Ex Parte Hamada et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 13, 2018

14343874 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/343,874 03/10/2014
48980 7590 06/15/2018
YOUNG BASILE
3001 WEST BIG BEA VER ROAD
SUITE 624
TROY, MI 48084
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mitsuharu Hamada
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.
NNA4-115-A 1235
EXAMINER
LEE,PETET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2848
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/15/2018 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):
docketing@youngbasile.com
audit@youngbasile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MITSUHARU HAMADA and MASATO INOUE
Appeal2017-009150
Application 14/343,874
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BRIAND. RANGE, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1-3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed March 10, 2014
("Spec."), the Final Office Action dated May 5, 2016 ("Final Act."), the
Appeal Brief filed November 15, 2016 ("Br."), and the Examiner's Answer
dated February 8, 2017 ("Ans.").
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
Br. 3.
Appeal2017-009150
Application 14/343,874
The subject matter on appeal relates to a middle gripper attached to a
charging cable of a charging stand for charging a battery of an electric
vehicle. Spec. ,r,r 2-3. Figure 2 of the subject application is reproduced
below.
FIG .• 2
Figure 2 above depicts a middle gripper attached to a charging cable that
includes: middle gripper 4, charging cable 2, cylindrical part 41 formed to
pass charging cable 2 therethrough, a gripping part 42 formed extending
from cylindrical part 41 for grasping by a charging operator, and adjusting
means 44, 45 that adjust frictional force (i.e., pressing force) between
cylindrical part 41 and charging cable 2. Id. ,r,r 15-20.
2
Appeal2017-009150
Application 14/343,874
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief, with key limitations emphasized as follows:
1. A middle gripper of a charging cable, attached to
the charging cable extending
from a charging stand, comprising:
a cylindrical part formed to pass the charging cable
therethrough and to be turnable around an axis of the charging
cable and put on a hook arranged on the charging stand;
a gripping part formed extending from the cylindrical
part for grasping; and
adjusting means that adjusts frictional force between
the cylindrical part and the charging cable such that a
deformation is formed in the charging cable that prevents
axial movement of the cylindrical part while allowing
rotational movement.
Br. 11 (Claims App.).
DISCUSSION
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Kamer ( US 2012/0193929 Al, published
August 2, 2012) in view of Pisczak (US 6,595,472 Bl, issued July 22, 2003)
and in view of Cloud, Jr. (US 3,211,828, issued October 12, 1965). Final
Act. 3--4; Ans. 2. The Examiner also maintains the rejection of claims 2 and
3 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Kamer, Pisczak, and Cloud,
Jr., and further in view of Tame (US 5,511,442, issued April 30, 1996).
Final Act. 4; Ans. 2.
It is well settled that the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
unpatentability resides with the Examiner. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
3
Appeal2017-009150
Application 14/343,874
The Examiner finds that Kamer discloses all the elements of claim 1 's
middle gripper except for: ( 1) a cylindrical part put on a hook arranged on
the charging stand, and (2) an adjusting means that adjusts frictional force
between the cylindrical part and the charging cable such that a deformation
is formed in the charging cable that prevents axial movement of the
cylindrical part while allowing rotational movement. Final Act. 3. The
Examiner relies on Pisczak for teaching claim 1 's adjusting means. Id. at 4.
The Examiner finds that Pisczack's Figure 3, reproduced below,
discloses a suspension clamp that includes an adjusting means (54) that
adjusts frictional force between a cylindrical part (14 and 24) and the cable
(12), such that a deformation is formed in the cable that prevents axial
movement of the cylindrical part while allowing rotational movement. Id.
(citing Pisczak 5:25--40; Fig. 3).
24----~
18
FIG. 3
72
Figure 3 depicts an exemplary embodiment of Pisczak's cable
suspension clamp.
4
Appeal2017-009150
Application 14/343,874
The Examiner finds that "as cylinder part 24 clamps onto cable 12[,]
some form of deformation will occur to the outer surface of the cable[,] and
depending on how tight the screw 54 is tightened, the user may adjust the
tightness of the clamp on the cable to allow some rotation of the cable about
the lengthwise direction of the cable and not traverse movement[.]" Final
Act. 4.
Appellants point out that Pisczak teaches that its clamp includes
cushions (24) "that reduce mechanical stress on bending portions of the
clamped cable." Br. 7 (Pisczak 3:21-23). Appellants also point out that
Pisczak teaches that "cushions 24 are formed of EPDM, neoprene, silicone,
or other suitable material" and "are ... compressed against the cable 12."
Br. 7 (citing Pisczak 4:34--36, 63---64). Based on these teachings, Appellants
contend that clamping in Pisczak "would deform (if any deformation results
at all) the cushion 24 and not cable 12." Br. 7. Thus, Appellants argue that
Pisczak does not teach an "adjusting means that adjusts frictional force
between the cylindrical part and the charging cable such that a deformation
is formed in the charging cable that prevents axial movement of the
cylindrical part while allowing rotational movement." See Br. 7.
A patent applicant is free to recite features of an apparatus either
structurally or functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Claim 1 's recitation of adjusting "frictional force between the
cylindrical part and the charging cable such that a deformation is formed in
the charging cable that prevents axial movement of the cylindrical part while
allowing rotational movement" describes how the claimed middle gripper's
adjusting means functions, not what structure the adjusting means includes.
Functional recitations in an apparatus claim are given weight in that the
5
Appeal2017-009150
Application 14/343,874
corresponding prior art structure must possess the capability of performing
the recited function. See Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477-78.
In the Answer, the Examiner explains that the tightness of the inner
surface of Pisczaks' cushion 24 on the surface of cable 12 "will depend on
how tight the user adjusts screw device 54 to cause the compression of
cylinder part 24 onto cable 12 in the tightening direction." Ans. 4. The
Examiner finds that when "the screw devices 54 are tightened harder" it will
"ensure a tight fit of cylinder part 24 onto the cable 12 and allow slight
surface deformation of cable 12." Id. However, given Pisczak's teaching
that cushion 24 "reduce[ s] mechanical stress on bending portions of the
clamped cable," (Pisczak 3:22-23), we are persuaded by Appellants'
argument that the Examiner has not established a reasonable basis for
believing that tightening Pisczak's adjusting means 54 would have been
capable of deforming cushion 24 along with cable 12, and not cushion 12
alone. Br. 7. Even if we were to agree with the Examiner's reasoning that
Pisczak' s adjusting means 54 can be tightened to such an extent that it would
have been capable of causing "slight surface deformation" to cable 12, the
Examiner has not established a reasonable basis for believing that the
deformation formed in cable 12 "prevents axial movement of the cylindrical
part [ ( 14)] while allowing rotational movement." Thus, on this record, the
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the
applied prior art. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
representative claim 1.
Because claims 2 and 3 depend from representative claim 1, and the
rejections of those claims are deficient for the same reasons as discussed
above, we also do not sustain the rejection of those claims.
6
Appeal2017-009150
Application 14/343,874
DECISION
For the above reasons, the rejection of claims 1-3 are reversed.
REVERSED
7