Ex Parte Dalton et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 14, 201613523318 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation