Ex parte Kenmochi et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 20, 1998

07900769 (B.P.A.I. May. 20, 1998)

Application for patent filed June 19, 1992. According to appellants, the1
application is a continuation of Application 07/512,627, filed April 19, 1990,
now abandoned, which is a continuation of Application 07/263,921, filed October
28, 1988, now abandoned.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written
for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 33
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte TOSHIHISA KENMOCHI, KAZUYUKI
OKUI, HIROSHI OSADA, TAKASHI MAEDA,
MAKAOTO SHIOKAWA, TSUYOSHI YAMASHITA
and MITSUO NAKAMURA
_____________
Appeal No. 94-4094
Application 07/900,7691
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before JOHN D. SMITH, GARRIS and PAK, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JOHN D. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal pursuant to 35 USC § 134 from the final
rejection of claims 2, 3, 5 through 7, and 9 through 16.
Claim 11 is representative and is reproduced below:
Appeal No. 94-4094
Application 07/900,769
2
11. A method of fabricating, within a vehicle body
assembly line, a floor panel of a vehicle body having a honeycomb
sandwich structure including a first plate, a second plate and a
honeycomb core sandwiched between said first plate and said
second plate, said second plate being an integral part of a
structural panel of said vehicle body, said honeycomb sandwich
structure being composed of a pre-formed sub-honeycomb panel with
a predetermined shape and including said first plate connected to
a first surface of said honeycomb core, said method comprising
the steps of:
strengthening said second plate by connecting said
structural panel to a strength member, said second plate being
integral to said structural panel, and said strength member being
a part of a vehicle body framework;
pressing said pre-formed sub-honeycomb panel against
said second plate with an adhesive layer therebetween to thereby
connect a second surface of said honeycomb core to said second
plate, said second surface of said honeycomb core being
oppositely located to said first surface, wherein said honeycomb
core is made of paper having permeability, wherein said step of
pressing said sub-honeycomb panel against said second plate
occurs immediately after a drying step conducted after washing of
a painting stage of said vehicle body to thereby prevent said
honeycomb core from getting wet, wherein said step of pressing
said sub-honeycomb panel includes the step of releasing pressure
formed within said sub-honeycomb panel by said pressing step to
thereby prevent damaging said sub-honeycomb core due to pressure
inside a plurality of cells in said sub-honeycomb as a result of
the pressing thereof onto said strengthened second plate.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner are:
Barenyi 2,757,447 Aug. 7, 1956
Kaller et al. (Kaller) 4,728,383 Mar. 1, 1988
Vogt et al. (Vogt) 2,115,753 Sep. 14, 1983
(UK Patent Application)
Appeal No. 94-4094
Application 07/900,769
3
Nakajima et al. 58-170940 Oct. 7, 1983
(Japanese Kokai Patent)
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 USC § 103 as
unpatentable over the teachings of Kaller in view of Vogt,
Nakajima, certain prior art admissions, and Barenyi.
We reverse the stated rejection.
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method of
fabricating, within a vehicle body assembly line, a floor panel
of a vehicle body having a honeycomb sandwich structure including
a first plate, a second plate and a honeycomb core sandwiched
between the first plate and the second plate. The second plate
is an integral part of a structural panel of the vehicle body.
Importantly, the honeycomb sandwich structure is composed of a
pre-formed sub-honeycomb panel with a predetermined shape and
includes the first plate connected to a first surface of the
honeycomb core. In contrast, prior art fabrication methods have
involved a time consuming sequence of steps wherein the honeycomb
core is first connected to a plate and then the other plate is
connected to the honeycomb core. See the specification at page
3, lines 12 through page 4, line 15. The claimed method includes
the step of strengthening the second plate by connecting the
structural panel to a strength member such as a side sill or
Appeal No. 94-4094
Application 07/900,769
The examiner has eschewed reliance on the prior art ?time consuming?2
technique reported in the specification at page 3, line 12 to page 4, line 15,
which is apparently the closest prior art to the now claimed invention.
4
center frame as shown by Figure 1 of the application, wherein the
second plate is integral to the structural panel, and the
strength member is a part of a vehicle body framework. The
fabricating method further includes the step of pressing the pre-
formed sub-honeycomb panel against the second plate with an
adhesive layer therebetween to connect the sub-honeycomb panel to
the second plate.
We have carefully reviewed the examiner’s stated rejection
which is based on the combined teachings of four prior art
references and certain prior art admissions in the2
specification. However, we agree with appellants that there is
no reason for combining the teachings of the prior art in the
manner suggested by the examiner to reach the combined features
of the appealed claims. In this regard, we emphasize, as
appellants have in their Brief, that the claimed method is
directed to the fabrication of a floor panel of a vehicle body.
In contrast, the principal references relied upon by the examiner
as evidence of obviousness, i.e., Kaller and Vogt, are directed
to methods of fabricating headliners which are mounted to the
roof of the vehicle. Thus, even assuming for purposes of
Appeal No. 94-4094
Application 07/900,769
5
argument that a person of ordinary skill in this art would have
combined all of the teachings referred to by the examiner in the
manner proposed, it is not apparent that the proposed combination
of teachings would yield a method satisfying the requirements of
the appealed claims. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837
F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir. 1988). With
respect to this issue, we recognize that the examiner has stated
in the Answer at page 6 that the utilization of the Kaller
process to install a pre-formed panel element anywhere on a
vehicle body, be it on the roof or on the floor, is seen to be an
obvious expedient to one of ordinary skill in the art. However,
the examiner has cited no factual evidence to support this
statement. It is well settled that obviousness is a legal
conclusion which must be based on facts, not speculation and
generalizations. Thus, in the situation before us, the examiner
has not discharged his initial burden of providing a factual
basis upon which to conclude that one having ordinary skill in
the art would have been led to combine the prior art teachings in
the manner suggested by the examiner to arrive at the claimed
subject matter.
Appeal No. 94-4094
Application 07/900,769
6
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
)
JOHN D. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 94-4094
Application 07/900,769
7
ARMSTRONG, WESTERMAN, HATTORI,
McLeLAND & NAUGHTON
1725 K Street, N.W.
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20006