Ex Parte Dalton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 14, 2016

13523318 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/523,318 06/14/2012
22827 7590 07114/2016
DORITY & MANNING, P.A.
POST OFFICE BOX 1449
GREENVILLE, SC 29602-1449
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert E. Dalton JR.
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
CXP-143-DIV 4916
EXAMINER
MILLS, CHRISTINE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3675
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2016 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 ROBERT E. DALTON JR. and MATTHEW GREINER
Appeal2014-005999
Application 13/523,318
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Robert E. Dalton Jr. and Matthew Greiner ("Appellants") 1 appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ramsauer (US 7,695,029 B2, iss.
Apr. 13, 2010), and rejecting claims 4--13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ramsauer and Anastasiadis (US 2008/0134733 Al, pub.
June 12, 2008). The Board has jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies CompX International Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2014-005999
Application 13/523,318
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 9 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter
on appeal, and it recites:
1. A cam lock for locking an enclosure, comprising:
a cam lock assembly receivable in an enclosure to be
locked thereby;
a locking bar supported on said cam lock assembly and
positioned so as to be actuated thereby relative to said enclosure
to be locked; and
a stop pad of selected thickness removably supported on
said locking bar, for adjustment of such locking bar actuation
relative to said enclosure, whereby the fit and function of said
cam lock relative to said enclosure is adjustable.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.).
ANALYSIS
A. Anticipation by Ramsauer---Claims 1-3
Appellants argue for the patentability of claims 1-3 together as one
group. Appeal Br. 4--8. We select claim 1 to decide the appeal of this
rejection, with claims 2 and 3 standing or falling with claim 1. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds Ramsauer discloses the claimed cam lock
assembly as including closure driveshaft 24, and the claimed locking bar as
bolt 26. Final Act. 2; see Ramsauer, Fig. IA, 2:59---63. The Examiner finds
Ramsauer discloses the claimed stop pad at pin head 68, having a "selected
thickness (please note any single thickness is a selected thickness)." Final
Act. 2. The Examiner finds stop pad 68 is removably supported on locking
bar 26. Id.
2
Appeal2014-005999
Application 13/523,318
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding stop pad 68 has a
"selected thickness" and is "removably supported on" locking bar 26, as
claimed. Appeal Br. 4--8. As to the selected thickness, Appellants assert
Ramsauer's back-engaging device 34 (which includes a pin with rounded
head 68) is a "single" device having "no specifically selected thickness." Id.
at 6 (emphasis removed). Appellants contend Ramsauer adjusts the distance
between stop pad 68 and surface 36 by rotating bolt 26, which threadedly
receives driveshaft 24 within a bore. Id. at 6-7 (citing Ramsauer, 2:65----67,
3: 1-34). In Appellants' view, based on that disclosed adjustment, "there is
no logical reasoning which would support provision of a stop pad of selected
thickness" in Ramsauer, because Ramsauer "has a completely different
mechanism and approach to providing elements for providing a stop
function." Id. at 7.
The Examiner responds that "no adjustment feature in the context of
the stop pad is" recited in claim 1. Ans. 4--5. According to the Examiner,
the recitation "for adjustment ... enclosure" in claim 1 "is an intended use
statement and does not further limit the structural features of the stop pad."
Id. at 5. The Examiner further finds Ramsauer "does teach adjustability
within the cam lock assembly as a whole." Id. The Examiner also finds
Ramsauer' s "element 68 certainly has a thickness, [so] it follows that
element 68 has a selected thickness." Id.
We determine a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner's finding that Ramsauer's stop pad 68 has a "selected thickness"
by virtue of having a thickness. In particular, Ramsauer discloses that when
locking bar 26 is tightened, "door leaf 12 is pressed with its edge 58,
possibly having a seal 60, e.g., against a frame 62 until the seal 60 closes."
3
Appeal2014-005999
Application 13/523,318
Ramsauer, 3:39--42, Figs. IA and 5. "The spring-loaded pin 34 enables the
desired compensation of tolerances and a self-adjusting compression of the
seal 60." Id. at 3 :42--45 (emphasis added). Further, pin 34 is provided with
rounded head 68 so that it can stop on surface 3 6 in a partially tightened
state. Id. at 3:53-55. In other words, the thickness of rounded head 68 is
selected, in combination with the various dimensions of the other
components in Ramsauer's assembly, to enable a desired compensation of
tolerances and a self-adjusting compression of seal 60.
As to the claimed removability of the stop pad from the locking bar,
Appellants point out Ramsauer's pin 34, including its rounded head (stop
pad) 68, is mounted to locking bar 26 by retaining ring 66. Appeal Br. 7-8.
Appellants contend "[f]rom the available disclosure, retaining ring 66 is
apparently not removable from pin 34 in order to permit removal," and
"nothing expressed in Ramsauer teaches (or even suggests) removing its
back-engaging device from bolt 26." Id.
The Examiner responds that "Ramsauer teaches a retaining ring 66
which 'prevents the pin [34; integral with stop pad 68] from falling out of
the rotating bolt 26 [i.e., the locking bar]."' Ans. 5 (quoting Ramsauer,
3:48--49). According to the Examiner, Ramsauer's stop pad is thus "not
permanently attached to the locking bar and is therefore removable." Id.
We determine a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner's finding that Ramsauer's pin 34 with stop pad 68 is removably
supported on locking bar 26. In particular, Figure IB of Ramsauer shows a
bottom view of retaining ring 66 fitted on pin 34 to support pin 34 on
locking bar 26. Ramsauer, Figs. IA-IB, 2:36-37, 3:47--49. A person of
ordinary skill in the art, viewing Figure 1 B, would understand ring 66 is
4
Appeal2014-005999
Application 13/523,318
snap-fitted on to pin 34 in a removable manner. Thus, ring 66 is removable
from pin 34 so that pin 34, with stop pad 68, is removable from locking
bar 26.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-3 as
anticipated by Ramsauer.
B. Obviousness based on Ramsauer and Anastasiadis-Claims 4-13
Claim 4
In rejecting claim 4, the Examiner finds Ramsauer discloses every
limitation of parent claim 1, but Ramsauer's single stop pad 68 is not, as
recited in claim 4, "a plurality of ... stop pads of respective different
thicknesses, for selective removable support thereof on said locking bar."
Final Act. 2 (claim 1), 3 (claim 4). The Examiner cites Anastasiadis as
disclosing stop pads 42, 46 of varying thicknesses. Id. at 3; see
Anastasiadis, Figs. 1-2, i-f 21 (length of body 22 may be made adjustable, in
part, by providing plugs 42 made with flanges 46 of varying thickness). The
Examiner determines it would have been obvious to provide Ramsauer with
stop pads of varying thicknesses "for greater adjustability as a spring has
limited adjustability." Final Act. 3; Ans. 6 ("one of ordinary skill in the art
would find benefit in additional means of adjustability in the Ramsauer
assembly").
Appellants argue there is no logical reasoning to support adding a
plurality of stop pads of different thicknesses to Ramsauer, because
Ramsauer already has "a complicated spring-loading screw adjustment
mechanism." Appeal Br. 10-11. Appellants further contend the Examiner's
"apparent desire to modify the structure of Ramsauer to conform to [claim 4]
appears to arise from improper hindsight analysis." Id. at 13. Appellants
5
Appeal2014-005999
Application 13/523,318
particularly point out that in Ramsauer, "both the bolt 26 and the back-
engaging device 34 are adjustable to enable fine-tuning of tolerances
between the door leaf 12 and a frame 62." Id. at 14 (citing Ramsauer, 3:26-
38, 3 :42--49). Thus, Appellants contend providing a plurality of stop pads
with different thicknesses to Ramsauer "would be unnecessary and
redundant." Id.
The Examiner's reason for modifying Ramsauer to include a plurality
of stop pads 68 of different thicknesses is "for greater adjustability, because
a spring has limited adjustability." Final Act. 3; Ans. 6. In referring to the
limited adjustability of a spring, the Examiner, apparently, means either
spring 32 or spring 54 in Ramsauer. See Ramsauer, Fig. IA, 3:26-29, 3:42-
4 7. The Examiner does not articulate, however, how providing a plurality of
stop pads 68 of different thicknesses would increase the adjustability already
provided in Ramsauer by rotating bolt 26 around driveshaft 24, in
combination with the spring-loaded pin 34. See Ramsauer, 3:30-53. Thus,
we agree with Appellants that the rejection fails to provide a rational basis,
absent improper hindsight, for modifying Ramsauer to include a plurality of
stop pads 68 of different thicknesses.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 4
as unpatentable over Ramsauer and Anastasiadis.
Claims 5--8
Claim 5 depends from claims 1 and 2 to specify that the stop pad
includes a post received in an opening of the locking bar, and claims 6-8
separately depend from claim 5 to specify various ways the post is retained
within the opening. Appeal Br. 20-21 (Claims App.); see also Final Act. 3-
4 (rejecting claims 5-8). The only arguments presented in the Appeal Brief
6
Appeal2014-005999
Application 13/523,318
that are pertinent to claims 5-8 are the arguments against anticipation of
claim 1 by Ramsauer. Appeal Br. 4--18. Having determined those
arguments not to be persuasive, we sustain the rejection of claims 5-8 as
unpatentable over Ramsauer and Anastasiadis.
Claims 9-13
In rejecting independent claim 9, the Examiner finds Ramsauer
substantially discloses the claimed invention, including the claimed
adjustment pad as pin head 68. Final Act. 2 (claim 1 ), 3 (claim 4), 4
(claim 9). The Examiner finds Ramsauer discloses only one stop I
adjustment pad 68, not the "set of variously sized adjustment pads that may
be individually secured" to a cam bar recited in claim 9. Id. The Examiner
cites Anastasiadis as disclosing adjustment pads 42, 46 of varying
thicknesses (i.e., various sizes). Id. at 3, 4. The Examiner determines it
would have been obvious to provide Ramsauer with adjustment pads of
varying sizes for greater adjustability, because a spring has limited
adjustability. Final Act. 3.
The Examiner's rejection of independent claim 9 rests upon the same
obviousness rationale for modifying Ramsauer discussed above in
connection with claim 4. Therefore, for the reasons provided in connection
with claim 4, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9, and of claims 10-13
depending therefrom.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-3 as anticipated by Ramsauer is affirmed.
7
Appeal2014-005999
Application 13/523,318
The rejection of claims 4--13 as unpatentable over Ramsauer and
Anastasiadis is affirmed as to claims 5-8, and reversed as to claims 4 and 9-
13.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8