 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief filed
May 11, 2015 (Reply Br.).
3 JP 2007-228664, published September 6, 2007 (as translated).
Appeal 2015-005699
Application 12/923,305
We AFFIRM.
The claims are directed to a metal joint body, such as the metal joint
body shown in Figure 1. See, e.g., claim 1; Spec. 7:5—6. Figure 1 is
reproduced below:
Figure 1 is a perspective view of a metal joint body
The metal joint body includes two or more metal sheets. Claim 1.
The joint body of Figure 1 has three such metal sheets 10, 11, 12. Spec.
7:7—9. Figure 5, reproduced below, depicts a cross section of the metal joint
body.
Figure 5 is a cross-sectional view along
the central longitudinal axis
2
Appeal 2015-005699
Application 12/923,305
Figure 6 depicts a cross section along a direction perpendicular to that
of Figure 5. Figure 6 is reproduced below:
Figure 6 is a cross-sectional view
As can be seen in Figures 1, 5, and 6, each of the metal sheets
includes a pair of projecting members (shown at 13, 14, and 15,
respectively) projecting into holes 16, 17, 18, respectively. Spec. 7:9-11.
Appellants define areas of contact 19, 20 between the projecting members
13, 14, 15 and the outer portions of the sheets. Id.', see also Figs. 5, 6.
3
Appeal 2015-005699
Application 12/923,305
The pairs of projecting members 13, 14, 15 are formed using a
punching die apparatus as shown in Figure 8, reproduced below:
Figure 8 is a perspective view of apparatus 2 with first die 21,
second die 22, and guide 23
To form the pairs of projecting members 13, 14, 15, dies 21 and 22
cooperate to press the metal sheets 10, 11, 12 into the bent and cut shape of
Figure 1. Spec. 11:13—12:9. Figures 9 A and 9B show the operation of the
dies 21 and 22. Figure 9A is reproduced below:
a
\
m
\
2
Figure 9 A is a cross-sectional view of the apparatus before die 22
presses against metal sheets 10, 11, 12
4
Appeal 2015-005699
Application 12/923,305
Figure 9B is reproduced below:
Figure 9B is a cross-sectional view of the apparatus after die 22
presses metal sheets 10, 11, 12 into press hole 24 of die 21
As can be seen in Figures 9A and 9B, die 22 of the punching
apparatus presses on the metal sheets 10, 11, 12 so that they shear along a
central line, which is shown in Figure 1 as cutting line L2. Spec. 11:20—24.
The sheets 10, 11, 12 also shear along second cutting lines, which are shown
as cutting lines L3 in Figure 1. The sheets bend along bending line LI as
shown in Figure 1. Spec. 7:12—22.
Appellants claim the metal joint body in terms of the process of
forming it. Claim 1, reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief with reference numerals from Figures 1 and 5, is illustrative:
1. A metal joint body [ 1 ], which is formed by joining
two or more metal sheets [10, 11] to each other, comprising:
a pair of projecting members [13 or 14] formed by
cutting the two or more overlapped metal sheets
[10, 11] along a first cutting line [L2] and a pair of
second cutting lines [L3] extending so as to intersect the
first cutting line [L2] at each end of the first cutting line
[L2], and
5
Appeal 2015-005699
Application 12/923,305
pressing areas surrounded with the first cutting line
[L2] and the pair of second cutting lines [L3] and each of
a pair of bending lines [LI] connecting both ends of the
pair of second cutting lines [L3] so as to bend the each
area about each of the bending lines [LI] and
project the areas in a direction of pressing;
a hole [16, 17, or 18] formed by arranging the projecting
members [pair 13 or pair 14]; and
a metal contact area [19] arranged between
an outer surrounding cutting surface of the
projecting member [pair 13] arranged at a first metal
sheet [10] of the metal sheets [10, 11] located at a
pressing side and
an inner surrounding cutting surface of the hole
[17] arranged at a position to oppose to the outer
surrounding cutting surface and arranged in a second
metal sheet [11] of the metal sheets [10, 11] overlapped
on the first metal sheet [10] and located at a far side from
the pressing side,
wherein
said first and second cutting lines [L2, L3] substantially
forms [sic] a trapezoidal shape together, with the first cutting
line [L2] being a long side,
the metal sheets [10, 11] are formed in same thickness in
an area of the trapezoidal shape, and
the pair of projecting members [pair 13 or pair 14] on
opposite sides of the first cutting line [L2] are both displaced
and contacting.
Appeal Br. 20-21.
6
Appeal 2015-005699
Application 12/923,305
OPINION
Appellants confine their arguments to the rejection of claims 1 and 7.
Appeal Br. 11—18. Thus, we select those claims as representative to resolve
the issues on appeal.
Claim 1
There is no dispute that Ishimatsu describes a metal joint body
including overlapping metal sheets with pairs of projecting members in
trapezoidal shapes. Compare Appeal Br. 15—18, and Reply Br. 2-4, with
Ans. 2. Figures 3a and 4a illustrate. Figure 3a is reproduced below:
V ki
L-
8 ii 5
v-kir r " Tc
V“
Figure 3 a is a top view of body kl
7
Appeal 2015-005699
Application 12/923,305
Figure 4a is reproduced below:
kti
k-v;-
H
//V7 i ; 12
Figure 4a is a cross-sectional view of body kl
The Examiner acknowledges that Ishimatsu’s body kl includes a slit
(si) at the location of Appellants’ first cutting line L2 such that when the
metal sheets are bent and cut to create projecting members kl 1 and kl V the
projecting members do not contact each other as required by the last clause
of Appellants’ claim 1. Ans. 2.
For claim 1, the issue is: Have Appellants identified a reversible error
in the Examiner’s determination that “it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to omit the slit shaped cutting line (i.e. use a
conventional cutting line) if [a] more ductile core material is used and/or if
one of ordinary skill in the art would be willing to accept higher breakage
rates in exchange for simplified manufacturing steps.” Compare Appeal Br.
15—18 and Reply Br. 2-4, with Ans. 2—6.
Appellants have not identified such an error.
As pointed out by Appellants, the slit (si) of Ishimatsu is a hole rather
than a line. Appeal Br. 15. As further pointed by Appellants, this slit hole is
created by an extra step of punching out the slit before the step of bending
8
Appeal 2015-005699
Application 12/923,305
and cutting the projections kl 1, kl 1Appeal Br. 15. The Examiner does
not dispute these facts. Instead, the Examiner’s rejection rests on the
determination that it would have been obvious to omit the extra step of
punching out the slit. Ans. 2.
Appellants do not adequately address the Examiner’s rationale, which
is based on the omission of a step and its function, and the prior art provides
evidence in support of the Examiner’s rationale. Particularly, Ishimatsu
describes one of the improvements of the Ishimatsu invention as the change
from the rectangular projections of JP 2003-289639 A to the trapezoidal
projections disclosed by Ishimatsu. Ishimatsu Tflf 4, 9, 10; compare
Ishimatsu Fig 7a (showing the body of ’639), with Fig. 3a. According to
Ishimatsu, the prior patent, JP 2003-289639 A, describes a prior
improvement in which the piece (body) was slit-cut because bending of the
brittle material of ultra-thin material was difficult. Id. This disclosure
supports the Examiner’s finding that when not using such a brittle material
or when willing to accept some cracking and breakage, those of ordinary
skill in the art understood that the slit-cut was not necessary and could be
omitted.
A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion
of obviousness.
Claim 7
Claim 7 requires that each of the metal sheets of claim 1 contact at the
first cutting line. In arguing against the rejection of this claim, Appellants
again fail to adequately address the Examiner’s determination that those of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood it is acceptable to omit the
extra slit cutting step of Ishimatsu when performing the bending and cutting
9
Appeal 2015-005699
Application 12/923,305
operation on a more ductile metal or when willing to accept some cracking
and breakage. When this step is omitted, there would be no difference
between the cutting line of Ishimatsu and that of Appellants and it is
reasonable to presume the resulting structure would contact at the cutting
line as required by claim 7.
Appellants have not persuaded us of a reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 7.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).
AFFIRMED
10