Ex Parte Sayilgan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 27, 2016

12763443 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121763,443 04/20/2010
530 7590 10/31/2016
LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG,
KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK
600 SOUTH A VENUE WEST
WESTFIELD, NJ 07090
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Cihangir SA YILGAN
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.
AIRBUS 3.0-557 5471
EXAMINER
MCDUFFIE, MICHAEL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2016 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):
eOfficeAction@ldlkm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CIHANGIR SA YILGAN
Appeal2015-000687
Application 12/763,443
Technology Center 3600
Before: ANNETTE R. REIMERS, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1-5 and 8-13. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Claim 7 is allowed. Final Act. 6. Claim 9 is indicated as allowed by
typographical error as it is also included in the rejection. Compare id. with
id. at 4.
Appeal2015-000687
Application 12/763,443
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a holding device for mounting parts
installed inside an aircraft fuselage. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A holding device for a mounting part installed inside an
aircraft fuselage having a lining including an insulating mat, the
holding device comprising:
a fastening part attached to the aircraft fuselage and
protruding through an opening in the insulating mat;
a holding part configured to attach the mounting part and
being disposed on an inner side of the aircraft fuselage and
cooperating with the fastening part configured to attach the
mounting part so as to simultaneously fix the insulating mat
between the fastening part and the holding part, wherein the
holding part extends through the opening in a sealed manner; and
a sealing disk having a lower surface that contacts and
seals an edge region of the opening when the holding part is
installed on the fastening part, the sealing disk being axially
adjustable, when the holding part is installed on the fastening
part, relative to the holding part via a snap-fit connection
configured to increase a sealing effect after the installation of the
holding part on the fastening part when the sealing disk is pressed
in a direction of the insulating mat.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Yoneyama
Cordes
Olver
us 4,811,922
us 5,538,208
US 7,861,981 B2
2
Mar. 14, 1989
July 23, 1996
Jan. 4, 2011
Appeal2015-000687
Application 12/763,443
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5, 82, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yoneyama and Cordes.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yoneyama, Cordes, and Olver.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Yoneyama teaches the features of
independent claim 1, but not the environment of an aircraft, for which
Cordes is relied upon. Final Act. 2-3.
Appellant argues that Yoneyama and the other cited references fail to
"disclose or suggest a sealing disk that is axially adjustable relative to a
holding part." Appeal Br. 4. Appellant explains:
Yoneyama describes a two piece flat wire harness, which
includes a catch member 4 fixed on a base plate 3 and attaching
means 10 which includes an attaching plate 1 and a clip 2. The
catch member 4 clips into the attaching means 10 by engaging
with the support shoulders 2e of the clip 2.
Id. at 5 (citing Yoneyama col. 2 :23--48 and Fig. 1 ). But, "[ t ]here is no
description anywhere in Yoneyama that would suggest that the attaching
plate 1 is adjustable once it has been installed on the attaching means." Id.
at 6.
Appellant further explains that the passage of Yoneyama cited for
teaching adjustability is "entirely unrelated to any adjustment of the
2 Claim 8 is not discussed in the Final Action. See generally, Final Act. The
Examiner entered a new grounds of rejection for claim 8 in the Answer.
Answer 6-7.
3
Appeal2015-000687
Application 12/763,443
attaching plate 1 with respect to the catch member 4 once the catch member
4 and attaching means 10 are installed on one another." Id.
The Examiner relies on the following sentence of Yoneyama to teach
adjustability: "In FIG. 1, a side wall of the catch hole 2b provided in the
body 2a of the clip is fully open, but as a matter of fact, it can be closed
leaving some length for engaging the bifurcated claw 4a." Yoneyama col
3:3---6; see also Final Act. 7. The Examiner responds to Appellant's
argument that "the extra length would allow the sealing disk 1 to move
axially while installed on the holding part 4b." Answer 7 (emphasis
omitted).
But Yoneyama does not teach an "extra length," only that the hole is
not completely closed. As noted by Appellant, Yoneyama teaches that the
system is secured by engaging the bifurcated claw 4a of catch member 4
with the support shoulders 2e. Yoneyama col. 2:23--48; see also Appeal Br.
5. As shown in Figure 1 of Yoneyama, the hole 2b is adjacent the shoulders
2e, and thus, it would be natural for a portion of the bifurcated claw 4a to
stick out of the hole 2b similar to the prior art embodiment illustrated in
Figure 5. Further, Yoneyama focuses on the shoulders 2e that allow the
system to be separated so that the "bifurcated claw provided on the catch
member is not damaged although the support shoulders are destroyed, so
that the harness can be relocated and reused." Yoneyama Abstract. The
passage relied on by the Examiner merely discusses changing the size of the
hole 2b, but it does not discuss any changes to how the claw engages the
shoulders. The cited passage also does not appear to teach adjustability of
the clip engagement.
4
Appeal2015-000687
Application 12/763,443
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. For
these same reasons, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 2-5 and 8-13,
which depend from claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5 and 8-13 is reversed.
REVERSED
5