Ex Parte Lahnala

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 24, 2017

12621250 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 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.
12/621,250 11/18/2009 David W. Lahnala 065310.00036 2108
27305 7590 07/26/2017
HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC
450 West Fourth Street
Royal Oak, MI 48067
EXAMINER
STRIMBU, GREGORY J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3634
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/26/2017 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):
IPDocket@HowardandHoward.com
dtrost @ HowardandHoward. com
tmorris @ Howardandhoward. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID W. LAHNALA
Appeal 2015-004970
Application 12/621,25c1
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
Final Decision rejecting claims 1—3, 8, 10, 11, 13—16, 21, 24, 26, and 35.2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies AGC Automotive Americas Co. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 4.
2 Although Appellant does not identify specifically the rejection of claims
10, 13, and 26 as being appealed (see App. Br. 13), the Board’s rules provide
that “[a]n appeal, when taken, is presumed to be taken from the rejection of
all claims under rejection unless cancelled by an amendment filed by the
applicant and entered by the Office.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c) (2014).
Appeal 2015-004970
Application 12/621,250
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 14 are independent, with claims 1—3, 8, 10, 11, 14—16,
21, 24, 26, and 35 depending from claim 1 or 14. Claim 1 is representative
of the claims on appeal, and is reproduced below:
1. A sliding window assembly for a vehicle, said sliding
window assembly comprising:
at least one fixed panel configured for coupling with the
vehicle;
at least one track coupled to said fixed panel with said
track defining a channel;
a sliding panel having a bottom edge disposed within said
channel of said track with said sliding panel having an exterior
surface and an interior surface opposite said exterior surface;
at least one bracket connected directly to said sliding panel
with said bracket disposed on both said exterior surf ace and said
interior surf ace of said sliding panel, and with said bracket at
least partially disposed within said channel of said track; and
a cable having a first end and a second end spaced from
said first end and a body portion disposed therebetween with at
least one of said first end, said second end, and said body portion
molded within said bracket thereby coupling said cable to said
sliding panel for transferring a force from said cable to said
sliding panel through said bracket to slide said sliding panel
along said track.
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1—3, 11, 14—16, 24, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Galer (US 7,073,293 B2, iss. July 11,
2006) and Kaltz (US 4,543,747, iss. Oct. 1, 1985).
2. Claims 13 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Galer, Kaltz, and Gillen (US 5,505,023, iss. Apr. 9, 1996).
2
Appeal 2015-004970
Application 12/621,250
3. Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakamura (US 4,635,398, iss. Jan. 13, 1987) and Kaltz.
4. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Nakamura, Kaltz, and Mori (US 5,345,717, iss. Sept. 13, 1994).
5. Claims 14, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sponable (US 5,784,833, iss. July 28, 1998) and Kaltz.
6. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Sponable, Kaltz, and Gillen.
OPINION
Claims 1—3, 11, 14—16, 24, and 35 — Galer/Kaltz
Appellant argues claims 1—3, 11, 14—16, 24, and 35 as a group. App.
Br. 13, 18—22. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2, 3, 11, 14—16,
24, and 35 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2015).
The Examiner finds that Galer teaches each limitation of the sliding
window assembly recited in claim 1, other than the cable being “molded
within said bracket.” Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner finds that Kaltz teaches
integrally molding a cable within a bracket and proposes modifying Galer’s
cable-actuated sliding window assembly to have its cable molded within its
bracket “to more securely attach the cable to the bracket.” Id. at 4.
Although Appellant disputes the Examiner’s rejection, Appellant does
not address the Examiner’s findings or rationale. Rather, Appellant
contends, for example, that “Kaltz does not teach that the bracket (70) is
directly connected to the backlight panel” and that “Kaltz also fails to teach
or even suggest a cable hav[ing] ‘at least one of said first end, said second
3
Appeal 2015-004970
Application 12/621,250
end, and said body portion molded within’ a bracket that is ‘connected
directly to said sliding panel.’” App. Br. 19. Those contentions do not
address the Examiner’s findings or rationale because the Examiner cites
Galer as teaching “at least one bracket 96 connected directly to said sliding
panel 18,” and simply proposes modifying the connection between Galer’s
bracket and cable such that the cable is molded within the bracket based on
the teachings of Kaltz. Final Act. 3^4. Appellant does not apprise us of
error in that combination.
