Ex Parte Merideth et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 29, 2012

11163306 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte MARCUS MERIDETH, JIM LOSCHIAVO,
VENKY KRISHNAN, and MAHMOUD YOUSEF GHANNAM
__________

Appeal 2010-007144
Application 11/163,306
Technology Center 3600
___________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Ford Global Technologies, LLC (“Appellant”), the real party in
interest, appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims
1-6, 9, 11, and 13-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

App
App

Exam
6,38
Exam
2006
2005
§ 10
A1;
eal 2010-0
lication 11
Claims 1
iner unde
2,688 B1;
Claims 1
iner unde
/0261602
)).
Claim 14
3(a) as obv
Oct. 26, 20
Claims 8
Claims 7
07144
/163,306
ST
, 2, 5, 9, 1
r 35 U.S.C
May 7, 20
-6, 9, 11,
r 35 U.S.C
A1; Nov.
has been
ious over
06 (provi
, 10, and 2
and 12 ha
AP
ATEMEN
1, 13, and
. § 102(b)
02).
13, and 15
. § 102(e)
23, 2006 (
finally rej
Jankowsk
sional appl
0 have be
ve been c
PELLAN
d
u
im
A
s
e
r
a
c
a
- 2 -
T OF TH
15-19 hav
as anticip
-19 have b
as anticip
provisiona
ected by th
i and Angu
ication fil
en withdra
anceled.
T’S INVE
Appe
evice that
nlatching
pact coll
ppellant’s
hows a cro
mbodimen
Unla
equires sli
s performe
oupled do
plunger 2
E CASE
e been fin
ated by A
een finall
ated by Ja
l applicati
e Examin
ila (U.S. P
ed April 1
wn from c
NTION
llant discl
automatic
of a vehicl
ision. (Sp
Figure 7,
ss-section
t of the de
tching of t
ding of a d
d by pulli
or handle)
4 of the lo
ally reject
gostini (U
y rejected
nkowski (
on filed M
er under 3
ub. 2006/
9, 2005)).
onsiderat
oses a loc
ally preven
e door dur
ec. ¶¶ 1-2)
reproduce
al view of
vice. (Sp
he vehicle
oor releas
ng an oper
and, in tur
cking devi
ed by the
.S. Patent
by the
U.S. Pub.
ay 20,
5 U.S.C.
0237973
ion.
king
ts
ing a side
.
d left,
an
ec. ¶ 22).
door
e 16 (e.g.,
atively
n, require
ce to slide

s

Appeal 2010-007144
Application 11/163,306

- 3 -
up and over a protrusion 20 of the door release 16. (Spec. ¶¶ 35, 40).
During a side impact collision, the locking device blocks the upward
movement of the plunger 24, thereby preventing the door release 16 and
protrusion 20 from sliding under the plunger 24 as required to unlatch the
vehicle door. (Spec. ¶ 41). Specifically, the force of impact drives the foot
(“pivoting end portion”) 38 of a detent lever 26 (not labeled)
counterclockwise against the tension of a torsion spring 34, such that the
foot 38 is then positioned above and accordingly blocks upward movement
of the plunger 24. (Spec. ¶¶ 41-43).
In the absence of a side impact collision, the detent lever 26 is held in
the illustrated position by the torsion spring 34, such that the foot 38 does
not block upward movement of the plunger 24. (Id.). To prevent the detent
lever 26 from becoming fixed in the illustrated position by inactivity (e.g.,
due to sediment or rust), the plunger 24 includes a pole member 46 that
exercises the detent lever 26. (Spec. ¶¶ 9, 48). Specifically, each time the
door release 16 is slid to unlatch the vehicle door, the resulting upward
movement of the plunger 24 pushes the pole member 46 into an end portion
36 of the detent lever 26. (Id.). This contact causes a slight rotation of the
detent lever 26, thereby preventing the detent lever 26 from becoming fixed
in place without rotating the foot 38 into the blocking position above the
plunger 24. (Id.).
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below.
1. An inertia-actuated locking device for a latch
assembly for a vehicle door, comprising:
a housing;
a plunger slidably attached to said housing;
App
App

1.
Ago
vehi
Figu
of th
(Ago
drive
4, th
eal 2010-0
lication 11
sa
said latc
a
sa
holding
wherein
during n
said dete
§ 102(b)
stini
Agostin
Agostini
cle door du
re 1, repro
e device.
Unlatchi
stini col. 2
s a plunge
ereby bloc
07144
/163,306
id plunger
h assembly
detent leve
id detent l
said plung
said deten
ormal ope
nt lever fr
FI
Rejection
i
discloses
ring a sid
duced belo
(Agostini
ng of the v
, ll. 5-10)
r 18 of the
king the d
movable
; and
r within s
ever mova
er in said l
t lever is f
ration of s
om becom
NDINGS
of Claim
a locking
e impact c
w, shows
col. 1, ll. 6
ehicle doo
. During a
locking d
oor release
- 4 -
to a locked
aid housin
ble to a bl
ocked pos
urther mov
aid latch a
ing fixed
AND AN
s 1, 2, 5, 9
device tha
ollision. (
a cross-se
2-64).
r requires
side impa
evice into
4 from sl
position f
g;
ocking po
ition by an
able by sa
ssembly fo
in one pos
ALYSIS
, 11, 13, a
t prevents
Agostini, A
ctional vie
sliding of
ct collisio
a recess 1
iding as re
or locking
sition for
inertial fo
id plunge
r preventi
ition.
nd 15-19
unlatching
bstract).
w of an em

a door rel
n, the forc
9 of the do
quired to u

rce,
r
ng
over
of a
Agostini’
bodimen
ease 4.
e of impac
or release
nlatch the
s
t
t

Appeal 2010-007144
Application 11/163,306

- 5 -
vehicle door. (See Agostini col. 2, ll. 15-21). Specifically, the impact drives
a cylindrical body 15 into a detent lever 27, which accordingly swings
clockwise to push the plunger 18 into the recess 19. (Agostini col. 2, ll. 54-
60). In the absence of a side impact collision, a coil spring 34 holds the
plunger 18, detent lever 27, and cylindrical body 15 in their illustrated
positions. (Id.).
Analysis
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 11, 13, and 15-19 were rejected as anticipated by
Agostini. Of these claims, only claims 1, 15, and 19 are independent. Claim
1 recites that “said detent lever is further movable by said plunger during
normal operation of said latch assembly for preventing said detent lever
from becoming fixed in one position.” Claims 15 and 19 recite limitations
that are essentially identical to this limitation of claim 1. Each of the
remaining claims 2, 5, 9, 11, 13, and 16-18 depends from one of claims 1
and 15. Thus, all claims require the noted limitation of claim 1.
The Examiner and Appellant disagree as to whether Agostini teaches
the above limitation. The Examiner found that the limitation is satisfied by
Agostini’s plunger 18 pushing on the detent lever 27. (Ans. 7:24–8:6). We
agree insofar as that, immediately after a side impact collision, the tension of
the coil spring 34 causes the plunger 18 to push the detent lever 27 and
cylindrical body 15 back into their illustrated positions. However, we also
agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown the plunger 18 pushes
or moves the detent lever 27 during normal operation of the latch assembly,
as claimed. (Brief 8:1-10).
Indeed, the Examiner has failed to identify which components of
Agostini constitute the claimed latch assembly. (Ans. 3:16-24; 7:24–8:9).
Appeal 2010-007144
Application 11/163,306

- 6 -
We assume arguendo that Agostini’s door release 4 was found to teach the
claimed latch assembly, because the door release 4 is locked by the plunger
18 just as the claimed latch assembly is locked by the claimed plunger.
Further, in accordance with a relevant ordinary meaning of “latch,” the door
release 4 is “basically a bar . . . sliding into a catch.” RANDOM HOUSE
WEBSTER’S UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY 1086 (2d ed. 2001).
Given our assumption, the limitation at issue (“said detent lever is
further movable by said plunger during normal operation of said latch
assembly”) cannot be satisfied unless the plunger 18 moves the detent lever
27 during normal operation of the door release 4. “Normal operation”
means sliding of the door release 4 in the absence of a side impact collision,
e.g., such as when opening the door of a parked vehicle. (Spec. ¶ 39). The
plunger 18 of Agostini moves the detent lever 27 only when retracting from
the door release 4, which is not a moment at which the door release 4 is
moving, much less moving under normal operation.
For the above reasons, the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 9,
11, 13, and 15-19 over Agostini is not sustained.
2. § 102(e) Rejection of Claims 1-6, 9, 11, 13 and 15-19 over
Jankowski
Jankowski
Jankowski discloses a locking device that automatically prevents
unlatching of a vehicle door during a side impact collision. (Jankowski,
Abstract). Jankowski’s Figures 8-10, partially reproduced below, show an
embodiment of the device when inactive (Fig. 8), when allowing unlatching
of the vehicle door (Fig. 9), and when preventing unlatching of the vehicle
door (Fig. 10). (Jankowski ¶¶ 15-17).
App
App

108
show
a doo
plun
relea
130
deten
protr
Beca
quick
the c
eal 2010-0
lication 11
Fig. 8
The lock
(not labele
n in Fig. 8
r release
ger 130. (
se 64 (Jan
upward, su
t lever 10
During a
usion 134
use the de
ly by the
left of the
07144
/163,306

ing device
d), which
. (Jankow
64 (not lab
Jankowski
kowski’s F
ch that the
8. (Jankow
side impa
pushes the
tent lever
plunger 13
hook end
has a slid
are spring
ski ¶ 31).
eled) and
¶¶ 32-33)
ig. 9), the
plunger 1
ski ¶ 33)
ct collisio
plunger 1
108 has to
0, the pro
124 (Fig 1
- 7 -
Fig. 9

ing plunge
-biased to
In order f
its protrus
. During n
protrusion
30 brushe
.
n (Jankow
30 with g
o much m
trusion 13
0). (Id.).
r 130 and
maintain t
or the veh
ion 134 m
ormal ope
134 gent
s aside a h
ski’s Fig.
reater spee
ass to be m
4 pushes th
The halted
Fig.
rotating d
heir restin
icle door t
ust slide u
ration of t
ly pushes
ook end 1
10), howe
d. (Janko
oved asid
e plunger
plunger 1
10
etent lever
g positions
o unlatch,
nder the
he door
the plunge
24 of the
ver, the
wski ¶ 34)
e that
130 into
30

r
.
Appeal 2010-007144
Application 11/163,306

- 8 -
prevents further sliding of the door release 64 and protrusion 132 and, in
turn, prevents unlatching of the vehicle door. (Id.).
Analysis
i. “said detent lever movable to a blocking position for
holding said plunger in said locked position by an inertial force”
Claims 1-6, 9, 11, 13, and 15-19 were rejected as anticipated by
Jankowski. Claim 1 recites that “said detent lever [is] movable to a blocking
position for holding said plunger in said locked position by an inertial
force.” Claims 15 and 19 recite limitations essentially identical to this
limitation of claim 1. The remaining claims 2-6, 9, 11, 13, and 16-18
respectively depend from one of claims 1 and 15. Thus, all claims require
the noted limitation of claim 1.
The Examiner and Appellant disagree as to whether Jankowski
teaches the above limitation. The Examiner found that the limitation is met
by Jankowski’s use of inertial force to catch the plunger 130 within the hook
end 124 of the detent lever 108’. (Ans. 8:16-18).
We agree with the Examiner. One relevant plain meaning of “inertia”
refers to the property of matter by which a body’s mass resists a change to
the body’s state of movement or rest. RANDOM HOUSE WEBSTER’S
UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY 977 (2d ed. 2001). Jankowski states that the
hook end 124 of the detent lever 108’ catches the plunger 130 because the
mass of the resting detent lever 108’, termed an “inertia lever 108’,”
sufficiently resists the quick upward movement of the plunger 130 during a
side-impact collision. (Jankowski ¶ 34). This resistance of the resting
detent lever 108’ to movement, due its mass, is an “inertial force” of the
detent lever 108’. Given that this resistive inertial force causes the hook end
124 to catch the plunger 130, this inertial force also causes the
Appeal 2010-007144
Application 11/163,306

- 9 -
corresponding movement of the detent lever 124 from the neutral position of
Figure 8 to the blocking position of Figure 10. Thus, the detent lever 108’ is
moveable to the blocking position by an inertial force, as claimed.
Appellant argues that the tension of the torsion spring 122 is
“primarily” the force that causes the detent lever 108’ to move into the
blocking position. (Reply 3:5-7). The argument fails in at least three
respects. First, the argument does not contest that the inertial force of the
detent lever 124 causes its movement from the neutral position to the
blocking position, but merely asserts that the tension of the torsion spring
122 is the primary cause of this movement. Second, the argument is not
supported by evidence. Estee Lauder Inc. v. L’Oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588,
595 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Attorney argument cannot take the place of evidence
lacking in the record.). And third, the argument fails to explain how the
tension of the torsion spring 122 holds the detent lever 108’ in the neutral
position (Jankowski ¶ 31), yet also causes the detent lever 108’ to move into
the blocking position, as alleged.
ii. “said detent lever is further movable by said plunger during
normal operation of said latch assembly for preventing said
detent lever from becoming fixed in one position”
As noted for the anticipation rejection over Agostini, discussed supra,
all claims require that the detent lever is moveable by the plunger during
normal operation of the latch assembly. Appellant argues that Jankowski’s
plunger 130 does not move the detent lever 108’ during normal operation of
the latch assembly. (Brief 8:17–9:9). We disagree. Normal operation of
Jankowski’s latch assembly includes sliding of the pawl lever 64’ and its
protrusion 134, which concurrently causes the plunger 130 to push aside the
detent lever 108’ (Fig. 9). (Jankowski ¶¶ 32-33). Jankowski’s plunger 130
Appeal 2010-007144
Application 11/163,306

- 10 -
therefore moves the detent lever 108 during normal operation of the latch
assembly.
Appellant also argues that it is unclear how Jankowski’s plunger 130
is interconnected with the pawl lever 64, pawl 40, and ratchet 38. (Reply
3:7-10). As explained, Jankowski’s plunger 130 moves the detent lever 108
during normal operation of the latch assembly, as claimed. (Jankowski ¶¶
32-33). There is no need for a further discussion of Jankowski’s latch
assembly – such as the interactions of the pawl lever 64, pawl 40, and
ratchet 38 with one another – to make a proper rejection. Note also that,
contrary to Appellant’s argument, Jankowski describes and illustrates the
interconnections of the latch assembly components in detail. (Jankowski ¶¶
18-30).
iii. Conclusion
For the above reasons, the anticipation rejection of claims 1-6, 9, 11,
13, and 15-19 over Jankowski is sustained.
3. § 103(a) Rejection of Claim 14 over Jankowski and Anguila
Claim 14 depends from and is argued with claim 1. (Brief 9:15-18).
Because Appellant has not identified an error with regard to the anticipation
rejection of claim 1 over Jankowski, the obviousness rejection of claim 14
over Jankowski and Anguila is sustained.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 11, 13, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Agostini is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1-6, 9, 11, 13, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Jankowski is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-007144
Application 11/163,306

- 11 -
The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Jankowski and Anguila 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).
AFFIRMED

babc