Ex Parte Yilma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2018

15229605 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/229,605 08/05/2016
121691 7590 11/28/2018
Ford Global Technologies, LLC/
King & Schickli, PLLC
800 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 200
Lexington, KY 40503
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Benjamin Yilma
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.
83671925 8746
EXAMINER
VERLEY, NICOLET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/28/2018 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 BENJAMIN YILMA, TRAVIS JUSTIN RAINES,
EDWIN C. CHIU, and CHRISTOPHER DONALD SCHOP
Appeal2018-003593
Application 15/229,605
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11-15, and 17-20. We have jurisdiction over
this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 "[T]he real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies, LLC." (Appeal
Br. 3.)
Appeal2018-003593
Application 15/229,605
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants' invention relates to "an ergonomically improved
safety belt latch plate." (Spec. ,r 1.)
Illustrative Claim
1. A latch plate for a vehicle safety belt, comprising:
a latch plate tongue element; and
a grip element comprising a gripping portion that is held
on a plane that is off set from a plane defined by the latch plate
tongue element;
wherein the grip element is configured whereby the
gripping portion is held at a plane defining an included angle to
a plane defined by an associated safety belt webbing element
when the latch plate tongue element is secured to a safety belt
buckle element.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11-15, and 17-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Ball. 2 (Final Action 2.)
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by the Appellants' arguments that the Examiner
"fail[ s] to adequately establish that Ball teaches all of the recited elements"
of the claims on appeal. (Appeal Br. 10.)
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are the independent claims on appeal, with the rest
of the claims on appeal (i.e., 2, 4--7, 9, 11-13, 15, and 17-20) depending
therefrom. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.) Independent claims 1 and 14
recite a "latch plate for a vehicle safety belt," and independent claim 8
recites a "vehicle safety belt assembly" that includes a "latch plate." (J d.)
2 US 5,222,278, issued June 29, 1993.
2
Appeal2018-003593
Application 15/229,605
The Examiner finds that Ball discloses a vehicle safety belt assembly
including a latch plate. (See Final Action 2.) Ball discloses a safety-belt
system comprising "belt webbing 14," a "tongue assembly 22," and a
"buckle 26." (Ball, col. 3, 11. 10-11, 25-26; see also Fig. 1.) The Examiner
considers Ball's tongue assembly 22 to be the claimed "latch plate." (See
Final Action 2.)
Independent claims 1, 8, and 14 require the latch plate to comprise a
"tongue element" and a "grip element" that has a "gripping portion."
(Appeal Br., Claims App.) Ball's tongue assembly 22 includes a "metal
base 60" and a "plastic body 90" that has a "trailing end portion 100." (Ball,
col. 3, 11. 47, 66-67; col. 4, 1. 26; see also Fig. 2.) The Examiner considers
Ball's metal base 60 to be the claimed "tongue element," Ball's plastic
body 90 to be the claimed "grip element," and Ball's trailing end portion 100
to be the claimed "gripping portion." (See Final Action 2.)
Independent claims 1, 8, and 14 further require the gripping portion to
be 1) "held on a plane that is off set from a plane defined by the latch plate
tongue element," and 2) "held at a plane defining an included angle to a
plane defined by an associated safety belt webbing element when the latch
plate tongue element is secured to a safety belt buckle element." (Appeal
Br., Claims App.) In other words, when the seat belt is buckled, the gripping
portion is held on/at a plane that is 1) parallel to the plane defined by the
tongue element; and 2) non-parallel to the plane defined by the webbing
element. The Examiner finds that Ball discloses, in Figure 5, that the
trailing end portion 100 of Ball's plastic body 90 is held on/at such a plane.
(See Final Action 2.) Non-annotated and annotated versions of Ball's
Figure 5 are reproduced below.
3
Appeal2018-003593
Application 15/229,605
The above drawings show Ball's metal base 60 (i.e., the tongue element)
~ . . - .
secured to Balrs buckle 26 (i,e,. the safety belt buckle element), ln this
' - .
buckled condition, the trailing end portion 100 ofBaH's plastic body 90 is
held on/at a p1ane that is l) parallel to the plane defined by BaWs metal
base 60 (i.e., the tongue element); and 2) parallel to the plane defined by
Ball's belt webbing 14 (i.e., the associated safety belt webbing element).
Thus, Ball does not disclose, in Figure 5, that its purpmied gripping
portion 100 is held at "a plane defining an included angle to a plane defined
by an associated safety belt webbing element when the latch plate tongue
element is secured to a safety belt buckle element" as required by
independent claims 1, 8, and 14. 3
3 As argued by the Appellants (see Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 2-3),
Ball also does not disclose, in Figure 4, that its purported gripping
portion l 00 is held at "a plane defining an included angle to a plane defined
by an associated safety belt webbing element when the latch plate tongue
element is secured to a safety belt buckle element" as required by
independent claims 1, 8, and 14.
4
Appeal2018-003593
Application 15/229,605
The Examiner seems to say that the claimed orientation could be
achieved by "moving" a section of the webbing element 14 (i.e., a torso
section 28) "out of contact" with the plastic body 90. (Answer 3.) But, as
noted by the Appellants, "[t]he analysis of anticipation does not contemplate
reconfiguration of the prior art device." (Reply Br. 3.) And, we agree with
the Appellants that it is "the specific structure/configuration of the grip
element" that causes the non-parallel orientation (i.e., included angle) to
occur "when the latch plate tongue element is secured to a safety belt buckle
element." (Id., emphasis omitted.)
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1, 8, and 14, and the claims depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as anticipated by Ball.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11-15,
and 17-20.
REVERSED
5