Shunmugam Baskar et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 31, 2019

14967464 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2019)

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.
14/967,464 12/14/2015 Shunmugam BASKAR 83602349 3511
28395 7590 10/31/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
KELLER, BRIAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2019 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SHUNMUGAM BASKAR,
MICHAEL J. GARDYNIK, CHRISTOPHER POPE,
CHRISTINA DUNG NGUYEN, and
VENKATASAMY VELUCHAMY
____________________

Appeal 2018-005422
Application 14/967,464
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, JAMES P. CALVE, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.

DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–4 and 7–10. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-005422
Application 14/967,464
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an adjustable and flexible hood panel
support. Claims 1 and 9 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus comprising:
first and second pairs of legs attached to spaced locations
on right and left sides of an engine compartment and connected
at an upper portion of the legs; and
a support bar connected to the upper portion of the first
and second pairs of legs extends transversely across the engine
compartment and configured to support a hood, the support bar
defining a hood striker receiving area and a pair of landing pads.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Racicot
Hodges
US 4,253,210
US 5,556,084
Mar. 3, 1981
Sept. 17, 1996
Gagnon US 2012/0242022 A1 Sept. 27, 2012

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3 and 7–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as
being anticipated by Gagnon.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Gagnon and Hodges.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over
Gagnon and Racicot.

Appeal 2018-005422
Application 14/967,464
3
OPINION
Independent claims 1 and 9 both require: “first and second pairs of
legs attached to spaced locations on right and left sides of an engine
compartment.” The Examiner finds that the apparatus of Gagnon is capable
of being attached to spaced locations on the sides of an engine compartment,
but that the claim does not require the apparatus to be connected to the
engine compartment. Ans. 6–7; Final Act. 3, 7. The Examiner also finds
that the attachment is only an intended use of the claimed apparatus and an
“engine compartment” is not required by the claim. Ans. 7.
In contrast, Appellant argues that “the claims require that the
apparatus is actually ‘attached to spaced locations on right and left sides of
an engine compartment.’” Appeal Br. 3. Thus, it is argued, as the
“apparatus of Gagnon is [not] itself connected to sides of the engine
compartment,” it does not anticipate claims 1 and 9. Id.
Appellant also points to the above mentioned limitation and the
claimed limitation of “a support bar . . . extends transversely across the
engine compartment,” as evidence that the “engine compartment” is
positively claimed and not merely related to the intended use. Reply 2–3.
We agree with Appellant that an engine compartment is required by
claims 1 and 9. Though the engine compartment is not claimed in a
straightforward manner, we determine that the claims require that the first
and second pairs of legs be attached to an engine compartment and that the
support bar extends transversely across the engine compartment. As such,
an engine compartment is a required element of the claims, and it is
necessary that the pairs of legs and support bar of the prior art be so
positioned with respect to the engine compartment in order to satisfy all of
Appeal 2018-005422
Application 14/967,464
4
the limitations of the claims, just as an accused infringing product also must
include these features in order to infringe the claims.
For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims
1 and 9, or the rejections of the dependent claims which all depend on the
same reasoning.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 7–10 102(a)(2) Gagnon 1–3, 7–10
4 103 Gagnon, Hodges 4
8 103 Gagnon, Racicot 8
Overall Outcome 1–4, 7–10

REVERSED