Ex Parte Murakami et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 201712923305 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation