Ex Parte EVERARD et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 13, 2018

14443077 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/443,077 05/15/2015
151860 7590 11/15/2018
The Small Patent Law Group, LLC
225 S. Meramec Ave.
Suite 725
St. Louis, MO 63105
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stephen M. EVERARD
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.
60407-US-2 (500-0367) 9844
EXAMINER
NIRJHAR, NASIM NAZRUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/15/2018 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):
docket@splglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN M. EVERARD,
JAMES T. KIRCHEN, and MARC R. RISDALE
Appeal2018-003235 1
Application 14/443,077
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 "The real party in interest is Illinois Tool Works, Inc." App. Br. 4.
Appeal2018-003235
Application 14/443,077
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to a system, including an image capturing
camera, for "verification of the installation of a component such as a side
curtain air bag into a vehicle passenger compartment." Abstract. Claims 1-
20 are pending; of these, claims 1 and 18 are independent. See App. Br. 32-
3 7. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference ( formatting modified and
emphases added):
1. A verification system for the verification of the
installation of a component having at least one hanger bracket
attachable to a base plate utilizing an energy absorbing, rotatable
fastener, wherein said hanger bracket and said base plate have an
aperture for insertion therethrough of a portion of said fastener,
said fastener includes an attachment portion for engaging said
base plate in an energy absorbing relation and a head portion for
securing said hanger bracket to said fastener, when said fastener
is rotatable to a locked, energy absorbing, position after insertion
of a portion thereof through said apertures in said hanger bracket
and base plate; wherein said system comprises:
an image capturing camera to capture an image of the
installation of the component in machine readable form;
a machine readable medium including data representative
of at least one hanger bracket attached to a base plate with an
energy absorbing rotatable fastener rotated to its locked, energy
absorbing position;
a central processing unit for receiving data from said
image capturing camera and said machine readable medium;
said central processing unit for comparing said captured
images to said representative data to determine the condition of
said installation and deliver an output signal in response to said
comparison.
2
Appeal2018-003235
Application 14/443,077
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Pawlenko
Wu
Moed
Ostergren
Adams
US 2007/0009136 Al
US 2011/0026823 Al
US 2011/0211726 Al
US 2012/0039687 Al
US 2014/0099015 Al
Jan. 11, 2007
Feb. 3, 2011
Sept. 1, 2011
Feb. 16,2012
Apr. 10, 2014
Claims 1---6, 9-13, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Adams and Ostergren. Final Act. 13.
Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Adams, Ostergren, and Pawlenko. Final Act. 29.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Adams, Ostergren, and Wu. Final Act. 31.
Claims 15-17 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Adams, Ostergren, and Moed. Final Act. 33.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016). We are
not persuaded the Examiner erred. We adopt the Examiner's findings and
analysis as our own, and we add the following for emphasis.
Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection is in error, because there is
"nothing in Ostergren ( or Adams) that expressly or necessarily describes,
teaches, or suggests comparing data representative of at least one hanger
attached to a base plate with an energy absorbing rotatable fastener rotated
to its energy absorbing position, such as recited in claim 1." App. Br. 13.
3
Appeal2018-003235
Application 14/443,077
Appellants further contend it would not have been obvious to combine the
references as claimed, because "[ a ]ttempting to suggest that Adams would
analyze an isolated fastener as described in Ostergren instead of the
markings on the sock or cushion of Adams changes the principle of
operation of Adams," and "absent hindsight, the Applicant sees no reason,
and the Office Action has not provided an adequate articulation of a reason,
why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify the
cited references as suggested by the Office Action." App. Br. 14, 16.
Appellants do not challenge the Examiner's findings that "Adams
shows that it is well known to inspect safety airbag installation[ s] using
image analysis methods" and "Ostergren teach[ es] the hardware Appellant
has claimed." Ans. 34, 36; Adams Fig. 11, ,r,r 5, 26; Ostergren Figs. 1, 12,
13. Thus, the issue presented by Appellants' contentions is whether the
Examiner properly relied on the combination of the references to teach the
claims. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007) ("the
question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior
art is obvious"). Based on the record before us, we do not find Examiner
erred in determining the limitations of claim 1 to be obvious in view of the
combined teachings of Adams and Ostergren. See Ans. 31.
Adams teaches the benefits of comparing an image of an airbag
installation with a master image, to verify the installation. See, e.g., Adams
,r 34. Appellants do not provide evidence or technical reasoning to show one
of ordinary skill would not apply Adams' visual inspection and comparison
system to Ostergren's teaching of an airbag fastener system having locked
and unlocked positions. See Ans. 37-38; Ostergren ,r,r 20, 37. Particularly,
Appellants do not provide discussion or objective evidence of secondary
4
Appeal2018-003235
Application 14/443,077
considerations, which would "operate[] as a beneficial check on hindsight."
Cheese Systems, Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Systems, Inc., 725
F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Thus, we are not persuaded the claimed
use of the image capturing camera with the hanger bracket, base plate, and
fastener was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in
the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior art." Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see
also Final Act. 18.
Further, Appellants do not persuade us that using Adams' verification
system to inspect other aspects of a car airbag assembly "changes the
principle of operation of Adams," "renders Adams unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose," or is taught away by Adams. Contra App. Br. 13-15
( emphasis omitted); see Ans. 32. The Examiner reasonably finds that, for
one of ordinary skill, applying the "image taken using algorithm from
Adams for the energy absorbing rotatable fastener rotated to its locked
position of Ostergren will be an obvious act for computerized image
inspection as this will provide predictable results" (Ans. 33) and will "make
the [fastener] verification processes efficient and cost effective" (Final Act.
18). 2 We agree. See KSR, 550 U.S. 398 at 417 ("When a work is available
in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can
prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one.").
2 Adams further teaches providing indicia on the hardware to be inspected,
to improve the automated inspection process. Adams ,r 31. The Examiner
alternatively finds one of ordinary skill would apply these indicia to the
hardware of Ostergren. See Final Act. 4. We agree, and find the claims-in
light of the Specification-reasonably encompass this combination of
Adams and Ostergren. See Fig. 9, Spec. ,r,r 47-50.
5
Appeal2018-003235
Application 14/443,077
Regarding dependent claims 3, 5, 10, and 11, Appellants do not
challenge the Examiner's findings that Ostergren teaches the hardware
configurations as claimed. See App. Br. 17-23; Ans. 31 ("Ostergren shows
the hangers and fasteners claimed are well known."); Ans. 43, 45
("Ostergren teach[es] a configuration of hardware Appellant has claimed.");
see also Final Act. 6-12. For the reasons discussed above, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in concluding one of ordinary skill would
apply Adams' teachings----of comparing a captured image to a master
image-to the recited hardware as taught by Ostergren, in the rejection of
these dependent claims. See Ans. 39-46.
Accordingly, Appellants do not persuade us the examiner erred in
concluding the combination of Adams and Ostergren renders obvious the
limitations of independent claim 1, independent claim 18 which is argued for
the same reasons as claim 1, and dependent claims 3, 5, 10, and 11. See
Final Act. 23-30; Ans. 38. Appellants advance no further argument on the
remaining claims; thus we are not persuaded of Examiner error for the same
reasons discussed above. See App. Br. 30.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6