Ex Parte CHAPPUIS et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

14313538 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/313,538 06/24/2014
28395 7590 08/02/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Laurent Bernard CHAPPUIS
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.
83452772 2496
EXAMINER
KELLY, CATHERINE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3634
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2018 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 LAURENT BERNARD CHAPPUIS,
JASON DOUGLAS SCOTT, and KEVIN TAYLOR
Appeal2017-010770
Application 14/313,538
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ford Global Technologies, LLC ("Appellant") 1 appeals under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-17,
which are all the pending claims. See Appeal Br. (Cover Page). We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Ford Global Technologies, LLC is the applicant, as provided in
37 C.F.R. § 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-010770
Application 14/313,538
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's disclosed invention "relates to door handle assemblies
that may be used on motor vehicles." Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1, 10, and 17 are
independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter
on appeal.
1. An automotive door panel, comprising:
an outer panel defining an opening;
a bezel seated within the opening, a non-pivoting handle
fixedly mounted to the bezel and an attachment member in a
YZ-plane;
an inner reinforcement member spaced from the bezel,
oriented in the YZ-plane and positioned behind an inner door
panel; and
a fastener extending through the inner reinforcement
member in an X-direction, connecting the attachment member
thereto to secure the handle within the opening.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Bender us 5,340,174 Aug. 23, 1994
Kolle us 5,421,061 June 6, 1995
Laurent US 6,490,894 B 1 Dec. 10, 2002
Meinow2 DE 2 124 236 Nov. 30, 1972
2 We note that the Examiner references a "computer translation" of
Meinow. See Advisory Act. 2. This English-language translation was made
of record with the Advisory Action dated January 20, 2017.
2
Appeal2017-010770
Application 14/313,538
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review: 3
I. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Laurent and Kolle. Final Act. 4--7.
II. Claims 4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Laurent, Kolle, and Bender. Id. at 7-8.
III. Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Laurent, Kolle, and Meinow. Id. at 9.
IV. Claims 10-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Meinow, Laurent, and Kolle. Id. at 9-11; see
also Advisory Act. 2 (noting inclusion of claim 16).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I-Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 17 as unpatentable
over Laurent and Kolle
Claims 1. 3. 5. and 7
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner found that Laurent
discloses an automotive door panel including, inter alia,
a bezel (portion of 3) seated within the opening, a non-pivoting
handle fixedly mounted to the bezel (member 3 includes [a]
control for opening door from outside including a push button[,]
as taught in column 2 lines 5-7, [a] push button control is [a] non-
pivoting handle) and an attachment member 45 in a YZ-plane;
and an inner reinforcement member 2 spaced apart from the
bezel (as shown in figure 2) and oriented in the YZ-plane.
3 We note that a rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
being indefinite has been withdrawn by the Examiner and thus is not before
us for review as part of the instant appeal. See Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 2.
3
Appeal2017-010770
Application 14/313,538
Final Act. 4. The Examiner acknowledged that Laurent "is silent as to an
inner panel (reference does not show entire door, only small portion of
exterior and edge)" (id. at 5), but found that Kolle discloses this feature (see
id. (citing Kolle, Fig. 1)). The Examiner concluded that, given the teachings
of the prior art, it would have been obvious "to provide the door panel of
[Laurent] with the inner panel of [Kolle] because inner panels were well
known in the art to form the inner portion of a door panel along ( opposite
outer panel, forming hollow door panel)." Id.
Appellant argues that "[n]either Laurent, nor Kolle, alone or in
combination with one another, disclose[ s] or suggest[ s] the inner
reinforcement member as recited within the context of claim 1." Appeal
Br. 4--5. In particular, Appellant asserts that "edge face 2 of the door panel
in Laurent cannot be equated to the inner reinforcement member ...
[because] edge face 2 is connected directly to the outer door panel and there
is no inner panel behind which the inner reinforcement member is positioned
as required by the claim." Id. at 6. According to Appellant, "[edge] face 2
cannot be considered an inner reinforcement member, as it is not positioned
behind an inner door panel," and "the [edge] face is part of the door panel
and the intermediate plate 4 is connected directly to the door panel." Reply
Br. 4 ( emphasis omitted). This line of argument does not apprise us of error.
