Ex Parte Shimizu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 6, 2017

13701049 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 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.
13/701,049 11/30/2012 Isanori Shimizu Q143877 7162
06/08/201765565 7590
SUGHRUE-265550
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20037-3213
EXAMINER
WATKINS III, WILLIAM P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1783
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/08/2017 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):
SUGHRUE265550@SUGHRUE.COM
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ISANORI SHIMIZU
Appeal 2016-004542
Application 13/701,0491
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, TERRY J. OWENS, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 4, and 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 2 and 3
have been cancelled.
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies Yazaki Corporation as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 In our Opinion we refer to the Final Rejection electronically delivered on
March 13, 2015 (“Final Act.”); the Advisory Action electronically delivered
on June 18, 2015 (“Adv. Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed September 8, 2015
(“Br.”); and the Examiner’s Answer electronically delivered on February 2,
2016 (“Ans.”). Appellant did not file a Reply Brief.
Appeal 2016-004542
Application 13/701,049
The claims are directed to a resin molded article comprising a main
body and a joint section, wherein the joint section has certain features.
Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A resin molded article formed by injecting resin, the
resin molded article comprising:
a main body; and
a joint section integrally formed on an outer wall surface
of the main body, the joint section comprising a cylindrical
section configured to insert therethrough a joint member for
attaching the main body to a mating member,
wherein the joint section is formed to be asymmetric
about a perpendicular plane which passes through a central axis
of the cylindrical section and which is perpendicular to the
outer wall surface of the main body,
wherein the cylindrical section is equidistant from two
ends of the joint section;
wherein the joint section comprises:
a pair of left and right inclined wall sections
integrally extending from both sides of the cylindrical section
toward to outer wall surface of the main body; and
bored sections respectively formed between each
of the inclined wall sections and the outer wall surface of the
main body, and
wherein the pair of left and right inclined wall sections
are asymmetric in thickness about the perpendicular plane,
wherein bottom wall sections are respectively formed at end
portions of the bored sections to connect the respective inclined
wall sections with the outer wall surface of the main body, and
wherein each of the bottom wall sections is asymmetric
in thickness about the perpendicular plane.
Br. 14—15 (Claims App’x).
2
Appeal 2016-004542
Application 13/701,049
REFERENCES
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
Yanai et al. US 2008/0286988 A1 Nov. 20, 2008
(“Yanai”)
Kanzaka et al. US 7,700,177 B2 Apr. 20, 2010
(“Kanzaka”)
Kobayashi et al. JP 02-225012 Sept. 7, 1990
(“Kobayashi”)3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yanai in view of Kobayashi, and further in view of
Kanzaka. Final Act. 2.
OPINION
Our decision turns on whether specific claim limitations for the joint
section are obvious over the combined references. See Final Act. 3 and
Br. 8.
The Examiner finds that Yanai teaches a cylindrical element that is
centered between the edges of the joint, which has inclined side walls, and
bottom walls that connect and stabilize the inclined sidewalls with the outer
frame of the junction box, but does not address claim 1 ’s requirement that
the inclined side walls and bottom walls are asymmetric in thickness. Final
Act. 2, Ans. 2—3. The Examiner applies Kobayashi to teach moving the
position of the weld from the center line of the fastener cylinder by changing
the volume on either side of the cylinder in order to minimize stress on the
3 We shall follow the Examiner and Appellant by referring to the PTO
translation that was made of record in this case on May 9, 2014.
3
Appeal 2016-004542
Application 13/701,049
weld line. Id. at 2—3; see also Advis. Act. 2 and Ans. 3. The Examiner
applies Kanzaka to teach moving a weld line by changing the relative
thickness of the bottom and side wall portions. Advis. Act. 2—3; Ans. 3^4.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to have made the molded parts of Yanai asymmetrical about a
plane centered on the axis of the cylinder by increasing the volume of the
resin parts on one side of the cylinder, as taught by Kobayashi. The
Examiner further concludes that it would have been obvious to use the
teachings of Kanzaka to increase the volume on one side of the cylinder to
increase the resin flow rate by increasing the thickness of the side member
and bottom wall on one side of the cylinder. Final Act. 3.
Appellants argue that combining the references fails to teach (1)
“wherein the cylindrical section is equidistant from two ends of the joint
section;” (2) “wherein the pair of left and right inclined wall sections are
asymmetric in thickness about the perpendicular plane;” and (3) “wherein
each of the bottom wall sections is asymmetric in thickness about the
perpendicular plane.” Br. 8—11.
We agree that the combined references fail to teach “wherein the
cylindrical section is equidistant from two ends of the joint section.”
Specifically, Kobayashi teaches moving the position of the cylindrical
section from the center of the joint section to a position off center.
Kobayashi Fig. 9. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention, combining the teachings of Kobayashi with those of Yanai,
would not arrive at a cylindrical section that is equidistant from the two ends
of the joint section.
4
Appeal 2016-004542
Application 13/701,049
We also agree with Appellant that the combined references do not
suggest that the pair of left and right inclined wall sections are asymmetric in
thickness about the perpendicular plane, or that the bottom wall sections are
asymmetric in thickness about the perpendicular plane. See Appeal Br. 8.
Kanzaka teaches altering the size of the weld line, but not its location
relative to the central axis of the cylinder. Kanzaka Figs. 2—A and 10—12.
Kanzaka also teaches asymmetry of the side walls relative to the bottoms
walls of the bored sections. Id. Kanzaka does not teach asymmetry of one
side wall relative to the other side wall, or of one bottom wall relative to the
other bottom wall. Id. We find nothing in the references that would
expressly or impliedly teach or suggest asymmetry between the side walls or
asymmetry between the bottom walls.
The Examiner fails to articulate an apparent reason or suggestion that
would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the applied
prior art in such a way as to arrive at the claimed joint section. Thus, the
Examiner fails to make a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he Examiner bears the initial
burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a
prima facie case of unpatentability.”). Therefore, the Examiner errs in
concluding that claim 1 would have been obvious over Yanai in view of
Kobayashi and Kanzaka. Because claims 4 and 5 stand or fall with claim 1,
the Examiner also errs in determining that dependent claims 4 and 5 would
have been obvious over the combined references.
5
Appeal 2016-004542
Application 13/701,049
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, and 5
is reversed.
REVERSED
6