Ex Parte Mitsuhashi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2018

14177736 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/177,736 02/11/2014
7055 7590 06/26/2018
GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VA 20191
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Atsutaka MITSUHASHI
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.
P45078 2600
EXAMINER
DUNN, DAVID R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2018 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):
gbpatent@gbpatent.com
greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ATSUT AKA MITSUHASHI
Appeal2017-007720
Application 14/177,736
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, TOY OT A BOSHOKU KABUSHIKI KAISHA,
which the Appeal Brief identifies as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-007720
Application 14/177,736
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A frame structure of a vehicle seat, comprising:
a frame element in which two ends of a metal member
are abutted in an abutting direction and laser-welded together,
end portions of abutted portions of the two ends of the metal
member being melted by the laser-welding; and
a separate metal member integrally joined to each of the
two ends of the metal member so as to sandwich the melted end
portions of the two ends of the metal member in the abutting
direction;
the end portions of abutted portions of the two ends of
the metal member form the frame element into a closed
sectional shape; and
the separate metal member includes a leg portion having
a pair of flanges extending from the leg portion, the pair of
flanges sandwiching the end portions in the abutting direction.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hosokawa (US 8,888,191 B2, iss. Nov. 18, 2014) and
Klein (US 2008/0296271 Al, pub. Dec. 4, 2008).
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Hosokawa discloses a frame structure of a
vehicle seat, substantially as recited in claim 1, including "a frame element
(21) in which two ends of a metal frame member (2 IA, 2 IB) are abutted (at
21E) in an abutting direction and welded together," but that "Hosokawa does
not specifically disclose the welding being laser-welding." Final Act. 2-3
(citing Hosokawa, col. 3, 11. 60-65). Specifically, the Examiner finds that
2
Appeal2017-007720
Application 14/177,736
Hosokawa discloses "a separate metal member (either 27 or 2B) integrally
joined to each of the two ends of the metal member so as to sandwich the
melted end portions of the two ends of the metal member in the abutting
direction (see Figure 5)." Id. at 2 (citing Hosokawa, Figure 3 for the
teaching of sandwiching joint 21 E by belt extraction port 2B, and Figure 5
for the teaching of sandwiching joint 21 Eby bracket 27). The Examiner
further finds that Hosokawa discloses a separate metal member, in the form
of bracket 27 or extraction port 2B, that includes a leg portion with an
extending pair of flanges. Id. at 3. The pair of flanges in bracket 27 and in
extraction port 2B sandwich the end portions of the metal member along the
direction of abutment. Id. Thus the flanges are positioned on either side of
side frame 21, as shown in Figures 3 and 5. Id.
The Examiner finds that Klein teaches "that laser welding in vehicle
seats is old and well known" and determines that it would have been obvious
to modify Hosokawa by using laser welding "in order to provide an
improved and more efficient welding technique." Id.
In contesting the rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues that
"Hosokawa does not include integral forming of the flanges of the legs of
the member 2B, and the two metal members." Appeal Br. 7. Appellant
argues that Hosokawa fails to disclose "a separate metal member integrally
joined to each of the two metal members and sandwiching melted end
portions of the two metal members in the abutting direction," as claimed. Id.
at 7.
As the Examiner correctly points out, claim 1 requires "a separate
metal member integrally joined to each of the two ends of the metal
member," rather than "integral forming of the flanges of the legs" to two
3
Appeal2017-007720
Application 14/177,736
metal members. Ans. 3; Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). The Examiner
explains that belt guide member 2B is a separate metal member that is
integrally joined to metal member 21 to form an integral unit, as shown in
Figure 4, when they are connected together. Ans. 3. Further, the Examiner
cites to a dictionary definition of "integral" in support of the position that
"integral" means "formed as a unit with another part." Id.
Appellant responds that "connected does not equate to 'integrally
joined[,'] as claimed." Reply Br. 5.
As a preliminary matter, we note that Appellant's argument only
addresses the teachings of Hosokawa regarding belt extraction port 2B,
despite the fact that the rejection identifies each of belt extraction port 2B
and bracket 27 (Final Act. 2-3) as alternatively disclosing the claimed
separate metal member. See Appeal Br. 7. Appellant does not present any
arguments pointing out error in the Examiner's findings directed to
Hosokawa's bracket 27 as the claimed separate metal member.
Moreover, Appellant's arguments do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's finding with respect to Hosokawa's belt extraction port 2B being
the claimed "separate metal member." Hosokawa's belt extraction port 2B
is positioned at the top of side frame 21 and comprises a leg having flanges
which sandwich seam 21 E of side frame 21, much like Appellant's belt
guide 2B. See Hosokawa, Figs. 3--4; compare id., Figs. 1, 3--4, with
Appellant's Figs. 1, 4--5. Hosokawa requires a joining between belt
extraction port 2B and frame 21 in order to function properly in that, during
a collision, "belt extraction port 2B receives a strong forward pulling force
from the webbing [resulting in] a load applied to a side frame 21 on the
vehicle outer side of the seatback 2." Id. at col. 3, 11. 13-16 (boldface
4
Appeal2017-007720
Application 14/177,736
omitted). Further, Hosokawa expressly recites that "belt extraction port 2B
of the seatbelt device is integrally connected with the connection portion
between the upper end portion of the side frame 21 and the upper frame 23."
Id. at col. 5, 11. 53-56 (boldface omitted). This disclosure of Hosokawa
supports the Examiner's finding that Hosokawa discloses "a separate metal
member integrally joined to each of the two ends of the metal member so as
to sandwich the melted end portions of the two ends of the metal member in
the abutting direction" as claimed (see Final Act. 2), and Appellant does not
persuasively point out why this is not the case.
Appellant also disputes the Examiner's proposed combination of
Hosokawa and Klein for two reasons. Appeal Br. 7-8. First, Appellant
asserts that Klein "is directed to a method and apparatus for laser welding in
a completely different structure, environment[,] and application." Id. at 7;
Reply Br. 6. Second, Appellant asserts that "the only reason to combine the
teachings of Hosokawa and Klein ... results from a review of Appellant's
disclosure and the application of impermissible hindsight." Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant's arguments rest on Appellant's assertion that Klein does not
disclose "welding abutting ends of a metal member together with a separate
metal member sandwiching the abutting ends" (id.); in Klein, "laser-welding
is performed on layers and not on [the] ends of a workpiece." (Reply Br. 6).
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive because they attack Klein
individually, and do not address the combination set forth in the rejection.
"Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references." In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). As the Examiner
5
Appeal2017-007720
Application 14/177,736
points out, and as discussed above, Hosokawa, rather than Klein, is relied
upon for welding together two ends of a metal member (side frame 21) that
are abutted in an abutting direction as claimed. See Ans. 4; Final Act. 2. As
also discussed above, the Examiner relies on Hosokawa, and not Klein, for
the "separate metal member." Final Act. 2. The Examiner explains that
"Hosokawa merely fails to disclose the specific type of welding." Ans. 4.
Further, with respect to Appellant's argument that Klein "is directed
to a method and apparatus for laser welding in a completely different
structure, environment[,] and application" (Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 6), the
Examiner states that "Hosokawa, just like the instant invention, is a vehicle
seat back frame," and Klein teaches "laser welding in the same type of
structure, environment[,] and application (a seat back frame)." Ans. 3
(citing Klein, Fig. 3, i-fi-132, 33). Thus, the instant application, Hosokawa,
and Klein are all in the same type structure, environment, and application.
As to Appellant's assertion of hindsight, the Examiner responds that
Klein "teaches the use of laser welding in the same environment [as
Hosokawa ], noting that 'the use of laser welding systems in the automotive
industry has expanded with increased demand for improved production
quality, production efficiency, and flexibility as compared to more
conventional welding processes."' Ans. 4 (citing Klein i1 3). The Examiner
explains that Klein "teaches a welding 'improvement' on a 'comparable[]
device' and as such ... it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
to apply this known improvement to the 'base' device." Id.
Appellant does not identify any flaw in the Examiner's reasoning or
point to any knowledge relied on by the Examiner that was gleaned only
from Appellant's disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of
6
Appeal2017-007720
Application 14/177,736
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, thereby failing to support
Appellant's hindsight assertion. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395
( CCP A 1971) ("[A ]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into
account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include
knowledge gleaned only from applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is
proper.").
For the above reasons, Appellant's arguments fail to apprise us of
error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1, as well as claims 2, 3, and 5 for which Appellant does not present
any separate arguments (Br. 8-11 )2 and which thus fall with claim 1, as
unpatentable over Hosokawa and Klein.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 5 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
2 See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the
Board had reasonably interpreted 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii) (the
predecessor to § 41.3 7 ( c )(1 )(iv)) as requiring "more substantive arguments
in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art").
7