Yazaki CorporationDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 8, 202015666925 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 2020) 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. 15/666,925 08/02/2017 Tatsuya Hattori 5046-0113 2772 39083 7590 05/08/2020 KENEALY VAIDYA LLP 3050 K Street, N.W. Suite 302 Washington, DC 20007 EXAMINER PLESZCZYNSKA, JOANNA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1783 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/08/2020 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): avaidya@kviplaw.com uspto@kviplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TATSUYA HATTORI and SUNAO FUJITA ____________ Appeal 2019-004028 Application 15/666,925 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before DONNA M. PRAISS, MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision2 finally rejecting claims 1–9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant identifies Yazaki Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief, filed January 14, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) 3. 2 Final Action, mailed July 17, 2018 (“Final Act.”). Appeal 2019-004028 Application 15/666,925 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Background The subject matter on appeal “relates to a metallic decorative part for a vehicle display device and a vehicle display device.” Specification, filed August 2, 2017 (“Spec.”) 1:12–14.3 According to the Specification, metallic decorative parts have been made for vehicle displays by providing a substrate made of a translucent material, a primer layer, and a metal coating on a front surface of the substrate. Id. at 1:16–25. However, the Specification states that there is “room for further improvement in terms of ensuring more appropriate metal texture.” Id. at 2:1–4. An object of the invention disclosed in the Specification is to provide a metallic decorative part “that can appropriately ensure metal texture to be given to a viewer.” Id. at 2:7–13. In view of this, the Specification describes a metallic decorative part for a vehicle display device that includes a substrate body molded with a synthetic resin, a metal thin film provided on a surface of the substrate body, and a plurality of grooves formed on a surface of the metal thin film in accordance with a shape of a surface of the substrate body. Id. at 2:14–22. The plurality of grooves are formed so a curved surface of a corner forming an apex between adjacent grooves has a radius larger than 0 and equal to or less than 38.0 µm. Id. at 2:22–25. 3 The Specification does not include paragraph or line numbers. We add line numbers for ease of reference. Appeal 2019-004028 Application 15/666,925 3 Of the appealed claims, claims 1 and 9 are independent. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal, and reproduced below: 1. A metallic decorative part for a vehicle display device, the metallic decorative part comprising: a substrate body comprising a molded synthetic resin; a metal thin film that is made of metal and is provided on a surface of the substrate body; and a plurality of grooves that are formed on a surface of the metal thin film in accordance with a shape of the surface of the substrate body, wherein the plurality of grooves are formed so that a radius of a curved surf ace of a corner forming an apex between adjacent grooves is larger than 0 μm and equal or smaller than 38.0 μm. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App’x). The References Sakurai US 2013/0040090 A1 Feb. 14, 2013 Jones US 2010/0178470 A1 July 15, 2010 Tomantschger US 8,394,507 B2 Mar. 12, 2013 The Rejections The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal: 1. Claims 1–4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sakurai in view of Jones; 2. Claims 5–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sakurai in view of Jones and further in view of Tomantschger; and Appeal 2019-004028 Application 15/666,925 4 3. Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sakurai in view of Jones. Final Act. 2–9; Examiner’s Answer, dated March 7, 2019 (“Ans.”) 3–10. OPINION The Examiner rejects claims 1–4 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sakurai in view of Jones. Ans. 3–6, 9–10. Appellant does not argue claims 2–4 and 9 separately from claim 1. Appeal Br. 10–14. Thus, claims 2–4 and 9 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner finds Sakurai discloses a metallic decorative part for a vehicle display device that includes a substrate body of molded synthetic resin, a metal thin film on a surface of the substrate body, and a plurality of grooves formed on a surface of the metal thin film in accordance with a shape of the surface of the substrate body. Ans. 3 (citing Sakurai ¶¶ 3, 49, 52–53, 61, 65, Fig. 4). The Examiner finds Sakurai is silent with regard to the grooves having apexes with the radius of curvature that claim 1 recites. Id. at 3–4. The Examiner finds that Jones discloses a decorative part including a plurality of grooves that have curved surfaces with corners that form an apex between adjacent grooves. Id. at 4 (citing Jones ¶¶ 2, 71, 96, Fig. 8). The Examiner finds that Jones teaches selecting a corner’s radius of curvature based on the desired optical properties of the part and exemplary radius values fall overlap with the radius range that claim 1 recites. Id. (citing Jones ¶¶ 96, 149, Table 3). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Sakurai in view of Jones to optimize the radii of the curved surface of the corner forming the apex in Sakurai’s grooves “to adjust the optical properties.” Id. Appeal 2019-004028 Application 15/666,925 5 Appellant contends it would not have been obvious to modify Sakurai in view of Jones because Jones teaches increasing the brightness of a lighting device, which would reduce or prevent Sakurai’s designs 71l, 71k from being visible. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant also argues that although Jones teaches differences in the shape of a prism apex affect the brightness of a brightness enhancing film, there would still be an increase in brightness when any of the apex shapes are used. Id. at 12–14. In response to the Examiner’s explanations in the Answer, Appellant further asserts that Sakurai and Jones accomplish reflection via different techniques, with the former using reflection from a reflective metallic external surface and the latter using internally reflecting prism structures. Reply Brief, filed April 25, 2019 (“Reply Br.”) 2–5. Appellant also argues that Jones’ retro-reflective film can increase the brightness of reflected light as compared to a flat mirror surface. Id. at 5. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Jones’s disclosure supports the Examiner’s finding that Jones teaches a relationship between the radius of curvature of a corner between adjacent grooves and the optical properties of a part. Jones ¶ 149. In other words, Jones recognizes an apex radius of curvature as a result-effective variable that affects the optical properties of a part. See In re Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”). Sakurai is also concerned with the optical properties of a part. Sakurai ¶ 61. “[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980). Because Jones recognizes an apex radius of Appeal 2019-004028 Application 15/666,925 6 curvature as a result-effective variable, we find that it would have been a matter of routine experimentation and design within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the corners that form an apex between adjacent grooves of Sakurai’s decorative part by determining workable or optimal radii of curvature for the corners in order to control the optical properties of the decorative part to arrive at a configuration within the scope of claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–4 and 9 under § 103. The Examiner rejects claim 5–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sakurai in view of Jones and further in view of Tomantschger. Ans. 6–9. Appellant argues Tomantschger fails to remedy the deficiencies of Sakurai and Jones that Appellant identifies with regard to the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 14–15. For the reasons set forth above, we do not find any deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1 over Sakurai and Jones. Accordingly, we also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5–8 under § 103. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are affirmed. In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4 103 Sakurai, Jones 1–4 5–8 103 Sakurai, Jones, Tomantschger 5–8 9 103 Sakurai, Jones 9 Overall Outcome 1–9 Appeal 2019-004028 Application 15/666,925 7 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation