Ex Parte Soni Gutierrez et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2018

14959343 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/959,343 12/04/2015
121691 7590 12/19/2018
Ford Global Technologies, LLC/
King & Schickli, PLLC
800 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 200
Lexington, KY 40503
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Luis Humberto Soni Gutierrez
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.
83598373 1047
EXAMINER
DELISLE, ROBERTA S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3677
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2018 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 LUIS HUMBERTO SONI GUTIERREZ,
FRANCISCO RONQUILLO MELENDEZ,
JOSE MANUEL GUZMAN COLIN, and
ENRIQUE GRANELL PENICHE
Appeal2018-004916
Application 14/959,343
Technology Center 3600
Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant, Ford Global Tech., appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--6, 8-10, 12-14, 17 and 20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Appeal2018-004916
Application 14/959,343
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an attachment feature for securing two
parallel workpieces together. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. An attachment feature for securing two workpieces together,
compnsmg:
a first wall having a first tapered end;
a second wall having a second tapered end;
a bridge connecting the first tapered end to the second
tapered end;
a cantilever snap extending between said first wall and
said second wall;
a first lateral rib projecting from said first wall; and
a second lateral rib projecting from said second wall.
REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-10, 12-14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § I02(b) as being anticipated by Arai (US PGP 2004/0238203 Al,
published Dec. 2, 2004).
OPINION
In the Examiner's Answer the Examiner provides annotated figures to
clarify the Examiner's position with regard to how Arai' s device satisfies the
limitations of independent claims 1, 8, and 17. Ans. 4--7. With regard to
claims 1 and 8, Appellant correctly points out that the region of Arai's
device identified by the Examiner as "tapered curved section" is not at the
end of the structure identified by the Examiner as the wall(s). Reply Br. 1.
This section, being curved, is also not apparent and the Examiner provides
no evidence to establish, that this section is reasonably regarded as
2
Appeal2018-004916
Application 14/959,343
"tapered." Further, this section is not connected to the other wall via the
structure identified by the Examiner as "a bridge" (see Ans. 4) as also
required by claims 1 and 8. Appellant argues "Figure 1 of Arai plainly
shows that the '[small] tapered portion' identified by the Examiner comes to
a point and the bridge 15c does not connect the tapered ends." Reply Br. 2.
At best, the figures are inconclusive on this point and Appellant correctly
argues that there is no discussion in Arai regarding the specifics of the
section labeled by the Examiner as the "small tapered section." Reply Br. 2.
Accordingly, the Examiner's position, which appears to be based on the
figures alone, that proximal end 15c connects the portion of Arni's device
labeled by the Examiner as "small tapered section" is too speculative to
serve as a basis for an anticipation rejection. "[T]he precise language of 35
U.S.C. § 102 that '(a) person shall be entitled to a patent unless,' concerning
novelty and unobviousness, clearly places a burden of proof on the Patent
Office which requires it to produce the factual basis for its rejection of an
application under sections 102 and 103." In re Warner 379 F.2d 1011, 1016
(CCPA 1967). Accordingly, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 8, and
of those claims depending therefrom, cannot be sustained.
Turning to method claim 1 7, Appellant and the Examiner express
competing interpretations of Figure 2 of Arai. Cf Ans. 6-7 with Reply Br.
3--4. In the Examiner's view, the structure of Arai labeled as "opposite
sidewalls" hold in the Z-direction (vertically as viewed in Figure 2). Ans. 6-
7. However, Appellant correctly points out that there appears to be a gap
between the so-called "opposite sidewalls" and the perimeter of mounting
hole 9a. Appellant also asserts that Arai attributes hole engagement, and
therefore vertical support, to the guiding bevels. Reply. Br. 4 ( citing Arai
para. 28). Again, at best, Arai is not precisely clear on this point. However,
3
Appeal2018-004916
Application 14/959,343
Arai's description lends more support to Appellant's position than that of the
Examiner. See, e.g., para. 19 ("the abutting surface 16 and the bar 12 clip a
peripheral border of the mounting hole 9a"); see also Arai Figs. 3 and 4
(showing surface 16b engaging hole 9a). As with claims 1 and 8, the
Examiner's position with regard to claim 17 is too speculative to form the
basis for an anticipation rejection. Facts must be established by a
preponderance of the evidence before the PTO may reject the claims of a
patent application. In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674, (Fed.Cir.1985).
Accordingly, the Examiner's rejection of claims 17, and claim 20 depending
therefrom, cannot be sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection is reversed.
REVERSED
4