Ex Parte Lopacki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 13, 2018

14921266 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/921,266 10/23/2015
121691 7590 11/15/2018
Ford Global Technologies, LLC/
King & Schickli, PLLC
800 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 200
Lexington, KY 40503
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Julian Lopacki
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.
83589343 7898
EXAMINER
GUTMAN, HILARY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3612
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):
uspto@iplawl.net
laura@iplawl.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JULIAN LOP ACKI, ERIC AXEL SMITTERBERG, and
DAVID HUELKE 1
Appeal2018-001082
Application 14/921,266
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection2 of claims 1-14, and 19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
1 The real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies, LLC. (App. Br., 3.)
2 Herein, we refer to the Specification, filed Oct. 23, 2015 ("Spec."); Appeal
Brief, filed Aug. 24, 2017 ("App. Br."); and the Examiner's Answer, mailed
Oct. 12, 2017 ("Ans."). The Reply Brief, filed Nov. 10, 2017, is mentioned
in this Decision, however, it is not cited.
Appeal2018-001082
Application 14/921,266
THE INVENTION
The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a sun visor mounting
assembly for vehicles (Spec., para. 1 ). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A mounting assembly for a vehicle sun visor, comprising:
a connector directly mounted to a headliner, said connector
comprising a body carrying at least one connector electrical contact
configured to be placed in electrical communication with a power
source; and
a visor mounting member comprising at least one cooperating
visor electrical contact and a snap-fit retainer configured to engage the
headliner-mounted connector and/or an interior surface portion of the
headliner.
(App. Br., Claims Appendix, 14.)
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(2) as
anticipated by Wilson, US 2002/0149224 Al, published Oct. 17, 2002. (See
Ans. 2--4.)
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence3•
3 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
( explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
2
Appeal2018-001082
Application 14/921,266
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
the cited prior art fails to show
a connector directly mounted to a headliner, said connector
comprising a body carrying at least one connector electrical contact
configured to be placed in electrical communication with a power
source
(App. Br. 9, 10). The Appellants argue that Wilson's teaching of a visor
female connector 52, visor male connector 32, and mounting plate fail to
show the required combination because the visor female connector 52 is
"clearly not directly mounted to the headliner" (App. Br. 10). The
Appellants present similar arguments in the Reply Brief at pages 1--4.
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection of record is
proper (Ans. 2-5). The Examiner has asserted that Appellants have
mischaracterized the reliance in the rejection on element 52 (Ans. 4). The
Examiner has determined that Wilson discloses a headliner mounted
connector 32, 70 that is directly connected to the headliner 22. Id. The
Examiner has determined that element 52 is instead relied on to teach the
"visor mounting member" in an annotation of Fig. 8 found at page 3 of the
Answer. The Examiner provided the mapping of the claimed elements on to
Figure 8 in the Answer at page 3.
We agree with the Examiner and adopt the findings made by the
Examiner in the Answer at pages 2--4 in regard to claim 1. Here, the portion
of the element 32 identified as the "at least one electrical contact" in the
annotation of Figure 8 is directly connected to the headliner and meets the
argued claim limitation. For this reason, the rejection of claim 1 is
sustained.
3
Appeal2018-001082
Application 14/921,266
With regard to claim 10, the Appellants argue that a similar limitation
for "a snap-fit retainer configured to directly engage a portion of the
headliner" is not shown by the prior art. We agree with the Examiner's
finding in this regard because the coupling in Figure 3 of Wilson is a snap fit
and is, as shown by the Examiner, directly engaged to the headliner. For this
reason, the rejection of claim 10 is sustained as well.
The Appellants have also argued that in claim 6 the claim limitation
that a "headliner-mounted connector includes a connector aperture
configured for at least partial concentric alignment with the headliner
aperture" has not been shown in the prior art (App. Br. 12). The Appellants
make a similar argument for claim 7 which further requires "full concentric
alignment with the headliner aperture" (App. Br. 12).
In contrast the Examiner has determined that this is shown in the cited
prior art at Figure 8 (Ans. 4, 7).
We agree with and adopt the Examiner findings with regard to claims
6 and 7 found in the Answer at pages 4 and 7 and this rejection is therefore
sustained.
The Appellants have presented the same or similar arguments for the
remaining claims and the rejection of these claims is sustained as well.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1-14, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated
by Wilson.
4
Appeal2018-001082
Application 14/921,266
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-14, and 19 is sustained.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5