Appellant further contends that the rejection of claim 1 is based on
impermissible hindsight and that Kaltz teaches away from the proposed
modification to Galer’s cable-actuated sliding window assembly. App. Br.
20-22. We note that the basis of Appellant’s hindsight argument is flawed
because it would effectively require anticipation for an obviousness
rejection. See App. Br. 21 (arguing that the rejection is based on
impermissible hindsight because the entirety of the recited subject matter is
not found in Galer). Appellant offers no persuasive argument as to why the
Examiner’s combination is based solely on Appellant’s disclosure. As for
the alleged teaching away, Appellant offers no persuasive explanation as to
why one skilled in the art would have been discouraged from the
modification proposed by the Examiner.
For these reasons, we are not apprised of error. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 11, 14-
lb, 24, and 35, which fall therewith, as unpatentable over Galer and Kaltz.
Claims 13 and 26— Galer/Kaltz/Gillen
Claims 13 and 26 depend from claims 1 and 14, respectively.
Appellant does not contest the rejection of these claims. See App. Br. 13.
4
Appeal 2015-004970
Application 12/621,250
Nor are we apprised of error in the rejection of these claims based on their
dependency from claim 1 or 14. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 13 and 26 as unpatentable over Galer, Kaltz, and
Gillen.
Claims 1 and 8 — Nakamura/Kaltz
Appellant argues claims 1 and 8 as a group. App. Br. 13—18. We
select claim 1 as representative. Claim 8 stands or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Nakamura teaches each element of the
sliding window assembly recited in claim 1, other than the cable. App. Br.
4—5. The Examiner finds that “Kaltz . . . discloses a sliding window
assembly comprising a cable 68 molded to a bracket 70.” Final Act. 5. The
Examiner proposes modifying Nakamura’s window assembly to include a
cable with spaced ends molded into Nakamura’s bracket. Id.', Ans. 4—6. The
Examiner notes that “the combination of the teachings of Nakamura and
Kaltz . . . simply involves providing a manually sliding window panel 1 with
a known drive means for automatically moving a sliding window panel 18.”
Ans. 5. The Examiner reasons that “one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to provide Nakamura with the cable drive means of
Kaltz ... to provide an automated means of moving at least the window
panel 1 between its open and closed positions.” Id. at 4—5. The Examiner
explains:
When making said combination, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have molded the cable of Kaltz . . . directly to the bracket
2 of Nakamura because of the known added benefits of molding
a cable and because there is no structure other than the bracket 2
to attach the cable to.
Id. at 5—6.
5
Appeal 2015-004970
Application 12/621,250
Appellant submits that the cited references “fail to teach or even
suggest ‘a cable having a first end and a second end spaced from said first
end and a body portion disposed therebetween.’” App. Br. 15. Appellant
alleges that “[t]he Examiner provides no support for his convenient
conclusion that amounts to nothing more than hindsight reasoning.” Reply
Br. 3. That is not an accurate characterization of the rejection.
The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to use a cable
with two ends molded in the bracket because such an arrangement would
obviate the need for a continuous loop cable where ends of the cable are
fixed directly to one another. Id. at 4. Appellant responds, for example, that
it would be “difficult to suspend the ends of the cable (68) of Kaltz within a
mold without the ends of the cable (68) touching” and “[a] lot of attention to
detail and precision would be required in the Examiner’s arrangement,” and
further alleges use of impermissible hindsight. Reply Br. 3^4; see also App.
Br. 16—18 (additional allegations of hindsight). Appellant further contends
that “a stronger connection would be made in Kaltz by coupling the ends of
the cable (68) together to form the endless loop before molding the
bracket/holder (70).” Id. at 4. Appellant, however, fails to establish, or even
allege, that one skilled in the art would not have had a reasonable
expectation of success in modifying the teachings of Nakamura in the
manner proposed by the Examiner. Nor has Appellant persuasively
identified fault in the Examiner’s reasoning for the proposed modification.
There is no dispute that Kaltz teaches a bracket having a cable molded
therein. Although Kaltz does not explicitly teach ends of the cable spaced
from one another within that molded bracket, there are only three
possibilities for the cable in Kaltz: 1) the cable has ends spaced from one
6
Appeal 2015-004970
Application 12/621,250
another in that molded bracket; 2) the cable has ends that are not spaced
from one another in that molded bracket; or 3) the cable is continuous within
that molded bracket without discrete ends. We are persuaded that the
Examiner has established sufficiently that it would have been obvious to
employ one of those three possibilities (i.e., the arrangement where the cable
has ends spaced from one another in the molded bracket).
Appellant further contends that “the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1
and 14 over Nakamura in view of Kaltz fails to also teach a cable coupled
‘to said sliding panel.’” Reply Br. 4. Appellant’s contentions are
unpersuasive. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that “Kaltz
. . . discloses a sliding window assembly comprising a cable 68 molded to a
bracket 70,” Final Act. 5, or that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to provide Nakamura with the cable drive means of Kaltz . . .
to provide an automated means of moving at least the window panel 1
between its open and closed positions,” Ans. 4—5. Rather, Appellant alleges
that one skilled in the art would have used handles 19, 20 in Nakamura for
the cable connection rather than bracket 2, but fails to provide persuasive
explanation to support that allegation. Reply Br. 5.
For these reasons, we are not apprised of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1, and
claim 8 which falls therewith, as unpatentable over Nakamura and Kaltz.
Claim 10 — Nakamura/Kaltz/Mori
Appellant does not contest the rejection of claim 10, which depends
from claim 1. See App. Br. 13. As noted above, we are not apprised of error
in the rejection of claim 1. Thus, we are not apprised of error in the
7
Appeal 2015-004970
Application 12/621,250
rejection of claim 10. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claim 10 as unpatentable over Nakamura, Kaltz, and Mori.
Claims 14, 21, and 24 — Sponable/Kaltz
Appellant argues claims 14, 21, and 24 as a group. App. Br. 13, 22—
27. We select claim 14 as representative. Claims 21 and 24 stand or fall
with claim 14.
The Examiner finds that Sponable teaches each limitation of claim 14,
other than cable 36 being molded within bracket 18c. Final Act. 5—6. The
Examiner finds that “Kaltz . . . discloses a sliding window assembly
comprising a cable 68 molded to a bracket 70” and proposes modifying
Sponable’s sliding window assembly such that the ends of cable 36 are
molded within bracket 18c “to more securely attach the cable to the
bracket.” Id. at 6.
Although Appellant disputes the Examiner’s rejection, Appellant does
not address the Examiner’s findings or rationale. Rather, Appellant notes,
for example, that “both Sponable and Kaltz fail to teach or even suggest a
cable have ‘at least one of said first end, said second end, and said body
portion molded within’ a bracket that is ‘connected directly to said sliding
panel.’” App. Br. 24. Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of error
because, as noted above, the rejection does not rely on a single reference
teaching a bracket connected directly to a sliding panel with that bracket
having a cable molded therein, but rather relies on the combination.
Appellant additionally alleges impermissible hindsight and teaching
away, but, like those contentions in connection with the combination of
Galer and Kaltz, Appellant offers no persuasive supporting argument. See
App. Br. 25—21.
8
Appeal 2015-004970
Application 12/621,250
For the reasons set forth above, we are not apprised of error in the
rejection of claim 14. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claim 14, and claims 21 and 24, which fall therewith.
Claim 26 — Sponable/Kaltz/Gillen
Appellant does not contest the rejection of claim 26, which depends
from claim 14. See App. Br. 13. As noted above, we are not apprised of
error in the rejection of claim 14. Thus, we are not apprised of error in the
rejection of claim 26. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claim 26 as unpatentable over Sponable, Kaltz, and Gillen.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—3, 8, 10, 11,
14—16, 21, 24, 26, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
9