Ex Parte Sandhu et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 2, 2019

14189186 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/189,186 02/25/2014 26096 7590 01/04/2019 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. 400 WEST MAPLE ROAD SUITE 350 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Chain Sandhu 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. 67514-004PUS1 8795 EXAMINER GUTMAN, HILARY L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3612 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2019 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): ptodocket@cgolaw.com cgolaw@yahoo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHAIN SANDHU, LEV LILOV, and JEFFREY MICHAEL BISSON Appeal2018-004345 Application 14/189, 186 Technology Center 3600 Before JEREMY M. PLENZLER, BRANDON J. WARNER, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's Decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11-22, and 24--30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appeal2018-004345 Application 14/189, 186 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 15, and 18 are independent, with claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11-22, and 24--30 ultimately depending from claim 1, 15, or 18. 1 Claims 1 and 18 are reproduced below: 1. An instrument panel, comprising: a first group of modules; a left section; a right section, wherein the left and right sections each include at least one module-receiving area configured to interchangeably receive each of the modules in the first group of modules, and wherein the instrument panel is symmetrical about a centerline between the left and right sections; and at least one vent in each of the left and right sections operatively connected to a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system. 18. A method of assembling an instrument panel, comprising the steps of: positioning a first section of an instrument panel with respect to an axis; installing a second section of the instrument panel into the first section of the instrument panel; selecting at least one module from one of at least one group of modules, wherein each of the modules in the at least one group of modules is interchangeable with the other modules in the at least one group of modules; and 1 The Claims Appendix appears to include numerous errors, listing, for example, claim 10 as pending, claim 11 as cancelled, claim 23 as pending, claim 24 as an apparatus depending from claim 1, and claim 25 as cancelled. The most recent amendment submitted February 1, 2016, however, lists claim 10 as cancelled, claim 11 as pending, claim 23 as cancelled, claim 24 as a method claim depending from claim 22, and claim 25 as pending. 2 Appeal2018-004345 Application 14/189, 186 removably installing the at least one module into at least one of the first and second sections of the instrument panel. REJECTIONS 2 1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 11-13, 15, 16, 18-22, and 24--30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama (5,857,726, issued Jan. 12, 1999) and Shikata (US 2002/0017798 Al, published Feb. 14, 2002), Lindberg (US 6,073,987, issued June 13, 2000), Hess (WO 01/12458 Al, published Feb. 22, 2001), or Masuda, PCT Pub. No. WO 2008/139970, PCT Pub. Nov. 20, 2008 (WO '970). Ans. 4. 2. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 15, 16, 18-22, 24--27, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson (US 2002/0017410 Al, Feb. 14, 2002) and Hess. Ans. 5. 3. Claims 14 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson and Official Notice taken by the Examiner. Ans. 7. 4. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson and Lindberg. Ans. 7. 5. Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama or Larsson and Rotary (US 6,709,041 Bl, issued Mar. 23, 2004). Ans. 7. OPINION Yokoyama Rejections Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 24--30 as a group. Appeal Br. 4--5. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2, 4, 2 Various rejections from the latest Non-Final Office Action have been withdrawn. See Ans. 3. 3 Appeal2018-004345 Application 14/189, 186 7-9, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 24--30 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellant argues claims 13 and 18 separately. 3 Appeal Br. 5-6. The Examiner finds that Yokoyama teaches a majority of the features recited in claim 1, but "is silent on side vents." Non-Final Act. 5, 7. The Examiner finds that a number of other references teach side vents, and reasons that "[i]t would have been obvious ... to provide side vents ... for the instrument panel structure of Yokoyama ... in order to provide additional conditioned air to occupants within the vehicle at these additional locations for added comfort." Id. at 7. With respect to claim 1, Appellant disputes only the Examiner's rationale for providing side vents in Yokoyama' s instrument panel. Appeal Br. 4--5. Specifically, Appellant contends that the modification proposed by the Examiner "is arbitrary and redundant" because "Yokoyama already includes an air conditioning system with vents." Id. at 4 ( citing Yokoyama 4:5---6, 6: 19-22). Appellant contends that "the Examiner did not explain why additional conditioned air would be beneficial for providing added comfort, when Yokoyama already discloses an air condition system." Id. at 5. With respect to the portions of Yokoyama cited by Appellant in the Appeal Brief, Appellant explains that Yokoyama "describ[ es] air conditioning unit 51 in the central portion 1 lb." Appeal Br. 4. That is, Appellant acknowledges that this air conditioning unit is centrally located. 3 Claims 19-22 depend from claim 18. As noted above, it appears that the Claims Appendix is incorrect and claim 24 is actually a method claim depending from claim 18. 