LEAR CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 16, 2022

2021005013 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2022)

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. 14/754,843 06/30/2015 Mark Anthony MUELLER LEAR 55038 PUS 6636 34007 7590 02/16/2022 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION 1000 TOWN CENTER TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER GUAN, GUANG H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3631 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/16/2022 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 MARK ANTHONY MUELLER, ARTHUR LAWRENCE RICHARDS, BRANTLEY NATTER, FAISAL K. SALLAM, and PAUL CASTELLANI Appeal 2021-005013 Application 14/754,843 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-9, 11-14, and 21-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2022). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Lear Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-005013 Application 14/754,843 2 BACKGROUND The Specification states that “[t]he present invention relates to a spring and damper system, and a method for producing such a system.” Spec. ¶ 1 CLAIMS Claims 1, 7, and 21 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 1. A spring and damper system for a circuit board, comprising: a spring arrangement including a first leaf spring and a second leaf spring, each being generally arcuate and having two respective ends, the spring arrangement further including a first cross member and a second cross member connecting the leaf springs, the first cross member connecting a first end of the first leaf spring to a first end of the second leaf spring, and the second cross member connecting a second end of the first leaf spring to a second end of the second leaf spring; and a plurality of dampers, each of the dampers contacting a respective one of the ends of the leaf springs and configured to receive a portion of the circuit board therein. Appeal Br., Claims App. A-1. REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejects claims 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. Appeal 2021-005013 Application 14/754,843 3 2. The Examiner rejects claims 1-9, 11-14, and 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Aspas2 in view of Qin.3 DISCUSSION Indefiniteness The Examiner determines that claim 21 is indefinite because the term “the first and second cross members” lacks antecedent basis. Final Act. 8. Appellant does not raise any arguments regarding this rejection. Appeal Br. 6. As the rejection was not argued, we summarily sustain the rejection. Obviousness We are persuaded of error in the obviousness rejection of the claims at least to the extent the Examiner relies on Aspas to teach cross members that connect an end of a first spring to an end of a second spring. With respect to claim 1, for example, the Examiner finds that Aspas teaches a spring system including first and second leaf springs and first and second cross members. Final Act. 9. The Examiner finds that Aspas teaches the claimed arrangement requiring that the first cross member is connected to the first end of a first leaf spring and the first end of a second leaf spring and the second cross member is connected to the second end of the first leaf spring and the second end of the second leaf spring. Id. at 9-10. The Examiner provides the following annotated version of Aspas’ Figure 4 showing the parts identified by the Examiner: 2 Aspas Puertolas et al., US 8,947,881 B2, iss. Feb. 3, 2015. 3 Qin et al., US 9,113,554 B2, iss. Aug. 18, 2015. Appeal 2021-005013 Application 14/754,843 4 Annotated Figure 4 is a perspective view of Aspas’ module with annotations in the form of labels provided by the Examiner. We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, Aspas does not disclose cross members that are connected to respective ends of the identified leaf springs as required by the claim. We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims “their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” and “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, the Examiner has interpreted the claim such that it requires only that the cross members indirectly connect to the ends of the springs. Appeal 2021-005013 Application 14/754,843 5 See Final Act. 5. However, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires that the ends of the springs are directly connected to the cross members. The Specification discloses that Figure 1 shows cross members that are connected to respective ends of first and second springs. Spec. ¶ 14. Specifically, Figure 1 discloses a cross member 50 connected to a first end 38 of a first spring 30 and a first end 42 of a second spring and a cross member 52 connected to the second end 40 of the first spring and the second end 44 of the second spring. Id. The Specification describes, “[a]lthough the embodiment shown in Figure 1 has two cross members 50, 52 connecting the leaf springs 30, 32 at their respective ends, other embodiments may have one or more cross members, some or all of which connect the leaf springs at locations other than their ends.” Id. This statement indicates that a connection of the cross members at some other point other than the end of the spring would not be considered a connection to the spring’s end. In other words, a direct connection is required for the cross member to be considered connected to the end of spring. Otherwise, the cross member would be considered connected to a different location on the spring, and not connected to the end of the spring. We have reviewed the remainder of the Specification and see no indication that the Specification contemplates that the term “connecting” includes an indirect connection between the ends of the springs and the cross members. Thus, we interpret the claim to require that cross members are directly connected to the respective ends of the springs. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim discussed, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in finding that Aspas Appeal 2021-005013 Application 14/754,843 6 teaches cross members connected to the ends of the leaf springs as required by the claims. Thus, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of each of the independent claims, and the dependent claims for the same reasons. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-9, 11-14, and 21- 26 as obvious. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). We REVERSE the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 21-26 112(b) Indefiniteness 21-26 1-9, 11-14, 21-26 103 Aspas, Qin 1-9, 11- 14, 21-26 Overall Outcome 21-26 1-9, 11-14 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 (a) (2022). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 (a)(l)(iv) (2022). AFFIRMED IN PART