To the extent that Appellant appears to argue that the inner
reinforcement member must not be directly connected to the outer door
panel (see Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 4), such an argument is unpersuasive
because it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. As stated by our
reviewing court in In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998),
"the name of the game is the claim." It is well established that limitations
4
Appeal2017-010770
Application 14/313,538
not appearing in the claim cannot be relied upon for patentability. See In re
Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Here, claim 1 only recites, in
relevant part, "an inner reinforcement member spaced from the bezel,
oriented in the YZ-plane and positioned behind an inner door panel."
Appeal Br. (Claims App.). However, we find nothing in the language of
claim 1 that would exclude the inner reinforcement member from being
directly connected to the outer door panel.
Moreover, Appellant's argument is not responsive to the rejection
presented. Here, as discussed supra, the Examiner relied on Laurent for
teaching an inner reinforcement member, but acknowledged that Laurent
fails to expressly disclose an inner door panel. 4 See Final Act. 5. The
Examiner relied on Kolle only for teaching that it was known in the art to
use an inner door panel in a vehicle door. See id.; Ans. 4. Thus, the
rejection is based on the combined teachings of Laurent and Kolle.
Appellant's allegations of differences or shortcomings within each of
Laurent and Kolle individually are not responsive to the rejection articulated
by the Examiner and thus do not apprise us of error. See In re Merck & Co.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425
(CCPA 1981)) (nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination
of prior art disclosures).
4 To the extent that Appellant's argument suggests that the lack of an
inner door panel in Laurent somehow precludes edge face 2 from being an
inner reinforcement member (see Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 4), Appellant does
not offer factual evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to support such a
position.
5
Appeal2017-010770
Application 14/313,538
Appellant argues that "the Examiner offers no rationale to combine
the teachings of Kolle with Laurent, absent hindsight reconstruction of the
present claims." Reply Br. 4. This argument is unpersuasive because it does
not address the Examiner's reasoning for the conclusion of obviousness
presented in the rejection. As discussed supra, the Examiner articulated
adequate reasoning based on rational underpinnings as to why it would have
been obvious to combine the teachings of Laurent and Kolle to arrive at the
subject matter of claim 1. See Final Act. 5 ( explaining that the proposed
modification of Laurent would simply use an inner panel to form the inner
portion of a door panel, as was well known in the art); see also Ans. 4
( explaining that "inner panels were well known in the vehicle door art area
as being the inner portion of a finished door, i.e., a door would have an outer
panel and an inner panel to contain and conceal all of the operating
mechanisms such as the latch, window operator, etc.," and the proposed
modification of Laurent "would simply finish the door in a way well known
to one of ordinary skill in the art"). In this regard, Appellant does not
specifically address the Examiner's reasoning articulated in support of the
conclusion of obviousness, or explain why the reasoning is in error.
Moreover, Appellant does not identify any knowledge relied upon by
the Examiner that was gleaned only from Appellant's disclosure and that
was not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill at the time of the
invention. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (so
long as a conclusion of obviousness is based on a reconstruction that "takes
into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at
the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge
6
Appeal2017-010770
Application 14/313,538
gleaned only from [Appellant's] disclosure, such a reconstruction is
proper"). Thus, Appellant's assertion of improper hindsight is unsupported.
Appellant asserts that "claim 1 requires a handle having an attachment
member in an YZ-plane." Appeal Br. 6. Appellant asserts that Laurent's
"[l]ug 45 is not attached to control module 3," and "Laurent cannot be
modified to have this arrangement, as the positioning [ of] the lug 45 on
control module 3 would fix move [sic] the control module 3 and frustrate the
interactions of the attachment components 32 and tabs 41." Id. This
argument is unpersuasive because it is not responsive to the modification
proposed by the Examiner in the rejection presented. Here, the Examiner
only proposed modifying Laurent to include an inner door panel, and did not
propose any modification of Laurent regarding a handle attachment member.
See Final Act. 4--5. Rather, the Examiner found that Laurent teaches this
feature. See id. at 4. In addition, we disagree with Appellant's assertion that
Laurent's "[l]ug 45 is not attached to control module 3" (Appeal Br. 6),
because lug 45 of plate 4 is attached to control module 3 via attachment
components 32 and 41 (see Laurent, Fig. 1). In this regard, Appellant's
argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner's finding that Laurent
discloses "a non-pivoting handle fixedly mounted to the bezel (member 3
includes control for opening door from outside including a push button as
taught in column 2 lines 5-7, push button control is non-pivoting handle) and
an attachment member 45 in a YZ-plane" (Final Act. 4).
Appellant asserts that "Laurent does not show a handle at all," and
"[t]here is absolutely no disclosure of how any handle is attached to the
bezel and certainly no disclosure of a non-pivoting handle assembly
fixed[ly] mounted to a bezel." Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis omitted). This
7
Appeal2017-010770
Application 14/313,538
argument is unpersuasive. In response to Appellant's argument, the
Examiner clarifies that "a manual operating component on the exterior is
taught in column 2 lines 4-6 ... and thus the reference includes a handle."
Ans. 3; see Laurent, col. 2, 11. 5-7 (disclosing that control module 3 has a
manual opening component, such as a lever or push-button). The Examiner
takes the position that Laurent's "teaching of a lever reads on a pivoting
handle, however, the teaching of a push-button manual operating member in
line 7 would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art to be a non-pivoting
handle, i.e. a fixed handle with a button to be pushed to unlatch the vehicle."
Ans. 3. In this regard, Appellant does not specifically address or identify
error in the Examiner's finding based on the disclosure of Laurent, which is
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
After careful consideration of all the evidence of record, Appellant's
arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's determination that
the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claim 1, and its dependent claims 3, 5, and 7, for
which Appellant relies on the same arguments (see Appeal Br. 8), under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Laurent and Kolle.
Claims 2 and 17
In rejecting independent claim 17, the Examiner found that Laurent
discloses a door panel including, in relevant part,
an inwardly extending wall member (inner perimeter of 4)
extending from an edge of the handle opening; at least one
locating and attachment tab 41 extending from an outer edge of
the inwardly extending wall member; [and] a bezel (portion of 3)
that seats within the depression and including at least one
fastening element (portion of 32 forming long leg and
8
Appeal2017-010770
Application 14/313,538
engaging 41) and one locating element (portion of 32 forming
short leg and limiting location) that are configured to engage with
the locating and attachment tab in a Y-direction.
Final Act. 6 (citing Laurent, Figs. 1-3). The Examiner clarifies that
"member 4 has a thickness (at the edge adjacent the opening), this thickness
or edge forms an inwardly extending wall from the handle opening as it is
inward of outer panel 1 ( all of member 4 is inward of the outer panel) and
extends from the edge of the handle opening ( edge of handle opening is
adjacent member 4 and thus member 4 extends at least indirectly from the
edge of the handle opening)." Ans. 4--5.
In contesting the rejection of claim 17, Appellant initially relies on the
arguments set forth with respect to independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 7.
For the same reasons that Appellant's arguments do not apprise us of error in
the rejection of claim 1, these arguments likewise do not apprise us of error
in the rejection of claim 17.
In addition, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that
Laurent teaches "an inwardly extending wall member extending from an
edge of the handle opening," as recited in claim 17. See id. at 7-8.
Appellant asserts that the Examiner's position "ignores that the opening of
the outer panel is obscured in [Figure 1 ofJ Laurent." Reply Br. 5 (emphasis
omitted); see Appeal Br. 7 ( citing Laurent, Fig. 1 ). According to Appellant,
"[ w ]hether or not the intermediate mounting plate 4 has a thickness, there is
simply no teaching that an edge of the opening in the outer door panel
extends inwardly." Reply Br. 5. We are not persuaded by this line of
argument because it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 17. See
Self, 671 F.2d at 1348. Here, claim 17 only recites, in relevant part, "an
inwardly extending wall member extending from an edge of the handle
9
Appeal2017-010770
Application 14/313,538
opening." Appeal Br. (Claims App.). Claim 17 does not recite that "an
edge of the opening in the outer door panel extends inwardly," as argued by
Appellant. Reply Br. 5 ( emphasis added). In other words, the claim does
not require that the edge of the handle opening extend inwardly, but, rather,
requires a wall member that extends inwardly from the edge of the handle
opening. In this regard, Appellant does not offer factual evidence or
persuasive technical reasoning to identify error in the Examiner's position,
particularly as thoroughly explained in the Answer.
Appellant also asserts that Laurent's "tabs 41 do not engage in the
Y-direction, but rather slide in the X-direction to engage with attachment
components 32." Appeal Br. 8. According to Appellant, "tabs 41 of Laurent
extend from the intermediate mounting plate 4, not from [an] edge of the
opening." Reply Br. 5 ( citing Laurent, col. 2, 11. 28-31) ( emphasis omitted).
This argument is not convincing.
Laurent discloses that "intermediate mounting plate 4 and the outside
opening control module 3 each comprise attachment components 32, 41 for
securing them together by clipping and/or by clamping." Laurent, col. 2,
11. 28-31 (boldface omitted); see also id., col. 3, 11. 13-15 (disclosing that
"attachment component 32 of the outside opening control module 3
comprises fingers designed to cooperate with one or more tabs 41 of the
intermediate plate 4") (boldface omitted). Although we appreciate
Appellant's observation that tabs 41 and attachment components 32 engage
by sliding relative to each other in the X-direction, Figure 1 of Laurent
depicts that attachment components 32 (i.e., L-shaped fingers) would also
engage tabs 41 in the Y-direction so as to secure control module 3 to the
door in the Y-direction. See id., Fig. 1. Appellant does not offer factual
10
Appeal2017-010770
Application 14/313,538
evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to identify error in the
Examiner's findings regarding the disclosure of Laurent, which are
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
After careful consideration of all the evidence, Appellant's arguments
do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's findings or reasoning articulated
in support of the conclusion of obviousness with respect to independent
claim 17. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Laurent and Kolle.
In contesting the rejection of claim 2, which depends from claim 1,
Appellant relies on the same argument set forth with respect to independent
17. See Appeal Br. 8 ( asserting that, "in Figure 2 of Laurent, the periphery
of the intermediate mounting plate 4 extends around the opening, thus the
periphery does not( ... cannot) extend inwardly from the opening within the
door panel"). This argument is unpersuasive with respect to claim 2 for the
same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 17. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Laurent and Kolle.
Rejections II and III- Claims 4, 6, 8, and 9 as unpatentable
over Laurent and Kolle, with either Meinow or Bender
With respect to the rejections of claims 4, 6, 8, and 9, Appellant does
not set forth any additional substantive arguments separate from those
discussed supra with respect to base claim 1. See Appeal Br. 8-9 (stating
that these claims are "not argued separately on appeal"). For the same
reasons that Appellant's arguments do not apprise us of error in the rejection
of claim 1, these arguments likewise do not apprise us of error in the
11
Appeal2017-010770
Application 14/313,538
rejections of claims 4, 6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, which we likewise
sustain.
Rejection IV - Claims 10---16 as unpatentable
over Meinow, Laurent, and Kolle
Claims 10---14 and 16
In rejecting independent claim 10, the Examiner found that Meinow
discloses a door handle assembly including, inter alia,
a non-pivoting handle sub-assembly 4 that comprises an
attachment member oriented in a YZ plane (right side of 4 in
figure 2, connecting to fastener 5) with respect to the assembly;
and an inner reinforcement member (left portion of member 2 in
figure 2) having a mounting flange (middle portion) oriented in
the YZ plane and positioned behind the inner panel ( when
viewed from the right side in figure 2) ... ; the attachment
member (portion connecting to fastener 5) and the handle
assembly 4 are positioned on opposite sides of an outer door
panel 1 and the inner reinforcement member is spaced away from
the outer door panel 1 so as not to contact the outer door panel.
Final Act. 9-10 ( citing Meinow, Figs. 1-3). The Examiner acknowledged
that Meinow "appears to not have a bezel assembly or a spacing between
[the] inner panel and [the] reinforcement." Id. at 10. However, the
Examiner found that Laurent discloses an "assembly having a bezel (portion
of 3 shown in figure 1) and a handle ( on exterior of 3 as taught in column 2
lines 5-7)." Id. The Examiner concluded that, given the teachings of the
prior art, it would have been obvious to modify Meinow to include "the
handle and bezel assembly of [Laurent] because the bezel assembly being
part of the handle assembly instead of the door panel allows for easy
attachment and replacement should the bezel assembly get worn ( e.g. from
keys or touching by user) without requiring replacement of the door panel."
12
Appeal2017-010770
Application 14/313,538
Id. The Examiner also found that Kolle teaches that an "inner panel
(unnumbered but show[n] with opening for cover 25) is spaced apparat [sic]
from the handle assembly attachment member 24 ( on right side in figure 1 )"
(id.) and concluded that, given the teachings of the prior art, it would have
been obvious "to provide the handle of [Meinow] with the inner panel
spacing of [Kolle] because the spacing allows for a smoother edge shape
(i.e. can form rectangle without groove) while still allowing for access to the
handle assembly fastener via the aperture and cover arrangement" (id.
at 10-11).
Appellant argues that Meinow does not disclose a non-pivoting handle
because "the machine translation of Meinow teaches that the handle is
pivotally attached to element 7 at axis 8 and that 'to release the latch bolt of
the leftmost in the drawing arm of the key 7 is against the pressure of
spring 10 when grasping the door handle upwards.'" Appeal Br. 9 ( quoting
Meinow 3). This argument is unpersuasive. In response to Appellant's
argument, the Examiner cites to page 3 of the machine translation of
Meinow (see Ans. 6), which expressly discloses that "the handle is 4, which
is with its end inserted through the side located on the finger grip openings
in the outer skin and fixed with a screw 5 to the door frame over ... the
outer skin 1" (Meinow 3), and "the grip is designed as a two-button 7, about
the axis 8 pivotally attached to the handle" (id.). The Examiner explains that
Meinow' s "handle is reference numeral 4 and is fixed to the outer panel 1 [,]
and member 7 is a button that user would push and would move pivotally
relative to handle 4 and thereby unlatch the door to allow user to open it by
pulling on the fixed handle 4." Ans. 6 (emphasis omitted); see also id. at 7
( explaining that "the ends of handle 4 are fixed and the pivot 8 is for
13
Appeal2017-010770
Application 14/313,538
button 7 and not handle 4" (including annotated reproductions of Figures 1
and 2 from Meinow)). In this regard, Appellant does not refute the
Examiner's finding that Meinow teaches the disputed limitation, which is
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Appellant argues that there is no motivation to modify Meinow to
include a bezel, as proposed by the Examiner, and "[t]he Examiner's
rationale for combining the references offers no citations to the prior art for
reasons to incorporate a bezel assembly." Appeal Br. 9. According to
Appellant, "incorporating a bezel assembly with the handle would require
substantial reconstruction of the arrangement of the handle arrangement, and
mounting of the bezel assembly within the door panel." Id. This line of
argument is not persuasive. Initially, Appellant appears to urge us to apply a
strict teaching, suggestion, or motivation ("TSM") test for obviousness.
Rigid application of the TSM test was expressly disavowed by the Supreme
Court inKSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,415,419
(2007). Further, the argument does not address the Examiner's articulated
reasoning for the conclusion of obviousness.
Here, as discussed supra, the Examiner articulated adequate reasoning
based on rational underpinnings for modifying Meinow's door assembly to
include the bezel and handle assembly of Laurent. See Final Act. 10
(reasoning that "the bezel assembly being part of the handle assembly
instead of the door panel allows for easy attachment and replacement should
the bezel assembly get worn (e.g. from keys or touching by user) without
requiring replacement of the door panel."); Ans. 8 ( explaining that "the bezel
allows for the part surrounding the handle to be repaired or replaced
separately from the entire door panel and[,] as the area around the handle
14
Appeal2017-010770
Application 14/313,538
could potentially get damaged ( such as by scratching of keys or touching by
user)[,] this would provide a benefit"). In this regard, Appellant's argument
does not specifically address or identify fault in the reasoning articulated by
the Examiner in support of the conclusion of obviousness. Moreover, with
respect to Appellant's argument that the Examiner's proposed modification
would require substantial reconstruction of Meinow (see Appeal Br. 9),
Appellant does not proffer factual evidence or persuasive technical
reasoning to explain how combining the teachings of Meinow and Laurent in
an operable manner would be beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Appellant argues that Meinow fails to disclose an inner reinforcement
member having a mounting flange, as called for in claim 10. See Appeal
Br. 10. In particular, Appellant asserts that element 2 of Meinow is a vehicle
door, which "is a single unitary member," whereas the claim requires that
the mounting flange and inner reinforcement member are separate elements.
Id. To the extent that Appellant argues that the claimed inner reinforcement
member and mounting flange must be non-unitary elements, such an
argument is unpersuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of
claim 10. See Self, 671 F.2d at 1348. Here, claim 10 only recites, in
relevant part, "an inner reinforcement member spaced from the bezel and
having a mounting flange oriented in the YZ plane and positioned behind
and spaced from an inner door panel." Appeal Br. (Claims App.). Claim 10
does not recite that the inner reinforcement member and mounting flange
must be non-unitary elements. In other words, regardless of whether the
identified portions of Meinow's vehicle door 2 are parts of a single unitary
15
Appeal2017-010770
Application 14/313,538
structure, we find nothing in claim 10 that would preclude these portions
from meeting the inner reinforcement member having a mounting flange.
Appellant argues "Kolle fails to teach an attachment member and a
bezel assembly positioned on opposite sides of an outer door panel, as the
bezel assembly and the holding flange are on the same side of the outer door
panel." Appeal Br. 10. Appellant asserts that Kalle's "holding flange 21
thus extends from the door exterior panel 2 ( as illustrated by the cross-
hatching) which is contrary to the teachings of the present application- i.e.,
not securing the bezel assembly to the door outer surface." Reply Br. 6
( citing Kolle ,r,r 3, 24, 25). This argument against Kolle alone is not
persuasive because it attacks Kolle individually when the rejection is
predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See Merck, 800 F .2d
at 1097 ( citing Keller, 642 F .2d at 425). Here, as discussed supra, the
Examiner's rejection is based on the combined teachings of Meinow,
Laurent, and Kolle. See Final Act. 9-11. Moreover, the Examiner relied on
Meinow, not Kolle, for teaching that "the attachment member (portion
connecting to fastener 5) and the handle assembly 4 are positioned on
opposite sides of an outer door panel 1." Id. at 10. Thus, Appellant's
allegation of differences or shortcomings of Kolle alone is not responsive to
the rejection as articulated by the Examiner.
After careful consideration of all the evidence of record, Appellant's
arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's findings or reasoning
in support of the conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 10, and of dependent claims 11-14 and 16, for which
Appellant does not present any separate arguments (see Appeal Br. 10),
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Meinow, Laurent, and Kolle.
16
Appeal2017-010770
Application 14/313,538
Claim 15
In rejecting claim 15, which depends from claim 10, the Examiner
found that "bezel 3 of [Laurent] includes a fastener (upper left 32 in
figure 1) engaging a portion of outer door panel (tab 41) in a Y direction (32
has a Y direction component and is arranged behind tab 41 as shown in
figure 3 and thus engages in a Y direction)." Final Act. 11.
Appellant argues that Laurent's fastener element (fingers 32) is not
configured to engage a portion of the outer door panel because tabs 41 are
not part of the outer door panel ( exterior panel 1 ). See Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant asserts that "element 41 is an attachment component that is
formed on an intermediate mounting plate 4," and "[t]he outer door panel is
positioned between the control module 3 and the intermediate mounting
plate 4." Id. ( citing Laurent, Fig. 2). This argument is unpersuasive.
The Examiner explains that "the claim does not require a single
unitary outer panel member and[,] as such[,] the member 4 has been
interpreted as a portion of the outer door panel for purposes of examination
of claim 15." Ans. 9. Appellant has not adequately explained how
Laurent's exterior panel 1 and mounting plate 4 (which would include its
attachment component 41) cannot collectively be considered the claimed
"outer door panel," or otherwise collectively fail to meet the requirements of
the recited "outer door panel." Consequently, Appellant has not
persuasively explained how the Examiner has erred in taking the position
that Laurent's finger 32 is "configured to engage a portion of an outer door
panel in a Y-direction," as claimed. See Final Act. 11.
For these reasons, Appellant's arguments do not apprise us of error in
the Examiner's findings or reasoning articulated in support of the conclusion
17
Appeal2017-010770
Application 14/313,538
of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Meinow, Laurent, and Kolle.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 7, and
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Laurent and Kolle.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 4 and 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Laurent, Kolle, and Bender.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 8 and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Laurent, Kolle, and Meinow.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 10-16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Meinow, Laurent, and Kolle.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
18