Ex Parte Pearson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 2016

13329603 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/329,603 12/19/2011 28415 7590 08/02/2016 PRICE HENEVELD LLP FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 695 KENMOOR S.E. P. 0. BOX 2567 GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49501-2567 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Craig Pearson 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. 83201098 2561 EXAMINER DAZ, MUHAMMAD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3631 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2016 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): ptomail@priceheneveld.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CRAIG PEARSON and ROBERT ANTHONY BRANCALEONE Appeal2014-006825 Application 13/329,603 Technology Center 3600 Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and MARK A. GEIER, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a rejection of claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. Appeal2014-006825 Application 13/329,603 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an automotive side view mirror attachment structure. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An internal mirror-mounting system for a vehicle door, compnsmg: a mirror-mounting reinforcement member operably coupled to an inner panel of the vehicle door and having a depression with reinforcement apertures disposed thereon providing a first loading surface; a belt reinforcement member operably coupled to the mirror-mounting reinforcement member having a mounting aperture aligned with the reinforcement apertures; and a reinforcement flange disposed about a rim of the mounting aperture providing a second loading surface. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Dickenson Nagamoto Brancaleone US 5,889,624 Mar. 30, 1999 US 6,664,470 B2 Dec. 16, 2003 US 2009/0225459 Al Sept. 10, 2009 REJECTIONS Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being unpatentable over (U.S. Pat. No. 5889624) to Dickenson. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being unpatentable over Brancaleone. Claims 2-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brancaleone. 2 Appeal2014-006825 Application 13/329,603 Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brancaleone and Nagamoto. OPINION Regarding the rejection of claim 8 and those claims depending therefrom, the Examiner reasons: a belt reinforcement member can be interpreted as any bracket or member that is either capable of reinforcing a belt or a member that is flexible or resilient to some extent; as noted by the Appellant the belt reinforcement member/seal 28 is a resilient member (Dickenson: Column 2, line 48). Ans. 3. We are unable to discern how the second potential meaning of "belt reinforcement member" identified and employed by the Examiner, "a member that is flexible or resilient to some extent," takes into account the word "reinforcement." All words in a claim must be considered in judging the obviousness of the claimed subject matter. See In re vVilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). It is not apparent why the Examiner determines Dickenson's seal 28 reinforces anything. We therefore agree with Appellants that the Examiner's rejection of claim 8 and those claims depending therefrom is premised on an unreasonably broad claim construction. App. Br. 9. Turning to claim 1 and its dependents, the Examiner states that "any element can be considered as inner or outer relative to any other element of the invention." Ans. 9. The Examiner's reasoning is inconsistent with the applicable laws of claim construction. "Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach." In re Cortright, 165 3 Appeal2014-006825 Application 13/329,603 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999). "Prior art references may be 'indicative of what all those skilled in the art generally believe a certain term means ... [and] can often help to demonstrate how a disputed term is used by those skilled in the art.' Accordingly, the PTO's interpretation of claim terms should not be so broad that it conflicts with the meaning given to identical terms in other patents from analogous art." Id. (Citations omitted). Accordingly, there is no basis to sustain the Examiner's rejections on the premise that Brancaleone's door's outer panel 10 is reasonably regarded as the recited "inner panel of the vehicle door." App. Br. 13; see also Ans. 9 the Examiner's annotated version of Figure 2 of Brancaleone. DECISION The Examiner's rejections are reversed. REVERSED 4