FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 28, 2020

2020000218 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2020)

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. 15/054,575 02/26/2016 Wei XU 83618560 6482 28395 7590 12/28/2020 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER VONCH, JEFFREY A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1781 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/28/2020 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): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WEI XU and XINGXING ZHOU Appeal 2020-000218 Application 15/054,575 Technology Center 1700 Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s December 10, 2018 decision to finally reject claims 9, 10, and 13–15 (“Final Act.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global Technologies, LLC (Appeal Br. 1). Appeal 2020-000218 Application 15/054,575 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosure is directed to a panel assembly with at least two through-apertures 106a and 106b, as shown in FIG. 4B, below (Abstract, Spec. ¶ 35): Annotated FIG. 4B a cross-sectional view of the panel assembly according to the invention, with a specific reference to polymer 104 added. Claim 9, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 9. A panel assembly, comprising: a panel with a first through-aperture defining first head and tail edges positioned along a first thickness direction and a second through-aperture spaced apart from the first through- aperture and defining a second head and tail edges along a second thickness direction; and a thermoset polymer contacting the first tail edge and the second tail edge. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Appeal 2020-000218 Application 15/054,575 3 Name Reference Date Pratt et al. US 3,787,546 December 21, 1970 Ogawa et al. US 2005/0175797 A1 August 11, 2005 Marion et al. US 2010/0136298 A1 June 3, 2010 Hache et al. US 2011/0031643 A1 February 10, 2011 Boursier US 2013/0309435 A1 November 21, 2013 Woerner et al. US 2015/0231823 A1 August 20, 2015 Basela US 2016/0221519 A1 August 4, 2016 Eckhard DE 10 2010 053 960 A12 June 14, 2012 REJECTIONS 1. Claims 9, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by Ogawa. 2. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Basela. 3. Claims 9, 10, and 13–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by Marion. 4. Claims 9, 10, and 13–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by Pratt. 5. Claims 9, 10, and 13–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by Hache. 6. Claims 9 and 13–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Eckhard. 7. Claims 9, 10, and 13–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Woerner in view of Eckhard and/or Boursier. 2 Eckhard is a German-language reference. Accordingly, we make reference (as do Appellant and the Examiner) to the English-language translation of record. Appeal 2020-000218 Application 15/054,575 4 OPINION We address the rejections with the groupings set out by Appellant in the Appeal Brief. In general, Appellant does not provide substantively separate arguments for Rejections 1 and 2 (see, Appeal Br. 4).3 Rejections 1 and 2 – Ogawa. “A prior art reference anticipates a patent claim . . . if it discloses every claim limitation.” In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1336–37 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). In this instance, Appellant contends that Ogawa does not teach “a thermoset polymer contacting the first tail edge and the second tail edge,” and Ogawa does not disclose the claimed first thickness direction or “second thickness direction” (Appeal Br. 3). The Examiner finds that openings 22B correspond to the claimed first and second through-apertures, as shown in Ogawa’s FIG. 11, below (Ans. 9): 3 Appellant states: “Dependent claims 14–15 are also patentable at least due to their dependence on a patentable independent claim. However, each of the dependent claims further recite patentable subject matter.” Appellant does not, however, provided any further explanation of what that further patentable subject matter is and, therefore, we cannot evaluate those arguments. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (“Filing a Board appeal does not, unto itself, entitle an appellant to de novo review of all aspects of a rejection. If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue — or, more broadly, on a particular rejection — the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection.”), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). Appeal 2020-000218 Application 15/054,575 5 Ogawa’s FIG. 11 shows a section view of an embodiment of its invention. With regard to Appellant’s contention that Ogawa does not disclose first or second thickness directions (Appeal Br. 3), the Examiner finds that, as shown in FIG. 11 above, the apertures 22B each have a thickness direction, which extends in a vertical direction as shown in the figure, and also as represented by dimension l2 in FIG. 2, below: Ogawa’s FIG. 11 shows a section view of an embodiment of its invention, with an arrow added to identify dimension l2. Appeal 2020-000218 Application 15/054,575 6 That Ogawa does not explicitly label these dimensions as “thickness directions” does not mean that Ogawa does not disclose them, as they are plain from the drawings, and specifically referenced at ¶ 40 (describing the length of female screw hole 22A as “l2”). Description for the purposes of anticipation can be by drawings alone as well as by words. In re Bager, 47 F.2d 951, 953 (CCPA 1931). These “thickness directions” are shown in Ogawa’s drawings, regardless of whether Ogawa explicitly describes them as such. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (In determining whether a reference anticipates the subject matter recited in a claim, “it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”). Appellant has not directed our attention to persuasive reasoning or evidence to establish that the Examiner’s interpretation of Ogawa’s disclosure is unreasonable. With regards to Appellant’s statement that “Ogawa does not teach “a thermoset polymer contacting the first tail edge and the second tail edge,” Appellant suggests that “it is unclear how the ‘masking material’ in Ogawa could disclose a polymer contacting ‘the first tail edge and the second tail edge’ within the context of the claims” (Appeal Br. 3). However, the Examiner specifically finds that masking members 1A or 1B (shown in FIG. 4) have flanges which contact the tail edge of each aperture and, furthermore, that the masking members can be formed from thermosetting polymers (Ans. 9, citing Ogawa, FIGS. 1, 4, 7, and ¶ 28). Appellant does not contest these findings and, therefore, does not show error in them. Accordingly, we sustain Rejections 1 and 2. Appeal 2020-000218 Application 15/054,575 7 Rejection 3 - Marion. Appellant argues that Marion fails to disclose a through-aperture, or a first and second thickness: Marion also fails to disclose each and every recitation of the claims. For example, Marion fails to disclose any “through- aperture” within the context of the claims, as well as any “first thickness” and “second thickness.” It was unclear from the Office Action and the reference what in Marion could allegedly disclose these elements. The Examiner states that Marion discloses “stamped cutouts” (the letters in FIG. 1 [7]) and provides what Applicant assumes is a marked up figure. However, it is not clear where the alleged “arrow” is located, or how Marion discloses a “first thickness direction” and a “a second thickness direction,” within the context of the claims. (Appeal Br. 4–5). This argument is not persuasive of reversible error. The Examiner finds (Ans. 10), as illustrated in Marion’s FIG. 3, below, that: Marion teaches a thin plate (panel) (Fig. 3 [15]) having cut-outs through its thickness [0002, 0010, 0014, 0042], which are in the form of first and second through holes, each hole going through a thickness of the panel and having an opening (tail edge) at a rear surface (contacted by the base plate) and an opening at the upper surface, wherein the base plate then extends into the holes. Marion’s FIG. 3 is a cross-section of a view of an embodiment of its invention. The holes (or through-apertures) in metal plate 15 are apparent from FIG. 3, as is base plate 13 which contacts the tail edge of each through- Appeal 2020-000218 Application 15/054,575 8 aperture. The Examiner also finds (Final Act. 8) that base plate 13 can be formed from a thermoset resin (polymer), a finding which is not challenged by Appellant. While Marion does not explicitly identify first and second thicknesses for the holes (through-apertures), such dimensions are easily seen in the drawing and must be present in any through-aperture. Accordingly, we determine that Appellant has not demonstrated reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that claim 9 is anticipated by Marion. Because Appellant does not make separate arguments for any of the dependent claims (see Appeal Br. 5), we also sustain the rejection of those claims as anticipated by Marion. Rejection 4 – Pratt. Appellant again contends that the Examiner has not adequately explained how Pratt discloses first and second thickness directions (Appeal Br. 5). However, as was the case with Ogawa and Marion, Pratt plainly discloses through holes which, by definition (see, e.g., Spec. ¶ 21) have a thickness direction. As explained by the Examiner (Ans. 10) – and which is pertinent to many of the arguments made by Appellant – a thickness is inherent to all apertures, because an aperture must have a thickness to exist in the real world, otherwise it would be 2-dimensional. Accordingly, Appellant has not demonstrated reversible error in the anticipation rejection over Pratt. Rejection 5 – Hache. Appellant makes essentially the same arguments in connection with the rejection over Hache, namely that Hache “has nothing to do with ‘a first thickness direction’ and a ‘second thickness direction,’ let alone ‘a panel with first through-aperture . . . and a second through-aperture’ as claimed” (Appeal Br. 6). However, as explained above, a though aperture is simply a different name for a hole, and Hache explicitly Appeal 2020-000218 Application 15/054,575 9 describes a system which includes a panel containing multiple holes (Hache, ¶¶ 44, 119, and 121).4 Moreover, as also previously explained, the holes necessarily have thickness directions. Accordingly, we sustain Rejection 5. Rejection 6 – Eckhard. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance on Eckhard’s drawings is insufficient to support a finding of anticipation (Appeal Br. 6). However, the Examiner makes reference to specific drawings and elements of those drawings (Final Act. 9–10, Ans. 11). Appellant has not meaningfully disputed the Examiner’s findings (see, Appeal Br. 6, Reply Br. 2), and had not met its burden to show error in those findings. Rejection 7 – Woerner in view of Eckhard and/or Boursier. The Examiner finds that Woerner discloses a fiber composite component with a hole (through-aperture) formed therein (Final Act. 10). The Examiner finds that modifying Woerner’s system to include multiple holes would have been obvious, because multiple holes would only be duplication of parts, and also in view of Eckhard’s disclosures (id.). Thus, Appellant’s argument that Woerner only discloses a single hole is not persuasive of reversible error, as it fails to address the Examiner’s findings and reasoning explaining the obviousness rejection. 4 Appellant argues (Reply Br. 2) that the Examiner has only “assumed” that Hache’s system would have holes appropriately spaced to form discrete holes. However, Hache is explicit in describing that it creates multiple holes (Hache ¶¶ 44, 119, and 121), which must be discrete from each other, otherwise they would not be in the form of multiple holes. Appeal 2020-000218 Application 15/054,575 10 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 9, 10, 13 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) Ogawa 9, 10, 13 14, 15 103 Ogawa, Basela 14, 15 9, 10, 13– 15 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) Marion 9, 10, 13–15 9, 10, 13– 15 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) Pratt 9, 10, 13–15 9, 10, 13– 15 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) Hache 9, 10, 13–15 9, 13–15 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) Eckhard 9, 13–15 9, 10, 13– 15 103 Woerner, Eckhard 9, 10, 13–15 9, 10, 13– 15 103 Woerner, Boursier 9, 10, 13–15 9, 10, 13– 15 103 Woerner, Eckhard, Boursier 9, 10, 13–15 Overall Outcome 9, 10, 13–15 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED