Shibao, Fu et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 28, 2020

15240306 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2020)

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.
15/240,306 08/18/2016 Fu Shibao 83700256 4219
121691 7590 01/28/2020
Ford Global Technologies, LLC/
King & Schickli, PLLC
800 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 200
Lexington, KY 40503
EXAMINER
GUTMAN, HILARY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2020 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):
laura@iplaw1.net
uspto@iplaw1.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FU SHIBAO, XUE ZHI JIN, and
XU WEI
Appeal 2019-004620
Application 15/240,306
Technology Center 3600

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7 and 10.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford
Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Although claims 8 and 9 are pending (see Appeal Br., Claims App.), the
Examiner does not reject these claims, but instead objects to claims 8 and 9,
indicating that the claims recite allowable subject matter (see Final
Action 5).
Appeal 2019-004620
Application 15/240,306

2
According to Appellant, the “invention relates to a vehicle interior
trim assembly and a method of forming the same.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1 is the
sole independent claim on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as
representative of the appealed claims:
1. An interior trim assembly of a vehicle extending along
a width direction and a height direction, comprising:
a headliner including a substrate and a cover together
defining a folded portion, wherein a first cross-section of the
folded portion along the width direction includes a first cover
portion and a second cover portion and a first substrate portion
of the substrate positioned between the first cover portion and the
second cover portion.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1–4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as anticipated
by Kring et al. (US 8,641,136 B2, iss. Feb. 4, 2014) (“Kring”);
II. Claims 5–7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Kring and Nagel (US 3,097,015, iss. July 9, 1963); and
III. Claims 1–7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Nagel and Kring.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I—Anticipation rejection
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites the following:
1. An interior trim assembly of a vehicle extending along
a width direction and a height direction, comprising:
a headliner including a substrate and a cover together
defining a folded portion, wherein a first cross-section of the
folded portion along the width direction includes a first cover
portion and a second cover portion and a first substrate portion
Appeal 2019-004620
Application 15/240,306

3
of the substrate positioned between the first cover portion and the
second cover portion.
Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added).
Essentially, Appellant and the Examiner disagree as to whether the
independent claim requires either 1) that the cover includes a first cover
portion and a second cover portion (i.e., whether the cover portions are
portions of the same one-piece cover), or 2) first and second cover portions
that may be separate parts from one another. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 11
(“[Kring’s] cover 134 and . . . trim ring 144 are separate components.
Simply stated, . . . trim ring 144 is not a portion of . . . cover 134 but a
separate element.”); see Answer 6 (“[Appellant’s] argument is not
persuasive because the claim recites only ‘a first cover portion’ and ‘a
second cover portion’ and makes no recitation that the two portions cannot
be separate. In other words, nothing in the claim mandates that the two
portions be connected, one piece, or integral with one another in any way.”).
We note that claim 1 does not expressly recite, for example, that “the
cover includes a first cover portion and a second cover portion.”
Nonetheless, when we interpret the above italicized portion of claim 1, based
on Appellant’s Specification, we determine that the first and second cover
portions are portions of the same one-piece cover. Regarding claim 1 itself,
the claim first recites a cover, and then recites first and second cover
portions. Appeal Br., Claims App. (Claim 1). Thus, the claim at least
implies that these first and second cover portions are portions of the same
one-piece cover. Further, Appellant’s Specification illustrates and describes
the first and second cover portions as portions of the same one-piece cover,
while using essentially the same language as claim 1. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 16
(“Figure 3 illustratively depicts an enlarged partial cross-sectional view
Appeal 2019-004620
Application 15/240,306

4
of . . . headliner 110 and the side body trim 240. As illustrated in
Figure 3, . . . headliner 110 includes . . . substrate 232 and . . . cover 234
together defining . . . folded portion 210 to interface . . . side body trim 240,
where . . . first cross-section Q1Q2Q3Q4 of . . . folded portion 210 along the
width direction W includes first and second cover portions 330, 332 of . . .
cover 234 and . . . first substrate portion 342 of . . . substrate 232 positioned
between . . . first cover portion 330 and . . . second cover portion 332.”)
(emphases added). Conversely, there is no indication in Appellant’s
Specification or drawings that the cover portions are contemplated as
separate parts.
Thus, based on the foregoing, claim 1 requires that a substrate is
positioned between first and second cover portions of a one-piece cover.
Kring discloses substrate 132 positioned between cover material 134 and
trim ring 144 that is not a portion of cover material 134. See, e.g., Appeal
Br. 10–11; see, e.g., Answer 3–4. Therefore, we do not sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2–4 that depend from claim 1,
based on Kring.

Rejections II and III—Obviousness rejections
Both of the Examiner’s obviousness rejections rely on Kring to
disclose a substrate positioned between first and second cover portions. See,
e.g., Answer 4–5. For the reasons discussed supra, the Examiner errs by
relying on Kring to disclose this claim recitation. Therefore, we do not
sustain any of the obviousness rejections of claims 1–7 and 10.
Appeal 2019-004620
Application 15/240,306

5
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness
rejections of claims 1–7 and 10.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) Kring 1–4
5–7, 10 103 Kring, Nagel 5–7, 10
1–7, 10 103 Nagel, Kring 1–7, 10
Overall
Outcome
1–7, 10
REVERSED