Ex Parte Doan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 14, 201512841221 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 12/841,221 07/22/2010 Linh N. Doan 83162369 1609 28866 7590 04/15/2015 MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD ONE MARITIME PLAZA - FIFTH FLOOR 720 WATER STREET TOLEDO, OH 43604 EXAMINER VAN SELL, NATHAN L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1783 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/15/2015 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 LINH N. DOAN, JAMES P. HOLLAND, KENNETH S. LAIRD, STACY L. SWANK, JEFFREY B. CRIST, WARWICK J. SMITH, and, AILEEN N. BARRAZA _____________ Appeal 2013-005514 Application 12/841,221 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges. WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s July 18, 2012 decision rejecting claims 1–5 and 11. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 The real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies (Appeal Br. 1). Appeal 2013-005514 Application 12/841,221 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants’ invention is directed to a plastic-molded automotive interior trim component with a curvilinear finished surface with a relatively flat portion and a relatively curved portion (Abstract). The claimed trim component includes a decorative film subcomponent with an embossed pattern having a substantially uniform, undistorted appearance (id.). Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief (key claim limitation in italics): 1. A plastic-molded automotive interior trim component having a curvilinear finished surface with a relatively flat portion and a relatively curved portion, comprising: a decorative film subcomponent with an outer surface and an inner surface, wherein at least the outer surface is pigmented with a desired color of the finished surface, wherein prior to incorporation into the plastic molded component the decorative film subcomponent has a shape generally conforming to the curvilinear finished surface, and wherein prior to incorporation into the plastic molded component the outer surface is substantially smooth; and a structural backing member which is in-mold laminated with the decorative film subcomponent, wherein the structural backing member is formed by injection molding a backing material against the inner surface of the decorative film subcomponent in a mold having a film-receiving surface having a three-dimensional texture that receives the decorative film subcomponent and shapes the decorative film subcomponent with an embossed pattern having a substantially uniform, undistorted appearance on at least part of the relatively flat portion and at least part of the relatively curved portion. Appeal 2013-005514 Application 12/841,221 3 REJECTIONS (1) Claims 1, 2, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Vasko.2 (2) Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vasko. (3) Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vasko in view of Botrie.3 DISCUSSION It is well established that “[a] prior art reference anticipates a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) 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 argues4 that the Examiner has failed to show that Vasko discloses a plastic-molded automotive interior trim component including a decorative film subcomponent which is embossed (Appeal Br. 5). The Examiner finds that this claim limitation reads on Vasko’s disclosure of embodiments of its “covering material that comprise matrixes of nodes,” because “[a] common definition of nodes is that of a 2 Vasko et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0013260 A1, published January 21, 2010. 3 Botrie et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0026201 A1, published February 1, 2007. 4 Appellants make a number of other arguments urging reversal of the rejections. We need not and do not address those arguments. Appeal 2013-005514 Application 12/841,221 4 knot, protuberance, or knob” 5 and, therefore, Vasko’s covering material could comprise a matrix of knots, protuberances, or knobs (Ans. 8–9). However, as noted by Appellants (Appeal Br. 5), none of the films described by Vasko (i.e., laminate, appliques, injection molded paint film, thermoformed paint film, blackout/colorout film, and in-mold film, Vasko ¶ 20) have, or require, an embossed or textured surface. The Examiner’s reliance on giving the term “node” its “broadest reasonable interpretation” to find that it is read on by the claim term (Ans. 9) is misplaced. While the Examiner correctly indicates that during prosecution words in the claims under examination are given their broadest reasonable interpretation, in this instance the Examiner has, instead, applied the broadest reasonable interpretation standard to the cited prior art. We agree with Appellants (Appeal Br. 5, Reply Br. 2) that the evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s finding that Vasko’s covering (which corresponds the claimed decorative film subcomponent) is embossed or has any three-dimensional features. Accordingly, because Vasko does not disclose an embossed decorative film subcomponent, we find that the Examiner has erred in finding that Vasko anticipates claims 1, 2, and 11. In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d at 1379. The Examiner’s findings in support of the obviousness rejections of the dependent claims do not address this issue (see, Ans. 5–6). Therefore, we also reverse the obviousness rejections. 5 We note that the Examiner has not provided a specific citation to support this definition. Appeal 2013-005514 Application 12/841,221 5 CONCLUSION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Vasko. We REVERSE the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Vasko. We REVERSE the rejection of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vasko in view of Botrie. REVERSED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation