Ex Parte Bridgeley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2017

13137142 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2017)

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.
13/137,142 07/22/2011 Rowan Bridgeley SCS-5065-121 9801
23117 7590 06/19/2017
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
MASINICK, JONATHAN PETER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/19/2017 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROWAN BRIDGELEY and JOHN HOBDAY
Appeal 2015-007571
Application 13/137,142
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Rowan Bridgeley and John Hobday (“Appellants”)1 seek our review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the Final
Office Action dated February 6, 2014 (hereinafter “Final Act.”), rejecting
claims 1-8 and 13-19. Claims 10-12 are withdrawn from consideration.2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Airbus Operations Limited as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief 4 (July 7, 2014) (hereinafter “Appeal Br.”).
2 Appellants separately filed a petition to the Commissioner for Patents
seeking review of the restriction requirement that led to withdrawal of
Appeal 2015-007571
Application 13/137,142
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ claimed subject matter “relates to a single-sided fitting.”
Spec. 1,1. 4. Claims 1, 7, and 13 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below.
1. A single-sided fitting comprising:
a shaft with two or more axially extending legs, each leg
having a catch which extends radially outwardly from the leg;
a clamping plate with two or more holes each receiving a
respective one of the legs;
a projection which is carried by the clamping plate and
extends axially between the legs towards the catches, the
clamping plate and projection being axially movable along the
shaft to a locking position where the projection is positioned
between the catches thus preventing the catches from moving
radially inwardly; and
means for preventing the clamping plate and projection
from withdrawing back along the shaft away from the catches
after they have been moved to the locking position.
Appeal Br. 28 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
The Final Office Action includes the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 4-6, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Chapman (US 4,694,544, issued September 22,
1987).
claims 10-12. Appeal Br. 13. Appellants’petition remains pending at the
time of this Decision. The Examiner has not rejected withdrawn claims 10-
12, and these claims are not the subject of this appeal. Examiner’s Answer 2
(July 2, 2015) (hereinafter “Ans.”); Reply Brief 1 n.l (August 17, 2015)
(hereinafter “Reply Br.”).
2
Appeal 2015-007571
Application 13/137,142
2. Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 13-15, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Chapman and Finkelstein
(US 6,467,989 Bl, issued October 22, 2002).
ANALYSIS
First Ground of Rejection: Claims 1, 4-6, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Chapman
Appellants argue the claims subject to the first ground of rejection as a
group. Appeal Br. 16-25. We select claim 1 as representative of the group,
with claims 4-6 and 16 standing or falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41,37(c)(l)(iv). In particular, Appellants contend that the Examiner erred
in finding that Chapman discloses several elements of independent claim 1.
We address each contention in turn below.
“single-sided fitting ”
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Chapman’s
releasable connector is a single-sided fitting. Appeal Br. 18. Appellants
contend that the Specification contains a definition of “single-sided fitting”
and that phrase describes “a fitting which can be inserted and removed from
a single side.” Id.', see also Reply Br. 2-3. We disagree that the
Specification contains an explicit definition of “single-sided fitting.” Even
were we to adopt Appellants’ definition, however, we find no error in the
Examiner’s determination that the male member 12 and locking ring 16 of
Chapman, in combination, constitute a “single-sided fitting.”
In employing the male element 12 and locking ring 16, as disclosed in
Chapman, one requires access only to the front side of the structure (e.g.,
female member 14) to which the male element 12 is fitted. Chapman, col. 4,
11. 7-21 (describing insertion of male element 12 by squeezing together
3
Appeal 2015-007571
Application 13/137,142
prong ends 30 so that male detent elements 40 are able to pass through
female opening 46 and thereafter resiliently separate to their normal spaced
apart condition as shown in Figure 4); id. at col. 5,11. 8-14 (describing
sliding locking ring 14 along male element 12 from an unlocked position,
shown in Figure 1, to a locking position, shown in Figure 4, where web 58 is
interposed between prong ends 30); id. at col. 5,11. 57-63, col. 6,11. 30-35
(describing an embodiment in which the male member 12 is removed by
sliding locking ring 16 to the unlocked position and then squeezing together
prong ends 30).
Appellants further argue that “[tjhere is simply no disclosure of the
connector disclosed in Chapman being fixed to a panel nor is there any
mechanism for fixing the connector to a panel.” Appeal Br. 18. Claim 1
does not limit the single-sided fitting to a fitting used for attachment to a
panel. The Specification describes that the single-sided fitting is for
attaching to “a structure.” Spec. 2,11. 3—4. The Specification describes that
“[t]he structure may comprise a panel, a pair of panels which are fastened
together by a fitting, or any other structure.'1'’ Id. at 2,11. 1-2 (emphasis
added). Chapman’s female member 14, to which male element 12 and
locking ring 16 are fitted, is a “structure” as described in Appellants’
Specification. Accordingly, we discern no error in the Examiner’s finding
that Chapman’s male element 12 and locking ring 16 constitute the claimed
“single-sided fitting.”
“clamping plate ”
Appellants contend that Chapman’s locking ring 16 is not the claimed
“clamping plate” because “locking ring 16 provides no clamping pressure”
and “does not meet the ‘clamping plate’ definition in the [Specification in
4
Appeal 2015-007571
Application 13/137,142
which it provides pressure on the surface in which the claimed ‘single-sided
fitting’ is to be employed.” Appeal Br. 19—20 (citing Spec. 3,11. 1—4). We
disagree that the Specification provides an explicit definition of “clamping
plate.” Rather, the portion of the Specification cited by Appellants provides
an example of a clamping plate, but does not provide a definition or require
a narrow construction of “clamping plate” to provide a clamping pressure on
the surface of the structure in which the fitting is employed. Rather, we
understand that the clamping plate and projection interact with the catches
on the legs to lock the fitting to the structure in which the fitting is
employed. Chapman’s locking ring 16, through interaction of its web 58
with prong ends 30, locks male member 12 to the structure (female member
14) in which the fitting is employed.
Even were one to draw an inference from the word “clamping” that
the claimed plate must provide pressure on the surface in which the single­
sided fitting is to be employed, we find that locking ring 16 of Chapman is
capable of providing such pressure were it used with a panel. Claim 1 is not
directed to a single-sided fitting in combination with a structure. In fact,
claim 1 does not recite the word “structure” and is directed solely to the
single-sided fitting. Thus, to anticipate claim 1, all that is necessary is that
Chapman disclose the elements of the fitting of claim 1. Although Chapman
discloses the use of male element 12 and locking ring 16 in combination
with female member 14, wherein locking ring 16 does not appear to provide
a clamping force to the female member’s front surface (i.e., the side of
female member 14 facing male element 12 when the two are combined),
were male member 12 and locking ring 16 used in conjunction with a panel,
locking ring 16 would provide clamping force against the front surface of
5
Appeal 2015-007571
Application 13/137,142
the panel and detent members 40 at ends of prongs 30 would provide an
opposite clamping force to the rear surface of the panel. See, e.g., Chapman,
Fig. 4 (showing gap between right end of locking ring 16 and detent
shoulders 42). As such, we see no structural distinction between the claimed
“clamping plate” and Chapman’s locking ring 16.
Appellants further assert that “plate” should be interpreted to mean a
substantially flat plate with holes. Reply Br. 3—4 (citing Spec. 5,11. 23-27
and a dictionary definition of “plate”). The portion of the Specification cited
by Appellants describes that the clamping plate 20 applies a compressive
force to the front face of the panel. Spec. 5,11. 23-27. Chapman’s locking
ring 16 has a flat front face and, thus, it is flat. Chapman’s locking ring 16
also has holes for receiving the prongs 28 of male member 14. Chapman,
Fig. 5. The fact that Chapman’s locking ring 16 may be thicker than the
Specification’s clamping plate 20 does not detract from the ability of locking
ring 16 to apply pressure to the front surface of the structure to which the
male member 12 is fitted. As such, Appellants have not demonstrated error
in the Examiner’s finding that Chapman’s locking ring 16 is a “clamping
plate” as recited in claim 1.
“means for preventing ”
Claim 1 recites “means for preventing the clamping plate and
projection from withdrawing back along the shaft away from the catches
after they have been moved to the locking position.” Appeal Br. 28 (Claims
App.). As noted by the Examiner (Ans. 6), the Specification discloses
several structures for preventing the clamping plate and projection from
withdrawing back along the shaft, including an internally threaded nut, a
series of resilient teeth on the shaft, a series of rigid teeth on the shaft
6
Appeal 2015-007571
Application 13/137,142
engaged by a resilient catch on the clamping plate, or a coil spring or other
resilient means. Spec. 3,11. 5-16. The Examiner finds that Chapman’s nub
66 is an equivalent structure to those disclosed in Appellants’ Specification
for performing the recited function. Ans. 6. We agree.
Chapman discloses a detent nub 66 that prevents locking ring 16 and
web 58 from withdrawing back along the shaft away from detent flanges 40
and detent shoulders 42 after they have been moved to the locking position.
Detent nub 66 appears to be resiliently attached to male member 12 so that
locking ring 16 can be slid over top of nub 66 when locking ring 16 is in a
retracted position, as shown in Figure 1. Thus, Chapman’s nub 66 operates
in a similar fashion to the “teeth” disclosed in Appellants’ Specification.
Appellants argue that Chapman’s nub 66 “keeps the ring from sliding
back, but there is no clamping plate interrelationship being provided by the
purported locking ring 16 or the detent nub 66.” Appeal Br. 21. This
argument is based on the alleged error in the Examiner’s finding that
Chapman’s locking ring 16 is a clamping plate. For the reasons discussed
supra, this argument does not demonstrate error in the Examiner’s findings.
“projection is positioned between the catches ”
Claim 1 recites “a projection which is carried by the clamping plate
and extends axially between the legs towards the catches, the clamping plate
and projection being axially movable along the shaft to a locking position
where the projection is positioned between the catches thus preventing the
catches from moving radially inwardly.” Appeal Br. 28 (Claims App.). The
Examiner finds that Chapman’s web 58 is carried by locking ring 16 and
extends axially between prong ends 30 towards catches 42. Ans. 7. The
Examiner states that “the claim language only requires that the clamping
7
Appeal 2015-007571
Application 13/137,142
plate is ‘moveable’ to a locked position where the projection is positioned
between the catches.” Id. at 8. The Examiner finds that “the clamping plate
of Chapman is indeed moveable along the legs of the shaft to a position
(rightward of the position of element 16 in [Fjigure 4) where the projection
would be aligned or directly between the catches of the legs.” Id. We agree
with the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim language and finding.
The claim requires only that the clamping plate is movable to the
recited position between the catches. Although locking ring 16 and web 58
are shown in Figure 4 to be in a locking position located to the left of the
detent flanges 40 and detent shoulders 42, there is nothing structurally
preventing locking ring 16 from being moved to a position rightward of the
position shown in Figure 4 such that web 58 would be positioned between
detent flanges 40 and detent shoulders 42. Accordingly, Appellants have not
demonstrated error in the Examiner’s finding that Chapman’s web 58 meets
the elements of the projection of claim 1.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants have not demonstrated
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1, and claims 4-6 and 16, which fall with claim 1, under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Chapman.
Second Ground of Rejection: Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 13-15, and 17-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chapman andFinkelstein
Claims 2 and 3
Claims 2 and 3 depend from claim 1. Appellants do not present any
arguments directed specifically to these claims. Appeal Br. 23 (arguing that
“Appellants] ha[ve] not addressed the Finkelstein reference because the
Examiner does not allege that Finkelstein teaches any of the features set out
8
Appeal 2015-007571
Application 13/137,142
in the comparison table discussion of claims 1,7,... and 13.”). As such,
Appellants rely on the arguments presented in support of independent claim
1 as the basis for the patentability of dependent claims 2 and 3. Id. For the
reasons discussed above, we do not find error in the rejection of claim 1.
Accordingly, we likewise sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2 and 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chapman and Finkelstein.
Claims 7, 8, and 18
Appellants present the same arguments as for claim 1 regarding the
“single-sided fitting,” “clamping plate,”3 and “means for preventing” to
argue for reversal of the rejection of independent claim 7. Appeal Br. 17-
21, 23. For the reasons discussed above, we do not find error in the
Examiner’s findings that Chapman discloses these limitations of claim 7.
Appellants further argue generally that the Examiner “provides no
‘analysis’ as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would pick and choose
elements from the prior art and then combine them in the manner of
Appellants’] claims.” Id. at 24 (arguing the Examiner provided only a
“conclusory statement”). Contrary to Appellants’ assertion, the Examiner
3 Claim 7 explicitly recites that “the clamping plate applies a compressive
force to the front face of the structure, and the catches applying a
compressive force to the rear face of the structure.” Appeal Br. 29 (Claims
App.). As discussed above, were Chapman’s male member 12 and locking
ring 16 used with a panel, the front face of locking ring 16 would apply a
compressive force to the front face of the panel and the detent shoulders 42
would apply a compressive force to the rear face of the panel. See, e.g.,
Chapman, Fig. 4 (showing gap between forwardmost end of locking ring 16
and detent shoulders 42). Further, the Examiner proposed to modify
Chapman with the internally threaded nut of Finkelstein to apply the claimed
compressive force to the front face of the structure. Final Act. 10.
9
Appeal 2015-007571
Application 13/137,142
did provide an analysis as to the proposed combination. Specifically, the
Examiner stated:
[I]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time of invention to have modified Chapman such that
the retaining detent (66) is replaced by an internally threaded nut
and the shaft is externally threaded along a section to carry the
internally threaded nut, as taught by Finkelstein, applying a
compressive force to the front face of the structure and the
catches applying a compressive force to the rear face of the
structure for the purpose of compressing a locking ring in a
locking state. The Examiner notes that the tightening of the nut
that compresses the clamping member on the structure would
also compress the catches to the rear face of the structure.
Final Act. 10. Appellants’ generic argument fails to demonstrate error in the
rejection because it does not specifically address the Examiner’s stated
reason to modify Chapman with the teaching of Finkelstein to result in the
claimed invention.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 7, and claims 8
and 18, which were not argued separately from claim 7 (Appeal Br. 23),
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chapman and Finkelstein.
Claims 13-15, 17, and 19
Appellants present the same argument presented for claim 1 regarding
the “single-sided fitting” to argue for reversal of the rejection of claim 13.
Appeal Br. 17-19. For the reasons discussed above, we do not find error in
the Examiner’s findings that Chapman discloses this element of claim 13.
Claim 13 recites a “washer” in place of a “clamping plate” and recites
an “internally threaded nut which is carried by the shaft” in place of the
“means for preventing” of claim 1. Appeal Br. 30 (Claims App.).
Appellants argue that Chapman does not discloses that “the nut can be spun
along the shaft to retain the washer in said locking position.” Appeal Br.
10
Appeal 2015-007571
Application 13/137,142
20-21 (arguing that “there is no clamping plate interrelationship being
provided by the purported locking ring 16 or the detent nub 66”). These
arguments are not persuasive, because as pointed out by the Examiner
(Ans. 6-7), the Examiner relied on the proposed modification of Chapman to
substitute the internally threaded nut 36 of Finkelstein for the detent nub 66
of Chapman, to render obvious this claimed subject matter.
Appellants further argue that “Chapman’s cylindrical locking ring is
not a washer because it is not flat and is not fixed under a nut.” Reply Br. 4.
First, as discussed above in the analysis of claim 1, Chapman’s locking ring
has a flat face that is capable of applying a compressing force. Second,
Appellants’ argument fails to address the Examiner’ proposed modification
of Chapman with Finkelstein, which would result in a washer and nut
arrangement as claimed.
As with claim 7, Appellants further argue generally that the Examiner
“provides no ‘analysis’ as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would pick
and choose elements from the prior art and then combine them in the manner
of Appellants’] claims.” App. Br. 24 (arguing the Examiner provided only
a “conclusory statement”). For the reasons discussed above, we do not find
this generic argument persuasive of error.
With regard to claim 13, the Examiner responded in the Answer:
Examiner notes, for argument’s sake, that Finkelstein teaches a
threaded nut connection to fasten and tighten the connection of a
fitting to a panel and that it would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art to have simply substituted one
well-known structural equivalent for another well-known
structural equivalent.
Ans. 7 (citing KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)).
Appellants reply that “[t]he rejection does not explain how the substitution is
11
Appeal 2015-007571
Application 13/137,142
possible or why a person of ordinary skill would have made such a
substitution.” Reply Br. 4 (“it is not seen how a detent nub could be
converted to a nut”).
We find that the Examiner’s reasoning is supported by rational
underpinnings. As noted in Appellants’ Specification, there are many
conventional ways to fix a plate or washer along a shaft. Spec. 3,11. 5-16.
Chapman uses a detent nub 66 to prevent locking ring 16 from moving
rearwardly along the shaft of male member 12. The Examiner pointed to
Finkelstein’s use of a threaded nut as evidence of another conventional
means to achieve the same function. Final Act. 11. We agree with the
Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious, as a matter of
simple substitution of one known means for another, to replace Chapman’s
nub 66 with a threaded nut, in view of Finkelstein. Id. at 11-12.
For these reasons, Appellants have not demonstrated error in the
rejection of claim 13. Appellants do not argue dependent claims 14, 15, 17,
and 19 separately from claim 13. App. Br. 23. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claims 13-15, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chapman and Finkelstein.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-8 and 13-19 are affirmed.
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
12