Brian Schofield

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 8, 2021

2020003280 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2021)

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.
16/182,528 11/06/2018 Brian Schofield SCHOFIELD_BRIAN.001U_IC 5845
16424 7590 04/08/2021
Bruce A Lev
22276 N 103rd Dr
Peoria, AZ 85383
EXAMINER
PAPE, ZACHARY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2835
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/08/2021 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):
levdoctor@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN SCHOFIELD
Appeal 2020-003280
Application 16/182,528
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 6–9. We have jurisdiction.
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

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 Brian
Schofield. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003280
Application 16/182,528
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to circuit breaker systems containing a circuit
breaker box with multiple colored circuit breakers with identically colored
electrical wires connected thereto. Sole independent claim 6, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
6. An improved circuit breaker system comprising:
a plurality of circuit breakers including:
at least one circuit breaker formed having an orange color;
wherein said orange color is used to represent an area to be
provided electricity chosen from a list of areas to be provided
electricity consisting of construction, research, fiber optics
systems, and auto repair and maintenance;
at least one circuit breaker formed having [a] green color;
wherein said green color is used to represent an area to be
provided electricity chosen from a list of areas to be provided
electricity consisting of a hospital, healthcare, nurse call stations,
and critical circuits;
at least one circuit breaker formed having [a] purple color;
wherein said purple color is used to represent systems to be
provided electricity chosen from a list of systems to be provided
electricity consisting of specialty wiring systems, and security
systems;
at least one circuit breaker formed having [a] red color;
wherein said red color is used to represent systems to be provided
electricity chosen from a list of systems to be provided electricity
consisting of emergency circuits, and fire alarm and security
systems;
at least one circuit breaker formed having [a] yellow color;
wherein said yellow color is used to represent an area to be
provided electricity chosen from a list of areas to be provided
electricity consisting of high voltage wiring, caution, and special
equipment; and
at least one circuit breaker formed having [a] blue color;
wherein said blue color is used to represent systems to be
provided electricity chosen from a list of systems to be provided
electricity consisting of low voltage wiring, data, video
communications, and network security;
Appeal 2020-003280
Application 16/182,528
3
a circuit breaker box;
wherein said circuit breaker box is adapted to securely and
releasably hold said plurality of circuit breakers therein in a
spaced relationship; and
a plurality of electrical wires comprising:
at least one electrical wire formed having an orange color;
wherein said at least one orange colored electrical wire is used
[to] supply power from said at least one orange colored circuit
breaker;
at least one electrical wire formed having [a] green color;
wherein said at least one green colored electrical wire is used [to]
supply power from said at least one green colored circuit breaker;
at least one electrical wire formed having [a] purple color;
wherein said at least one purple colored electrical wire is used
[to] supply power from said at least one purple colored circuit
breaker;
at least one electrical wire formed having [a] red color;
wherein said at least one red colored electrical wire is used [to]
supply power from said at least one red colored circuit breaker;
at least one electrical wire formed having [a] yellow color;
wherein said at least one yellow colored electrical wire is used
[to] supply power from said at least one yellow colored circuit
breaker; and
at least one electrical wire formed having [a] blue color;
wherein said at least one blue colored electrical wire is used [to]
supply power from said at least one blue colored circuit breaker;
wherein when in use said improved circuit breaker system
is adapted to aid in identifying individual circuit breakers and
their respective areas to be provided electricity, such that when
there are technical problems the appropriate circuit breaker or
electrical wire can be more easily identified and the problems
resolved more easily.

REJECTION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6–9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
detailed on pages 2–6 of the Final Office Action dated September 24, 2019
(“Final Act.”).
Appeal 2020-003280
Application 16/182,528
4
In rejecting claim 6, the Examiner finds that Landsberg teaches a
plurality of multi-colored circuit breakers which are color coded logically
based on the devices they protect, as well as a breaker box designed to house
such breakers. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds, however, that Landsberg
does not disclose the specifically claimed colors (e.g., orange, green, purple)
and further does not teach or suggest color coded wires connected to
similarly colored circuit breakers. Id. To address the differences between
Landsberg and claim 1, the Examiner finds Buell discloses that circuit
breakers can be any color, and finds further that Carlson teaches wires that
are color-coded based on their respective electrical functions. Id.
Based on these findings, the Examiner determines it would have been
obvious to combine the teachings of Landsberg and Buell because doing so
would allow Landsberg’s “circuit breakers to have easily distinguishable
colors so as not to confuse the user or technician.” Id. The Examiner also
determines that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of
Landsberg and Carlson such that the wires used in Landsberg are color
coded because “doing so would allow for a user to quickly identify the load
attached to a particular wire,” and would “further allow the color coded
circuit breakers . . . to be correctly affixed to the correct conductor.” Id. at
3–4.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejection for reversible error based on the
arguments and evidence presented by Appellant. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the Examiner had failed to make a prima
Appeal 2020-003280
Application 16/182,528
5
facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”). Appellant focuses
its arguments on claim 6. Appeal Br. 5–6. Therefore, consistent with our
rule, we select claim 6 and decide this appeal on the basis of claim 6 alone.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant argues that Carlson’s colored wires do not connect to circuit
breakers or to an electrical item that is color-coded to be matched to such
wire. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant also asserts that Landsberg does not
specifically state that its multi-colored circuit breaker is logically based on
the devices that the breakers protect, and also “has no guide or index to
explain color representation to devices being protected.” Id. Appellant
contends Buell gives “no sense of why a specific color is used or what it
represents.” Id. Appellant concludes by asserting that there is no motivation
to combine the teachings of the Landsberg, Carlson, and Buell references.
Id. at 6.
We are unpersuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claim 6 for
the reasons well-stated by the Examiner. Final Act. 2–7; Ans. 3–7. We add
the following for emphasis only. While Appellant’s arguments address the
individual teachings of the relied-upon prior art, the obviousness inquiry
does not end there. Rather, the references “must be read, not in isolation,
but for what [they] fairly teach[] in combination with the prior art as a
whole.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The test for obviousness is
what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art.”). This reference-by-reference approach is
particularly problematic here because Appellant asserts that a given
reference does not teach an aspect of the claim for which that reference was
Appeal 2020-003280
Application 16/182,528
6
not relied upon. Compare Appeal Br. 5 (arguing Buell fails to teach
“specific designations of use” for specific colors), with Final Act. 3 (finding
that choosing specific colors to represent specific loads is an obvious design
choice). Moreover, Appellant does not direct us to any erroneous factual
findings by the Examiner based on the prior art of record.
Because Appellant fails to identify reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection, we sustain it.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis  Affirmed Reversed
6−9 103 Landsberg, Buell,
Carlson
6−9

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED