Ex Parte Owen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 26, 2012

11553193 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2012)

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. 11/553,193 10/26/2006 ROBERT H. OWEN LA-40422 (710240-2997) 3377 7590 11/27/2012 Edmund P. Anderson Dickinson Wright PLLC Suite 2000 38525 Woodward Ave. Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 EXAMINER CARTER, WILLIAM JOSEPH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2875 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/27/2012 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 ROBERT H. OWEN and JOHN A. FORISH ____________ Appeal 2010-005555 Application 11/553,193 1 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, ERIC B. CHEN, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to Molded Lamp Sockets. The Examiner has rejected the claims as anticipated and obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to molded lamp sockets. The molded lamp socket includes a lamp base body defining a socket cavity with an opening for 1 The real party in interest is Federal-Mogul World Wide, Inc. Appeal 2010-005555 Application 11/553,193 2 receiving a lamp bulb. The molded lamp socket also includes a mounting body defining a plug cavity encircling the second contact portion. The mounting body is overmolded with respect to the lamp base body. The lamp base body is formed from a first plastic with a first level of resistance to out- gassing and the mounting body is formed from a second plastic with a second level of resistance to outgassing less than the first level of out- gassing. (Abstract). Claims 1 and 7-13 are on appeal. 2 Claims 1, 9 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows: 1. A molded lamp socket comprising: a lamp base body defining a socket cavity with an opening for receiving a lamp bulb; a lead extending from a first contact portion disposed in said socket cavity to a second contact portion spaced from said socket cavity; and a mounting body defining a plug cavity encircling said second contact portion and overmolded in bonded, fixed relation with respect to said lamp base body and less than all of said lead, wherein said lamp base body is formed from a first plastic with a first level of resistance to out-gassing and said mounting body is formed from a second plastic with a second level of resistance to out-gassing less than said first level of out-gassing. 2 Claims 2-6 were indicated as allowable if rewritten in independent form. (Final. Rejection 3-4). Appeal 2010-005555 Application 11/553,193 3 The claims stand rejected as follows: Claims 1, 7, 9, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Heath (US 2004/0165411 A1, filed Aug. 26, 2004,). (Ans. 3). Claims 8, 10, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Heath and Bergin (US 4,631,651, filed Dec. 23, 1986). (Ans. 3-4). Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). CLAIMS 1, 7, 11, AND 12 CONTENTIONS AND ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 7, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated. The Examiner finds that Heath teaches each claimed limitation. (Ans. 3). 3 With respect to claim 1, Appellants contend that “Heath … does not teach or otherwise suggest providing the mounting body 60, referenced by the examiner, as being overmolded in bonded, fixed 3 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellants’ arguments in their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective details: Appellants’ Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed July 27, 2009, the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed September 30, 2009, and Appellants’ Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed November 30, 2009. Appeal 2010-005555 Application 11/553,193 4 relation with respect to the lamp base body 62 and less than all of the lead 68.” (App. Br. 4). Appellants further contend: Heath discloses mounting a body 32 in a housing 30 (paragraph [0010]). Accordingly, the housing 30 is not overmolded with respect to the body 32, as the housing is inherently already formed, and the body 32 then mounted therein. Further, it is expressly discussed that the housing and body are separate from one another and then integrally attached together (paragraph [0004]), thus, giving further support for appellants' contention that the housing and the body are not disclosed or suggested as being overmolded with respect to one another. (App. Br. 4). Contrary to the examiner’s stated interpretation, there is nothing to support the conclusion that the housing 60 is overmolded in bonded, fixed relation with respect to the body 62. Accordingly, Heath fails to meet appellants’ claimed structural limitations. (App. Br. 4-5). Appellants argue independent claim 9 is patentable for the same reasons advanced in support of the patentability of claim 1. With respect to claims 7, 11, and 12, Appellants merely argue these claims are patentable by virtue of their dependence from claim 1 (See App. Br. 5-6), thus claims 7, 9, 11, and 12 stand or fall with claim 1. The issue with respect to this rejection is whether Heath discloses or suggests a mounting body being overmolded in bonded, fixed relation with respect to a lamp base body. Appeal 2010-005555 Application 11/553,193 5 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Heath discloses a mounting body (60) connected with respect to the lamp base body (62) and less than all of the leads (68). (Heath, Figure 3; ¶ 0015). 2. Heath discloses “the socket comprises a housing and a separate body integrally attached to the housing.” (Heath, ¶ 0004). 3. The mounting body (60) and the lamp base body (62) are molded from polyetherimide. (Heath, ¶ 0016). PRINCIPLES OF LAW During examination, claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation as they would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment may be provided by the Specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). To be his own lexicographer, a patentee must use a “special definition of the term [that] is clearly stated in the patent specification or file history.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). ANALYSIS We adopt as our own, the Examiner’s finding that Heath teaches “a housing (mounting body 60) and a separate body (lamp base body 62) [are] ‘integrally attached.’” We also agree that this teaching of “integrally attached” explicitly teaches a “bonded, fixed relation.” (FF 2; Ans. 4-5). Appeal 2010-005555 Application 11/553,193 6 We further find that mounting body (60) and lamp base body (62) are molded from a polyetherimide plastic. (FF 3). The Examiner concludes that Heath “integrally attache[s]” a molded mounting body over a molded lamp base, thus teaching “overmolding” the two components. The Examiner’s interpretation is broad, but reasonable. (See Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054). Appellants have not acted as their own lexicographer, nor have they provided specification or other evidence to exclude the Examiner’s definition. (See Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1582). “Appellants believe the term ‘overmolded’ has clear and unambiguous meaning in the art of molding, and thus, does not need further definition.” (Reply Br. 1-2). However, attorney argument is not evidence. (See, In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). CONCLUSION OF LAW We are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 1, 7, 9, 11, and 12 as anticipated. CLAIMS 8, 10, AND 12 CONTENTIONS AND ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 8, 10, and 13 as obvious. (Ans. 3- 4). The Examiner finds that Heath teaches all of the claimed elements, as discussed above, except for explicitly teaching the lamp base body further comprises an annular ridge. Bergin, also drawn to lamp sockets, teaches a Appeal 2010-005555 Application 11/553,193 7 lamp base body (31) further comprises an annular ridge (55). (Ans. 4). Appellants contend that: the annular ridge 55 in Bergin to which the examiner directs our attention is not overmolded with any material, let alone a mounting body being overmolded over the annular ridge 55. Rather, as expressly taught in Bergin, the annular ridge 55 is an outer surface of an insulative base 31. (App. Br. 6). The Examiner answers: Bergin is not relied upon to teach the annular ridge overmolded with any material, let alone a mounting body being overmolded over the annular ridge. Bergin is relied upon to teach a lamp base body (31) further comprising an annular ridge (55). Heath is relied upon to teach a mounting body (60) being overmolded over a lamp base body (62), as discussed above and shown in Fig. 3 of Heath, and therefore all the elements of claims 8, 10, and 13 are taught. (Ans. 5). Appellants reply: as noted in the Appeal Brief, reference numeral 55 does not provide a "ridge", but rather provides one half of a ball joint type connection in combination with an opposing surfaced 53 which allows precise location of the lamp filament relative to the reflective surface. (Reply Br. 2-3). ANALYSIS Appellants are not persuasive that the Examiner has erred in finding Bergin Numeral 55 to comprise a “ridge.” That numeral “55” functions, in Bergin, as one half of a ball joint does not imply that it does not have the shape of a “ridge.” Additionally, Appellants re-allege their arguments Appeal 2010-005555 Application 11/553,193 8 directed to “overmolding.” As discussed above, we do not find these arguments persuasive of Examiner error. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 8, 10, and 13 as obvious. SUMMARY We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 7 4 , 9, 11, and 12 as anticipated. We affirm the rejection of claims 8, 10, and 13 as obvious. 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)(iv). AFFIRMED kis 4 Should prosecution continue in this case, the Examiner may wish to review claim 7 which appears to be indefinite in view of a typographical error and a second recitation of “a first axis” where it is likely that “a second axis” may have been intended. 7. The molded lamp socket of claim 1 wherein said socket cavity is further defined as being substantially centered on a first axis and said plug cavity is further defined as being substantially centered on a first axis and said first and second axis are further defined as being one of transverse and aligned with respect to one anther [sic, another].