Ex Parte Ghannam

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 13, 2013

11162875 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2013)

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.
11/162,875 09/27/2005 MAHMOUD YOUSEF GHANNAM 81124143 3874
28415 7590 03/13/2013
PRICE HENEVELD LLP
FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
695 KENMOOR S.E.
P. O. BOX 2567
GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49501-2567
EXAMINER
LUGO, CARLOS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3674
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2013 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 MAHMOUD YOUSEF GHANNAM
____________________

Appeal 2010-010994
Application 11/162,875
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JAMES P. CALVE, and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010994
Application 11/162,875
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Mahmoud Yousef Ghannam (Appellant) appeal sunder 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 14, 15, 19, and 20.
The Examiner allowed claims 4, 9-11, and 18 and indicated allowable
subject matter in claims 2, 3, 16, and 17. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claims are directed generally “to an apparatus and method
for decoupling a vehicle door latch rod from its latch mechanism in the event
of a side impact.” Spec., [Para 3]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A vehicle door latch assembly comprising:
a latch rod coupled to a latch mechanism and operable by
a door handle to unlatch the latch mechanism;
a release clip operably connected to the latch mechanism
for releasably connecting the latch rod to the latch mechanism;
and
a latch rod release bracket mounted to an inner surface of
a vehicle door, said latch rod release bracket including an
extension, said extension including a wedge-shaped area
adjacent a lower portion thereof engageable with a detent on the
release clip to disengage the release clip and thereby release the
latch rod during a side impact event.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Staser US 5,492,379 Feb. 20, 1996
Appeal 2010-010994
Application 11/162,875
3

THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1, 5, 6, 14, 15, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Staser. Ans. 3.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 5, and 6
Appellant presents arguments pointing to several claim elements
missing from claims 1 and 5. See App. Br. 7-10. Appellant’s first argue that
Staser does not teach the claimed release clip because Staser’s clip 135 acts
on handle rod 118 and not what Staser refers to as latch rod 116. See App.
Br. 7-9. We find this argument unpersuasive because Appellant’s claim
language in claim 1 merely requires that the release clip be “operably
connected to the latch mechanism for releasably connecting the latch rod to
the latch mechanism.” Appellant appears to be arguing that this claim
language somehow requires a direct connection, thus excluding the extra
elements disclosed in Staser.
As seen in Fig. 1 of Staser, handle rod 118 runs between guided link
120 and handle 12, and then latch rod 116 runs between guided link 120 and
latch 14. In a similar manner, as shown in Appellant’s Figure 2, latch rod
106 runs between handle 128 and bracket 102. Appellant’s specific
embodiment of Fig. 2, however, does not require an additional rod between
the bracket and the latch, presumably because exterior handle 128 is
positioned on the same side of the door as latch 112, whereas Staser’s
embodiment is of an exterior door handle 12 on the opposite side of the door
from latch 14. Regardless of whether Staser refers to the rod at issue as a
Appeal 2010-010994
Application 11/162,875
4
latch rod or a handle rod, the language of claim 1 does not preclude
application of Staser as the Examiner has done with respect to handle rod
118.
Appellant does, however, make a persuasive argument regarding the
aspect recited in claim 1 that requires “a wedge-shaped area…with a detent
on the release clip to disengage the release clip.” As Appellant argues,
adjustable clip 135 clips over projection 140 “to attach the handle rod
118…which is exactly opposite of claim 1” because the detent interacts with
the wedge to engage, not to disengage clip 135. App. Br. 9 (emphasis
removed). Appellant also argues that, according to the Examiner, “rod 118
abuts the ‘release clip’ to disengage ‘the release clip’ and thereby release the
rod during a side impact event,” whereas “claim 1 states that the wedge-
shaped area of an extension of a latch rod release bracket engages a detent
on a release clip to disengage a release clip.” Reply Br. 3.
Although claim 1 is worded slightly differently than argued, in that it
only requires a “wedge-shaped area…engageable with a detent on the
release clip to disengage the release clip,” we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner’s use of displacement of the latch rod to release the clip is not
what is claimed because claim 1 requires the wedge-shaped area, not the
latch rod, be “engageable with a detent on the release clip to disengage the
release clip.” Staser discloses that “rod clip 138 is readily attached or
detached from the rod support through means of tab 139 which clips over
projection 140.” Staser col. 3, ll. 52-54. Figure 6 of Staser shows tab 139 as
engaged with detent 140 to retain the clip 138 in an engaged state. The
Examiner’s attachment #4, which is a modified version of Staser’s Figure 6,
does not show the clip in a released state, and the Examiner has not
adequately explained how the wedge (tab 139) on clip 138 (as opposed to
Appeal 2010-010994
Application 11/162,875
5
the rod) acts to disengage the release clip 138 as required by claim 1.
Accordingly, we find Appellant’s argument on this point persuasive and
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Claims 5 and 6 depend from
claim 1 and, thus, we also reverse the rejection of claims 5 and 6 for the
same reasons.
Claims 14, 15, 19, and 20
Claim 14, from which claims 15, 19, and 20 depend, does not include
the same language in claim 1 regarding the “wedge-shaped area” of the
extension, but, similar to claim 1, it does require that the “extension” be
“engageable with a detent on a release clip…to disengage the release clip.”
As with claim 1, we find that the Examiner’s application of Staser requires
that rod 118 act to disengage clip 135, which is not the same as the extension
being “engageable with a detent on a release clip…to disengage the release
clip.” The Examiner’s lack of explanation as to how the extension (as
opposed to the rod) acts to release the clip amounts to a fatal defect with
respect to claim 14 as well. As such, we find Appellant’s argument
persuasive on this point and reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14, as
well as dependent claims 15, 19, and 20.

DECISION
For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 1, 5, 6, 14, 15, 19, and 20.

REVERSED

JRG