4 Appeal2018-004345 Application 14/189, 186 The Examiner's position is that the addition of side vents would provide a better distribution of air flow. We agree, and Appellant does not rebut the Examiner's reasoning in any persuasive manner. Moreover, although not numbered or discussed, Yokoyama actually appears to provide areas for such vents on the left and right sides of its instrument panel. See, e.g., Yokoyama, Fig. 1 (un-numbered rectangular regions on left and right ends of the instrument panel). For the reasons set forth above, we are not apprised of Examiner error in the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 24--30. Claim 13 depends from claim 1 and further recites that "there is a gap between at least one of the left and right sections and a module of the first group of modules when the module is in an installed position." The Examiner finds that "there is necessarily a clearance gap between at least one of the first and second sections and the plurality of modules when the plurality of modules are in an installed position." Non-Final Act. 6. Appellant responds that "the rejection is deficient because to establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence 'must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill."' Appeal Br. 5 ( citing MPEP Â§ 2112(IV)). The Examiner points to column 5, line 49 through column 6, line 67 of Yokoyama, and explains that "modules 20 and 30 of Yokoyama are provided with at least a gap 12 between the modules 20 and 30 and a section 12a of the instrument panel." Ans. 8-9. Appellant is correct with respect to claim 13. The Examiner has failed to establish sufficiently that the recited gap is necessarily present in Yokoyama. The citations in the Answer, noted above, do not cure this 5 Appeal2018-004345 Application 14/189, 186 deficiency because we have no reason to believe the recited "gap" is necessarily present based on those cited portions, and the Examiner provides no persuasive reason for us to determine otherwise. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision to reject claim 13. Claim 18 is a method of assembly. 4 The Examiner identifies the structure of Yokoyama' s instrument panel and finds that Yokoyama "necessarily disclose[s] the claimed method of assembling an instrument panel" because the structure of its instrument panel necessarily must be assembled in the recited manner. Non-Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 9 (noting burden shifting framework). Appellant does not provide any meaningful argument rebutting the Examiner's findings. Rather, Appellant simply states that "even if Yokoyama may disclose mounting the modules in recesses, this is not a disclosure of the claimed steps of positioning, installing, selecting, and removably installing." Appeal Br. 6. Appellant, however, provides no reason why even one of those steps is not necessarily present based on the structure of Yokoyama. Appellant does not provide separate meaningful argument for dependent claims 19-22. Because Appellant effectively provides no argument, we are not apprised of Examiner error in the rejection of claims 18-22, or the rejection of claim 24, to the extent that claim properly depends from claim 18, as listed in the February 1, 2016 amendment. Claim 5 ultimately depends from claim 1, and claim 17 depends from claim 15. Appellant does not provide separate argument addressing the 4 Claim 18 is a method of assembling structure similar to that in claim 1, but does not include the "vents" recited in claim 1. 6 Appeal2018-004345 Application 14/189, 186 additional rejection of claim 5 or claim 17. Accordingly, we are not apprised of error in the rejection of those claims. Larsson Rejections Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 15, 16, 24--27, 29, and 30 as a group. Appeal Br. 7. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2, 4, 6- 9, 11, 15, 16, 24--27, 29, and 30 stand or fall with claim 1. Appellant argues claim 18 separately. 5 Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner finds that Larsson teaches the majority of features recited in claim 1. Non-Final Act. 9. For example, the Examiner finds that Larson teaches "a first group of modules." Id. (noting modules 2, 3); see also Ans. 9. Larsson explains that "[e]ach of the mounting stations 6, 7 can receive a module 2 designed for the driver, e.g., driver module 2, and a module 3 designed for the passenger, e.g., passenger module 3." Larsson ,T 14. Appellant acknowledges the disclosure from Larsson noted above, but contends that "[a] single module cannot constitute the claimed group of modules." Appeal Br. 7. The Examiner responds that "module 2 and module 3 constitutes a 'group' of modules." Ans. 9. Appellant does not explain, in its Reply Brief, any reason why "driver module 2" and "passenger module 3" do not constitute a "group" of modules as recited in the claim. Contrary to Appellant's allegation, a passenger module and a 5 Claims 19-22 depend from claim 18. As noted above, it appears that the Claims Appendix is incorrect and claim 24 is actually a method claim depending from claim 18. 7 Appeal2018-004345 Application 14/189, 186 driver module are more than a single module (i.e., they can form a group of modules). For at least this reason, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 15, 16, 24--27, 29, and 30 fall therewith. With respect to claim 18, the Examiner again determines that the method of assembly is inherent based on Larsson's structure. Non-Final Act. 10; Ans. 10-11. Other than repeating the unpersuasive general allegations advanced with respect to the Yokoyama rejection, Appellant contends that "there is nothing in Larsson which suggests it would be necessary to perform the claimed step of 'installing a second section of the instrument panel into the first section of the instrument panel.'" Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner responds, in detail, explaining why that step is necessarily present in Larsson. See Ans. 10. Appellant does not dispute that explanation, and responds, instead, by reasserting the unpersuasive contentions set for with respect to the Yokoyama rejection. See Reply Br. 3. For at least these reasons, we are not apprised of Examiner error in the rejection of claims 18-22, or claim 24, to the extent that claim properly depends from claim 18, as listed in the February 1, 2016 amendment. Appellant does not provide separate argument for the additional rejections of claims 5, 12, 14, 17, and 28 based on Larsson. Accordingly, we are not apprised of error in the rejections of those claims. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11, 12, 14--22, and 24--30. 8 Appeal2018-004345 Application 14/189, 186 We REVERSE the Examiner's decision to reject claim 13. 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-IN-PART 9