Ex Parte Born et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2017

12764158 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2017)

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.
12/764,158 04/21/2010 David Born 83151465 6859
28395 7590 11/01/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER AMICK, JACOB M
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2017 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):
docketing @brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID BORN and JOHN CARL LOHR1
Appeal 2016-005287
Application 12/764,158
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office
Action rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—13, 15, 16, and 18—20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-005287
Application 12/764,158
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to the problem of parts or assemblies that have
rounded surfaces and therefore may not sit stably on a flat surface during an
assembly operation, a dealer service, or a repair. Spec. 1:13—24. In some
cases, a special fixture is used to prevent the parts from rolling and falling
and becoming damaged. Id. at 1:14—17. The claimed standoff replaces the
need for such a special fixture and prevents these parts and assemblies from
rolling, falling, and becoming damaged. Id. at 1:28—33.
Claims 1, 12, and 18 are independent. Representative claim 1 is
reproduced below.
1. An intake manifold assembly, comprising:
a housing having a rounded outside surface; and
at least one standoff extending outwardly from the
outside surface and having a proximal end attached to the
outside surface and a distal end opposite the proximal end and
farther from the outside surface than the proximal end, the
distal end of the standoff substantially lying in a common plane
with at least two spaced portions of the outside surface.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 6—13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rush, II (US 5,094,194, iss. Mar. 10, 1992) (“Rush”) and
Tzur (US 7,458,553 B2, iss. Dec. 2, 2008).
Claims 4, 5, and 18—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rush, Tzur, and Usuda (US 2009/0301423 Al, pub. Dec.
10, 2009).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Rush, Tzur, Usuda, and Brassell (US 2005/0005888 Al, pub. Jan. 13, 2005).
2
Appeal 2016-005287
Application 12/764,158
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 6—13, and 15
Rejected over Rush and Tzur
The Examiner finds that Rush discloses an intake manifold assembly
as recited in independent claims 1 and 12, including a housing (shell 52)
with a rounded outer surface. Final Act. 3,6. The Examiner finds that Tzur
discloses a standoff for use with such a housing, and the standoff has a distal
end lying in a common plane with spaced portions of the outer surface. Id.
at 4, 6. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to configure
the intake manifold assembly of Rush with the standoff of Tzur to stabilize
and support the intake manifold on its rounded surface, as Tzur teaches. Id.
Appellants argue that Rush does not appreciate the issue of an intake
manifold rolling when removed from the engine; therefore, a skilled artisan
would not have viewed Rush as deficient or been motivated to look to the
teachings of Tzur. Br. 4. Appellants also argue that Tzur is non-analogous
art because it is from a different field of endeavor than an engine intake
manifold, and a cradle structure is not pertinent to the problem to be solved
of eliminating the need for a fixture or cradle of the type disclosed in Tzur.
Id. at 5—6. Appellants further argue that Tzur’s fixture is disparaged in the
Background of the Specification and does not yield two standoffs that extend
from a convexly rounded surface when combined with Rush. Id.
We agree with the Examiner that Tzur is reasonably pertinent to the
problem Appellants addressed of preventing parts with rounded surfaces
from rolling, falling, and becoming damaged. Spec. 1:10—24. However, we
are not persuaded that combining teachings of Rush and Tzur would yield a
standoff “having a proximal end attached to the outside surface,” as claimed.
3
Appeal 2016-005287
Application 12/764,158
Appellants disclose their standoff as an improvement over special
fixtures (like Tzur’s supports) that are provided to prevent parts from rolling.
Spec. 1:13—17. Tzur’s standoffs (cradle end portion 34, center cradle 38)
may extend from a convexly rounded outer surface (shell 52) of Rush when
Rush’s manifold is placed on top of a cradle support of Tzur. However, the
Examiner has not explained how this configuration results in standoffs being
attached to the outside surface of Rush’s housing 52, as claimed, when Tzur
teaches that the cradle support is used as a separate structure that is placed
between rows 18, 22, 26, 30 of roll stock to form multi-tiered stacks. Tzur,
3:39-47, Fig. 1. This structure also provides flexibility to stack rolls of
different diameter and length. Id. at 4:4—17.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1,2, 6—13, and 15.
Claims 4, 5, and 18—20
Rejected Over Rush, Tzur, and Usuda
The Examiner relies on Usuda to disclose an intake manifold having a
polygonal web (ribs 4) that strengthens the manifold and restrains vibrations.
Final Act. 7. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to make
the standoff of Rush and Tzur as extensions of the outside surface polygonal
web with a planar end, as recited in dependent claims 4 and 5, to reduce the
assembly components. Id. at 8. The Examiner determines that Rush, Tzur,
and Usuda render obvious an intake manifold with standoffs extending from
a rounded exterior cover surface, as recited in independent claim 18. See id.
Appellants argue that Usuda does not cure the deficiencies of Rush
and Tzur regarding the claimed standoff because there is no teaching in
Usuda to use a polygonal web or ribs on the outer surface of the intake
manifold to reduce or prevent rolling of the manifold. Br. 6. We agree.
4
Appeal 2016-005287
Application 12/764,158
The Examiner’s reason for modifying Rush and Tzur with teachings
of Usuda is not supported by a rational underpinning. Usuda teaches that the
polygonal rib portion is formed unitarily with other components of the
manifold, as the Examiner correctly finds. Usuda 115; Ans. 10.
We are not persuaded that a skilled artisan would have been motivated
to form Tzur’s cradle supports integrally with Usuda’s ribs when Tzur uses
separate cradle supports to stack roll stock, as discussed above. Nor are we
persuaded that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to form Tzur’s
supports integrally with Usuda’s ribs 4, which extend between branch
pipes 11, and form no part of the curved outer surface of intake manifold 1,
which is the surface that needs support to prevent rolling, as Tzur teaches.
Usuda teaches that this arrangement of ribs 4 restrains vibrations. Usuda
1128, 34. We are not persuaded that a skilled artisan would have extended
ribs 4 to form standoffs in such circumstances. Thus, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 4, 5, and 18—20.
Claim 16
Rejected Over Rush, Tzur, Usuda, and Brassell
The Examiner’s reliance on Brassell to teach features of claim 16 does
not overcome the deficiencies of Rush and Tzur as to claim 12 from which
claim 16 depends. See Final Act. 8—9; Br. 7. Thus, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 16.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4—13, 15, 16, and 18—20.
REVERSED
5