Ex Parte Bridgeley et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 15, 201713137142 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Claims 10-12 are withdrawn from consideration.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation