Ex Parte SANO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 9, 2015

12889606 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 9, 2015)

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.
12/889,606 09/24/2010 Takahiro SANO J21009 6630
28268 7590 07/10/2015
THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION
701 EAST JOPPA ROAD, TW199
TOWSON, MD 21286
EXAMINER
SAETHER, FLEMMING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3677
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/10/2015 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 TAKAHIRO SANO and SHINJI NAKATA
____________

Appeal 2013-007011
Application 12/889,6061
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Takahiro Sano and Shinji Nakata (“Appellants”) appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–15. The
Board has jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Examiner’s decision is REVERSED.

1 The Appeal Brief identifies Newfrey LLC as the real party in interest.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2013-007011
Application 12/889,606

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
l. A blind rivet for coupling a first workpiece to a second
workpiece, the rivet comprising:
a plastic rivet body that includes a hollow sleeve of a first
diameter, and a hollow flange formed at a first end of the
sleeve, the flange having a second diameter larger than the first
diameter of the sleeve;
a plastic mandrel that includes a shank mounted within the
rivet body and extending out from the flange, and a head
formed integrally with the shank, the head of a third diameter
larger than an inner diameter of the sleeve, the head disposed
adjacent to a second end of the sleeve that is opposite the
flange;
a plurality of slits of a constant width formed in the sleeve
and arranged circumferentially around sleeve and extending in
the longitudinal direction of the sleeve from adjacent to the
flange to a position near the second end of the sleeve that is
adjacent to the head;
a plurality of legs formed in the sleeve; the legs can be
flexed in order to expand outward in the radial direction at an
intermediate position therein, by a pressing force acting from
the second end of the sleeve to the first end of the sleeve, when
a pulling-out force is applied to move the shank relative to the
flange;
a body lock formed on an inside of the rivet body, and a
mandrel lock formed in the shank, the mandrel lock is
fashioned so as to be latchable with the body lock and maintain
the legs in an expanded condition;
a stopper formed in the shank closer to the head than the
mandrel lock; an abutment formed in the body lock and
engageable with the stopper to limit the movement of the shank
when the pulling-out force is applied; and
Appeal 2013-007011
Application 12/889,606

3
a breakable point of small diameter formed in the shank at a
position adjacent to the mandrel lock, the breakable point will
break when the pulling-out force is applied on the shank after
the stopper has engaged the abutment.
Br. 11 (emphases added).
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1–5 and 7–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wollar (US 4,556,351, issued Dec. 3, 1985) and Siebol
(US 3,230,818, issued Jan. 25, 1966).
Claims 6, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wollar, Siebol, and Tibbenham (US 7,156,598 B2, issued
Jan. 2, 2007).
ANALYSIS
A. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–5 and 7–13
based on Wollar and Siebol
Appellants argue this rejection should be reversed because the
Examiner errs in finding that Wollar discloses a “stopper” as recited in
claims 1 and 8, the two independent claims on appeal. Br. 6–10. For the
following reasons, this argument is persuasive.
1. Claims 1–5 and 7
Claim 1 pertinently recites “a stopper formed in the shank” of the
mandrel, and “an abutment formed in the body lock [of the rivet body] and
engageable with the stopper to limit the movement of the shank when the
pulling-out force is applied.” Br. 11. Claims 2–5 and 7 depend, directly or
indirectly, from claim 1.
The Examiner finds Wollar discloses the claimed “stopper” and
“abutment,” as shown in the Examiner’s annotations to Figures from Wollar.
Appeal 2013-007011
Application 12/889,606

4
Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 18–22. The Examiner’s annotations to Wollar’s
Figure 6, provided in the Answer at page 19, are reproduced below, along
with Wollar’s Figures 1 and 4:

Wollar describes these Figures as illustrating expansion rivet assembly 10
(Figure 6), comprising hollow rivet 20 (Figure 1) and drive pin 22
(Figure 4). Wollar, 3:45–60. The Examiner finds the claimed stopper
“includ[es] element (40)” as well as “serrations [50] at the top of element
(40)” on drive pin 22. Ans. 18–19, 20–21. Further, according to the
Examiner, the claimed abutment corresponds to smaller bore portion 32 in
rivet 20. Id. at 19–21.
Appellants assert Wollar lacks a stopper because the pulling-out force
is too strong to allow serrations 50 to “limit” (as claimed) movement of
drive pin 22 relative to rivet body 20. Br. 8. Specifically, Appellants
contend “while serrations 50 may resist movement of the shank [40] against
a pulling-out force, they clearly do not limit movement of the shank as
claimed” because “serrations 50 are designed to be allowed to be drawn
through bore portion 32 when the pulling-out force is applied.” Id.
(emphases in original).
Appeal 2013-007011
Application 12/889,606

5
The Examiner responds:
[T]here would be at a certain pulling out force additional
friction caused by the serrations of the stopper engaging the
abutment which would then be read as the pulling-out force
applied. In other words, the increased friction between the
serrations and the abutment requires an increase in the pulling-
out force which would be able to limit and stop the movement
of the shank.
. . . [E]xaminer agrees [with Appellants] that serrations
are intended for preventing the shank from moving in the
opposite direction but, in order to do that they must engage the
abutment, or be in “tight engagement” as noted by appellants,
which inherently would mean there is a substantial friction
between serrations and the abutment which in turn increases the
amount of pulling-out force required to a point so as to be able
to limit the movement of the shank in the setting direction or
for stopping the pulling out of the shank.
Ans. 21; see also Wollar, 4:29–48 (serrations 50 “are engageable with”
projections 32B in reduced diameter bore portion 32 to hold pin 22 and
rivet 20 together permanently), 5:14–32 (serrations 50 “move into tight
engagement with” wall of bore portion 32 so that pin 22 is no longer
moveable axially in either direction, due to plastic flow over time under
pressure).
We are not persuaded by the Examiner’s rejection that Wollar’s
serrations 50 are, as recited in claim 1, a stopper engageable with an
abutment to limit the movement of drive pin 22 when the pulling-out force is
applied. The rejection is based on the Examiner’s claim construction that
claim 1 does not define any minimum amount of a pulling-out force, and
specifically “[t]here is no requirement that the pulling-out force i[s] that
which is required to break away the break-away section.” Ans. 20–21.
Appeal 2013-007011
Application 12/889,606

6
Thus, according to the Examiner, “it is appropriate to interpret the ‘pulling-
out force’ broadly as any force large o[r] small which is sufficient to pull out
the shank.” Id. at 22. Appellants contend the pulling-out force must be at
least large enough to break away the break-away section. Br. 9. We agree
with Appellants, because claim 1 recites that “the breakable point [in the
shank] will break when the pulling-out force is applied on the shank after the
stopper has engaged the abutment.” Br. 11 (emphasis added).
The Examiner’s rejection does not establish that, when a pulling-out
force that is at least large enough to break away Wollar’s break-away
section 48 is applied to Wollar’s drive pin 22, the frictional resistance
between serrations 50 and bore portion 32 is capable of stopping the pulling
out of drive pin 22. Therefore, the Examiner’s finding that Wollar’s
serrations 50 correspond to the claimed stopper is not supported by the
evidence and arguments presented on appeal. The Examiner does not rely
upon the Siebol disclosure in relation to the claimed stopper. See, e.g., Final
Act. 5–6 (citing Siebol as disclosing “constant width” slits 24 in rivet
body 12). For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–5
and 7 as unpatentable over Wollar and Siebol.
2. Claims 8–13
Claim 8 pertinently recites “a stopper for abutting the riv[e]t body for
stopping any pulling out of the shank from the riv[e]t body.” Br. 12.
Claims 9–13 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 8.
The rejection of claim 8 set forth in the Final Office Action at pages
9–10 and in the Answer at pages 11–13 does not address the stopper
limitation in claim 8. However, from the Answer at page 20, it is clear that
the Examiner relies on serrations 50 and shank 40 in Wollar as
Appeal 2013-007011
Application 12/889,606

7
corresponding to the stopper in claim 8, similarly to claim 1 discussed
above. Further, the rejection is based on the Examiner’s claim construction
that the claims do not define any minimum amount of a pulling out force,
and “it is appropriate to interpret the ‘pulling-out force’ broadly as any force
large o[r] small which is sufficient to pull out the shank.” Ans. 22.
Claim 8 recites that the stopper is “for abutting the riv[e]t body for
stopping any pulling out of the shank” (emphasis added) from the rivet body.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of that claim language.
Rather, the claim requires that the stopper be capable of abutting the rivet
body to stop pulling out of the shank under the entire range of setting forces
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect might be applied to
deform a plastic rivet body from an original condition to a set condition.
The Examiner’s rejection does not establish that Wollar’s serrations are
capable of performing that function. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 8–13 as unpatentable over Wollar and Siebol.
B. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 6, 14, and 15
based on Wollar, Siebol, and Tibbenham
The Examiner does not rely upon the Tibbenham disclosure in relation
to the claimed stopper. See, e.g., Final Act. 13–16 (citing Tibbenham as
disclosing a molded plastic fastener having curved surfaces at stepped
portions where multiple surfaces converge). Therefore, we do not sustain
the rejection of dependent claims 6, 14, and 15 as unpatentable over Wollar,
Siebol, and Tibbenham, due to the deficiency of Wollar and Siebol noted
above in connection with the stopper of independent claims 1 and 8.
Appeal 2013-007011
Application 12/889,606

8
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–15 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
pgc