13681270 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2019)

Don E. Hinderliter

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 11, 2019

13681270 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 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. 13/681,270 11/19/2012 Don E. Hinderliter II HINDR0002.C1US 6000 91219 7590 12/11/2019 Tompkins P.C. 202 W. Main Street Suite 200, Box#12 Allen, TX 75013 EXAMINER CUOMO, PETER M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3673 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/11/2019 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DON E. HINDERLITER II ____________________ Appeal 2018-000363 Application 13/681,270 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, SCOTT C. MOORE, and FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7–13, 15, and 16 (entered Aug. 9, 2016, “Final Act.”).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 Don E. Hinderliter, II and Terry Riley as the real parties in interest. Appeal Br. 5. 2 The Examiner has found claims 17–20 to be allowable. Final Act. 10. Additionally, the Examiner objects to claims 6 and 14 “as being dependent upon a rejected base claims,” but indicates these claims “would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.” Id. Appeal 2018-000363 Application 13/681,270 2 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention “is generally directed towards a device to aid in the securing of an infant child in a user’s lap.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below with italics to highlight the claim element in dispute, and is representative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A device for conveniently and safely supporting an infant on the lap of a user comprising: an infant support panel having a first edge and a second edge, wherein the infant support panel is configured to be flexible at one or more location between the first edge and the second edge and wherein at least a portion of the infant support panel comprises a soft and flexible material; a leg attachment strap having two or more attachment points, wherein a first attachment point is attached to the first edge of the infant support panel and wherein a second attachment point is attached to a first fastener; and a second fastener attached to the second edge of the infant support panel, wherein the first fastener and the second fastener are configured to be selectively fastened to each other and to selectively fasten the leg attachment strap under and around the legs of a user. REJECTIONS References Basis Claims Rejected Stirling3 § 102(b) 1–5, 10–13, 15, 16 Stirling § 103(a) 3 Stirling, Parkinson4 § 103(a) 7–9 3 US 5,937,765, iss. Aug. 17, 1999 (“Stirling”). 4 US 2003/0071184 A1, pub. Apr. 17, 2003 (“Parkinson”). Appeal 2018-000363 Application 13/681,270 3 ANALYSIS I. Section 102(b) Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 1–5, 10–13, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Stirling discloses each recited element. Final Act. 3–7. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred because Stirling fails to disclose an infant support panel “configured to be flexible at one or more location between the first edge and the second edge,” as independent claims 1 and 13 recite. Appeal Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 6–7. Appellant’s argument is persuasive. The Examiner refers to Figure 3 from Stirling, reproduced below, to show an infant support panel that is configured to be flexible at one or more location between the first edge and the second edge. Final Act. 3; Ans. 4. Figure 3 above depicts “the manner in which [a laptop supporting apparatus] engages the person’s leg so as to provide a stable support platform for the Appeal 2018-000363 Application 13/681,270 4 laptop computer which is mountable thereto.” Stirling 2:53–56. The Examiner identifies elements 20, 24, 34, 30, 38, 42a, and 42b as showing the claimed infant support panel, which is configured to be flexible at one or more location between the first edge and the second edge. Final Act. 3; Ans. 4. In particular, the Examiner identifies “at, near, or on pad portion 24 or the fabric covering” as evidence of a flexible location between the first edge and the second edge of the support panel. Id. Sterling identifies “the principle components” of the disclosed apparatus as including “a planar support plate portion 20, an adjustable leg band portion 22, and a contoured leg pad portion 24.” Sterling 3:21–24. Stirling states that the planar support panel is not flexible, the plate portion 20 of the assembly has an internal, rigid panel member 30 which forms a rectangular, planar top surface 32 which corresponds generally to the bottom surface of a conventional laptop computer, such as that shown in FIG. 1; the panel member 30 may be formed of any suitable, preferably substantially rigid material, such as rigid plastic, fiberglass, metal, wood, or pressboard, for example. Stirling 3:29–36. Appellant argues, “[s]ince the rigid panel member 30 is not flexible, the panel is not flexible,” regardless of the properties of the other portions of Sterling’s disclosed apparatus. We agree. The Examiner’s reliance on Stirling’s leg pad portion 24 for disclosing the recited panel flexibility (see Final Act. 3; Ans. 3–4) is not persuasive because the pad portion 24 does not render Stirling’s panel member 30 any less rigid. The Examiner’s identification of the “contoured leg pad portion 24” as being part of the support panel Sterling discloses is unpersuasive because Sterling states expressly that this is a different component of the assembly forming the apparatus taught. Sterling teaches Appeal 2018-000363 Application 13/681,270 5 that the design of pad portion is to comfortably stabilize the planar support plate on the upper surface of a person’s upper leg, which suggests a skilled artisan would consider the pad portion a different component because the design considerations are different from those of the planar support plate, which is to support a laptop computer. See Sterling 3:62–4:25. There is insufficient evidence in this record to support the Examiner’s finding that a skilled artisan would recognize the contoured leg pad portion to be the support panel that Sterling discloses. As a result, a preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner’s finding that Sterling discloses a support panel “configured to be flexible at one or more location between the first edge and the second edge,” as independent claims 1 and 13 recite. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 13, as well as claims 2–5, 10–12, 15, and 16 depending therefrom, as being anticipated by Sterling. II. Section 103(a) Rejections The Examiner’s rejections of claim 3 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Stirling, as well as claims 7–9 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Stirling and Parkinson, each depend on the Examiner’s finding that Stirling anticipates independent claim 1. See Final Act. 7–10. Therefore, because we do not sustain the Examiner’s finding that Stirling discloses each of the recited limitations of claim 1, we also do not sustain the Examiner rejections of claims 3 and 7–9. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections claims 1–5, 7–13, 15, and 16 are reversed. Appeal 2018-000363 Application 13/681,270 6 DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected Basis Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 10– 13, 15, 16 § 102(b) Stirling 1–5, 10–13, 15, 16 3 § 103(a) Stirling 3 7–9 § 103(a) Stirling, Parkinson 7–9 Overall Outcome 1–5, 7–13, 15, 16 REVERSED