Ex Parte SUZUKI et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 28, 2019

14302709 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/302,709 06/12/2014
65565 7590 04/01/2019
SUGHRUE-265550
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20037-3213
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yasuo SUZUKI
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.
Q212627 2951
EXAMINER
APENTENG, JESSICA MCMILLAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2019 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):
SUGHRUE265550@SUGHRUE.COM
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte Y ASUO SUZUKI and HIDEKI YAMANAKA 1
Appeal2017-007336
Application 14/302,709
Technology Center 2800
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing
was conducted on March 12, 2019. Claims App'x.
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify YAZAKI Corporation of Tokyo, Japan, as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-007336
Application 14/302,709
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed "to a structure for assembling a
vehicle interior lighting equipped with a cover for protecting a light source."
Spec. 1:13-14.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A structure for assembling a vehicle interior lighting,
compnsmg:
a lens;
a first engagement portion and a second engagement
portion that are disposed on a light source opposed surface of
the lens and spaced apart from each other in a linear direction
extending along the light source opposed surface and
corresponding to an insertion direction;
a socket to which a light source is fitted and that has a
socket-side engagement portion to be engaged with the second
engagement portion;
a cover configured to be fitted to the socket by movement
in the linear direction so as to accommodate the light source
therein and cover the light source, and having a cover-side
engagement portion engaged with the first engagement portion;
a first regulation portion configured by one side of the
cover or the socket that is located on a front side in the insertion
direction and forming a part of the lens, the first regulation
portion regulating forward movement of the cover or the socket
in the insertion direction; and
a second regulation portion configured by another side of
the cover or the socket that is located on a rear side in the
insertion direction and forming a part of the lens, the second
regulation portion regulating backward movement of the cover
or the socket in the insertion direction.
2
Appeal2017-007336
Application 14/302,709
REJECTION and REFERENCE
The Examiner rejected claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Ohtsuka (US 2010/0195348 Al, published Aug. 5,
2010). Final Act. 2-5.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Ohtsuka' teaches and suggests all the limitations
of independent claim 1 in lamp unit 7 5, except for explicitly teaching the
cover 720 is "configured to be fitted to the socket by movement in the
linear direction so as to accommodate the light source therein and cover the
light source (718), and having a cover-side engagement portion (721,725)
engaged with the first engagement portion (746,747)." Final Act. 3; see
Ohtsuka's Figs. 32 and 28. However, the Examiner finds Ohtsuka's Figures
23A and 23B teach a cover (300) fitted to a socket (204) by movement in the
linear direction, accommodating the light source. Id. The Examiner then
concludes it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the
time of Appellants' invention to modify Ohtsuka's cover 720 to be fitted to
the socket by movement in the linear direction as taught by the cover 300
shown in Ohtsuka' s Figures 23A and 23B. Id.
Appellants contend the Examiner errs in finding that cover 720 can be
replaced by cover 300 because "Ohtsuka's cover 300 merely protects a
socket 204 during transport," and "the cover 300 does not cover the socket
204 when the socket is fitted to a lens." App. Br. 10. Therefore the "cover
300 serves a different purpose than the cover 720." Id. Further Appellants
contend the Examiner's reasoning for combining the references-"if the
cover is attached as shown in figure 23A and 23B [of Ohtsuka], it will limit
3
Appeal2017-007336
Application 14/302,709
side to side (i.e., lateral) movement" (Ans. 4) ("movement in the lateral
direction is prevented and therefore a more secure attachment of the cover to
the socket is achieved" (Final Act. 3--4)}-is incorrect and unsupported.
App. Br. 10. That is, Appellants contend, the Examiner has provided no
reasoning nor explained how Ohtsuka could be modified to have the cover
720 attached in a linear direction as claimed, nor provided a motivation for
the combination, particularly "since such 'side to side' movement is already
present in Ohtsuka' s unmodified embodiment." App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br.
5.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown how one
of ordinary skill in the art would have modified lamp unit 7 5 to use cover
300. Additionally, we agree the Examiner "has failed to advance a
convincing line of reasoning for the modifications alleged by the rejection"
and provides no explanation for modifying Ohtsuka's cover 720 so it could
be attached linearly without changing the engagement portions, etc. App.
Br. 3--4, 11. Thus, the Examiner's rejection has not provided a sufficient
articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning for combining the cited
embodiments of Ohtsuka. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2-10 not
separately argued. App. Br. 12. Because Appellants have shown at least
one reversible error in the Examiner's rejection, we need not reach
Appellants' remaining arguments.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10 is reversed.
REVERSED
4