Ex Parte Dubugnon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2018

13321276 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/321,276 02/09/2012 Olivier Dubugnon
90042 7590 07/03/2018
MANELLI SELTER PLLC
1725 I Street, N.W.
Suite 300
Washington DC, DC 20006
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.
16132-90177 8633
EXAMINER
HOLLY, LEE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3726
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07 /03/2018 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):
melcher@mdslaw.com
jeffsmelcher@att.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OLIVIER DUBUGNON and
JEAN-CLAUDE FAIVRE
Appeal2017-010106
Application 13/321,27 6
Technology Center 3700
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and JEFFREY A.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-010106
Application 13/321,276
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 20, 21, and 39-42. Claims 1-19 were cancelled and
claims 22-3 8 were withdrawn from prosecution. See Claims App 'x. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellants' claims are directed generally "to a method for joining
sheet formed material of the same or different types, metal or non-metal,
together by means of gluing in combination with clinching." Spec. 1, 11. 6-
8. Claim 20, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
20. A method for joining superimposed work pieces in the
form of sheet formed material of the same or different types,
metal or non-metal, together by means of gluing with an
appropriate adhesive in combination with clinching to form a
clinch joint between the work pieces, at which a tool comprising
a first and a second separate generally co-axial tool parts, co-
operate for producing said joint, wherein said first tool part
comprises a punch with a generally flat impact surface,
surrounded by a stripper with a generally flat impact surface, and
wherein said second tool part comprises a die with a generally
flat impact surface surrounding a die cavity at the bottom of
which an anvil with a generally flat impact surface is arranged,
the method comprising the steps of:
a) positioning the work pieces with an intermediate layer
of adhesive between said first and second tool parts;
b) driving said punch of said first tool part in the direction
of said co-operating die and anvil of said second tool part to form
said joint between said work pieces by drawing said work pieces
into a cup-shaped or protruding portion having a side wall and a
bottom wall and subsequently compressing said bottom wall
creating a lateral extrusion of the same thereby forming a
2
Appeal2017-010106
Application 13/321,276
laterally enlarged shape which mechanically interlocks the work
pieces, wherein the method further comprises the following steps
before said step b:
A) positioning and locking said punch and said stripper of
said first tool part relative to each other so that said generally flat
impact surfaces present a first, common, essentially flat impact
or squeezing surface of the first tool part, having essentially the
same size and form as a second, essentially flat impact or
squeezing surface of the second tool part comprising at least said
generally flat impact surface of the die;
B) approaching said squeezing surfaces relative to each
other to contact the work pieces from opposite sides; and
C) applying a force to at least one of said impact or
squeezing surfaces of the first and second tool parts squeezing
together the work pieces with the intermediate layer of adhesive
over a surface corresponding to said impact or squeezing
surfaces in order to laterally displace excessive adhesive out
from the corresponding area of the work pieces, wherein the
clinch joint between the work pieces is solely the combination of
the adhesive and the mechanical interlocking between the work
pieces.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Schleicher
Blacket
Wang
Bergkvist
Wang
us 5,621,961
US 6,725,521 Bl
US 2003/0037428 Al
US 2005/0177993 Al
US 2008/0149256 Al
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Apr. 22, 1997
Apr. 27, 2004
Feb.27,2003
Aug. 18, 2005
June 26, 2008
Claims 20, 21, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wang '256 and Wang '428. Ans. 2.
3
Appeal2017-010106
Application 13/321,276
Claim 39 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wang '256, Wang '428, and Blacket. Id.
Claim 40 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wang '256, Wang '428, and Schleicher. Id.
Claim 41 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wang '256, Wang '428, and Bergkvist. Id.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner asserts that Wang '256 discloses "that it is well-known
and understood that sheet metal clinching can be used as an alternative to the
installation of a self-piercing rivet" and also teaches the use of clinching
sheet metal having a layer of glue in between. See Final Act. 2. The
Examiner then utilizes Wang '428 for the detailed disclosure of the clinching
method and the apparatus therefor. Ans. 3. The Examiner finally concludes
obviousness by stating that the combination would provide "an improved
clinching apparatus and method" "in order to locally control the temperature
of the sheets and more securely fasten the sheets together." Ans. 3--4.
Appellants, however, argue that this combination suffers from
numerous deficiencies. First, Appellants note that step A) of the claimed
method requires, inter alia, both a first and second flat surface for
performing the squeezing, where the first squeezing surface has "essentially
the same size and form as a second, essentially flat impact or squeezing
surface of the second tool." App. Br. 7. While the Examiner is correct that
Wang '428 discloses a similar first squeezing surface, the Examiner provides
no explanation as to how Wang '428 discloses the second squeezing surface
"having essentially the same size and form." In reviewing Wang '428, we
find it discloses a conventional second tool having a cup for performing the
clinching operation that is spaced apart from the bottom sheet. Furthermore,
4
Appeal2017-010106
Application 13/321,276
Wang '428 not only discloses that the base of the cup is spaced from the
sheet metal, but the sides of the cup are also spaced from the bottom sheet.
See Wang '428 Fig. 1. The only portion of Wang '428's second tool that is
located adjacent to the sheet so as to provide something similar to the
claimed flat surface is the electrode 60. Accordingly, Wang '428 is deficient
at least for failing to teach both first and second flat surfaces as claimed.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner is incorrect in the assertion
that "'squeezing excess adhesive out of an area ... ' is a natural inherent result
of applying a force to generally flat sheet material members having an
adhesive layer therebetwen." Ans. 6. To this point, Appellants argue that
Wang '428 teaches a conventional method of clinching that does not include
the squeezing step as recited in the claims. Reply Br. 2. Regardless of any
structural deficiencies noted above, we agree with Appellants that the claims
require a distinct squeezing step prior to the clinching and that Wang '428
teaches only squeezing or clamping as part of the clinching step, which
Appellants note is specifically described in the instant Specification as being
insufficient for removing excess adhesive. See Spec. 2, 11. 15-20.
We further note that the apparatus disclosed in Wang '428 includes
electrodes to heat up and soften the sheets so as to facilitate the clinching
process. Although Figure 1 discloses an electrode surrounding and abutting
the piercing tool, Wang '428 also discloses that the electrodes "may not
surround the punch 28 or die 44, but may be otherwise associated with or
adjacent the punch 28 or die 44 or that the electrodes 34, 60 may be
integrally formed as the punch 28 or die 44." Wang '428 i-f 23. Wang '428
also states that electrodes may not even be required and may be replaced
with lasers. Id. As such, it is clear that Wang '428 is concerned only with
heating the sheet and not with any secondary squeezing components,
5
Appeal2017-010106
Application 13/321,276
especially because in at least some disclosed embodiments such electrodes
that would do the squeezing may be included in the punch or not even exist.
These alternative embodiments support Appellants' argument that Wang
teaches only conventional clinching and fails to disclose a separate
squeezing step beyond any normal clinching operation because in some
instances there may not even be a first flat surface, let alone a second, as
claimed to perform the squeezing. We also note that Wang '428 only
discloses the benefits of heating sheet metal without adhesive and that the
Examiner has provided no explanation as to how heat may adversely affect
the adhesive if such a glue layer were run through the apparatus.
In summation, the Examiner's rejection is deficient because Wang
'428 fails to teach the claimed second flat surface, while only teaching
conventional clinching with the addition of heat to soften the metal.
Furthermore, the Examiner fails to explain how a conventional clinching
operation as taught in Wang '428 includes a separate squeezing step that, as
claimed, is "in order to laterally displace excessive adhesive out from the
corresponding area of the work pieces." These deficiencies apply to claim
42 as well because the same or similar limitations appear in claim 42 as
claim 20. Accordingly, we do not sustain any of the rejections based on the
combination of Wang '428 and Wang '256.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner's decision to
reject claims 2 0, 21, and 3 9-4 2.
REVERSED
6