Ex Parte Lee et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 29, 201814139858 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/139,858 151011 7590 BMWDC Harry Park Baker McKenzie LLP 12/23/2013 05/31/2018 815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20006-4078 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jun Ho Lee 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. 50385632 5412 EXAMINER BURTNER, DOUGLAS R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2835 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2018 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): BMPARKPRO@bakermckenzie.com harry. park@bakermckenzie.com hparkip@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JUN HO LEE, HYUNG JOON MOON, SEUNG MOK SONG, JU HYUNG LEE, and SUN JAE YANG Appeal2017-008217 Application 14/139,858 Technology Center 2800 Before TERRY J. OWENS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim an electronic control apparatus for a vehicle. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. An electronic control apparatus for a vehicle, comprising; an electronic control element which includes a printed circuit board (PCB) and electronic components installed on a surface of the PCB; a cover and a base which accommodate the electronic control element; and Appeal2017-008217 Application 14/139,858 a connector which is coupled to the electronic control element, wherein a protrusion of the cover is formed at a front end portion of an edge of the cover so that the PCB is inserted and mounted between the protrusion of the cover and an edge of the base, the PCB contacts the cover and the base so as to close a space between the front end portion of the edge of the cover and the edge of the base where the closed sealing space is formed by the protrusion of the cover, the PCB, the edge of the cover, and the edge of the base, wherein a projection of the base is formed at a rear end portion of the edge of the base where the cover and the base come into contact with each other, and the cover and the projection of the base come into contact with each other so as to form the closed sealing space between the protrusion of the cover formed at the front end portion of the edge of the cover and the projection of the base formed at the rear end portion of the edge of the base so that a sealing member is inserted into the closed sealing space, and wherein the cover and the projection of the base come into contact with each other to the extent that the PCB is inserted and mounted between the protrusion of the cover and the edge of the base at the front end portion. Schiefer Sanroma Ohhashi The References US 2004/0235317 Al US 8, 139,376 B2 US 2012/0320544 Al The Rejections Nov. 25, 2004 Mar. 20, 2012 Dec. 20, 2012 The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1 and 2 over Schiefer in view of Sanroma and claim 3 over Schiefer in view of Sanroma and Ohhashi. 2 Appeal2017-008217 Application 14/139,858 OPINION We reverse the rejections. We need address only the sole independent claim, i.e., claim 1. That claim requires that a cover contacts a projection of a base to form a closed sealing space between a protrusion of the cover at its edge's front end portion and the projection of the base at its edge's rear end portion so that a sealing member is inserted into the closed sealing space. Schiefer shows in Figure 1 a control unit (1) comprising a lower housing part (2), an upper housing part (3), a circuit board (4) between and contacting those housing parts, and a continuous seal (8) which is between those housing parts, is not attached to the circuit board ( 4 ), and seals the entire device (i-fi-f 14, 20, 23). \ 2 :Fig.1 Sanroma shows in Figure 6 an electronic assembly housing comprising a first half (10), a second half (12), a printed circuit board (28) between and contacting the first (10) and second (12) halves, a first half (10) peripheral flange (22) (which the Examiner relies upon as corresponding to the Appellants' protrusion of the cover (Final Act. 4)), a second half (12) peripheral groove (18)) (an outer wall of which the Examiner relies upon as corresponding to the Appellants' projection of the base (Ans. 8)), and an 3 Appeal2017-008217 Application 14/139,858 0-ring (20) which is in the peripheral groove (18) and contacts the end of the peripheral flange (22) (col. 2, 11. 29--37, 43--44). IP I The Examiner concludes that "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the arrangement as taught by Sanroma into the device of Scheiffer [sic]" (Final Act. 4). In support of that conclusion the Examiner finds that Sanroma discloses: [A] projection of the base (rightmost portion of 12, see fig 6) is formed at a rear end portion of the edge of the base where the cover (10) and the base (12) come into contact with each other, and the cover and the projection of the base come into contact with each other so as to form the closed sealing space (area 20 fits into) between the protrusion of the cover formed at the front end portion of the edge of the cover and the projection of the base formed at the rear end portion of the edge of the base so that a sealing member (20) is inserted into the closed sealing space [(id.)]. 4 Appeal2017-008217 Application 14/139,858 Sanroma's peripheral flange (22) and second half (12)'s upwardly-extending outer wall do not contact each other to form a closed sealing space but, rather, have a gap between them such that the sealing space they form wherein the 0-ring (20) is positioned is open (Fig. 6). Thus, the Examiner has not set forth a factual basis that is sufficient to support a conclusion of obviousness of the Appellants' claimed apparatus. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ("A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art"). Accordingly, we reverse the rejections. DECISION The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1 and 2 over Schiefer in view of Sanroma and claim 3 over Schiefer in view of Sanroma and Ohhashi are reversed. The Examiner's decision is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation