Ex Parte HOLDRIDGE

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 31, 2018

14945515 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/945,515 11/19/2015 DANIEL M. HOLDRIDGE
112 7590 01/03/2019
Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
2500 Columbia A venue
Lancaster, PA 17603
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.
1368-00-US-02-ABP 1029
EXAMINER
MAESTRI, PATRICK J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3638
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2019 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):
AB P _patents@ arms trongceilings. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL M. HOLDRIDGE 1
Appeal 2018-003777
Application 14/945,515
Technology Center 3600
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject (1) claims 1-8 and 10-15 on the ground of non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-17 of
Holdridge (US 9,194,123 B2, issued Nov. 24, 2015) ("Holdridge");2
1 Armstrong World Industries, Inc., ("Appellant") is the applicant as provided
under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal
Brief2 ("Appeal Br."), filed Jan. 19, 2018.
2 The Examiner includes canceled claim 9 in this rejection. See Final Office
Action 8 ("Final Act."), dated Sept. 13, 2017. We consider this a
typographical error.
Appeal2018-003777
Application 14/945 ,515
(2) claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Kliegle (US 6,971,210 B2, issued Dec. 6, 2005) and Paul (US 4,873,809,
issued Oct. 17, 1989); and (3) claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Kliegle, Paul, and Rogers (US 4,580,387, issued Apr. 8, 1986). Claim
9 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter "relates to suspended ceiling systems, and
more particularly to a ceiling system with detachable ceiling panels." Spec.
,r 2, Figs. 3, 4B, 5, 6, 7A-7C. Claims 1, 5, and 13 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A method for mounting a spring clip on a ceiling grid
support member, the method comprising:
providing a grid support member defining a longitudinal
axis;
providing a spring clip including a body defining a
downwardly open receptacle, a pair of opposing lateral flanges,
and a pair of locking tabs;
inserting the grid support member into the receptacle;
slideably engaging the locking tabs with a top surface of
the grid support member;
displacing the locking tabs outward in laterally opposing
directions from an inward position to an outward position;
returning the locking tabs to the inward position; and
locking the spring clip to the grid support member with the
locking tabs,
wherein a snap-fit is created between the spring clip and
grid support member, and wherein at least one of the lateral
flanges includes a slot configured to engage a torsion spring.
2
Appeal2018-003777
Application 14/945 ,515
ANALYSIS
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
Claims 1---8 and 10-15
Appellant requests that this rejection be held in abeyance, pending the
outcome of the subject appeal. See Appeal Br. 4. This rejection is not
provisional in nature as being based on a co-pending application, which
would give rise to the possibility that the claims cited in rejecting the
appealed claims might be amended during the pendency of the appeal, and
possibly mooting or changing the underlying basis for the rejection. Rather,
the rejection is based on an already-issued patent. See Final Act. 7-8.
Having made no arguments traversing the Examiner's double
patenting rejection, Appellant has not apprised us of error in the rejection.
The Examiner's double patenting rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-15 is
therefore sustained. See 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv) ("Except as provided
for in§§ 41.41, 41.47 and 41.52, any arguments or authorities not included
in the appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of
the present appeal.").
Obviousness over Kliegle and Paul
Claims 1-3, 5---8, and 10-15
Independent claim 1 is directed to a method for mounting a spring clip
on a ceiling grid support member including the step of "providing a spring
clip including a body defining a downwardly open receptacle, a pair of
opposing lateral flanges, and a pair of locking tabs." Appeal Br. 16, Claims
App. ( emphasis added). The Examiner finds "[i]t would have been obvious
3
Appeal2018-003777
Application 14/945 ,515
to someone with ordinary skill in the art to create the spring clip of Kliegle
with the characteristic of having locking tabs of Kliegle in order to provide a
tool-less connection between the clips and the grid support." Final Act. 3.
Specifically, the Examiner finds "placing the teeth (item 59) on the spring
clip (item 33) [ofKliegle] ... provide[s] a tool-less connection." Ans. 3; see
also Kliegle 3:42--44, 49, 5:29--43, 6:23-35, Figs. 5, 8a. 3 Stated differently,
the Examiner takes the position that "it would be obvious to take the locking
tabs (item 59) present on the V-clips (item 55) of Kliegle [see id. at Fig. 8a]
and place them on the spring clip (item 33) of Kliegle [see id. at Fig. 5]."
See Appeal Br. 10; see also id. at 9; Final Act. 3; Ans. 3; Kliegle 3:42--44,
3:49, 5:29--43, 6:23-38, Figs. 5, 8a. According to the Examiner, although
Kliegle "indicates that the spring clip has a friction fit that makes a screw
connection not necessary, adding the teeth to the spring clip ensures the clip
will not lift up unnecessarily while still allowing the freedom of lateral
movement. The teeth would not prevent lateral movement but vertical
movement." Ans. 3.
Appellant contends the Examiner's rationale (i.e., to provide a tool-
less connection between the clips and the grid support) "is misplaced
because Kliegle already teaches how to replace the screw fastened
connection- i.e., by using the side load mounting clip 33 that pinches the
side surfaces of the bulb 26 of the grid main 25 to create a pressure/friction
fit there-between" and "is entirely based on solving a purported problem
(i.e., eliminating the screw fastener), which is already solved by Kliegle."
See Appeal Br. 11-12. Appellant also contends that "Kliegle explicitly
3 Examiner's Answer ("Ans."), dated Feb. 16, 2018.
4
Appeal2018-003777
Application 14/945 ,515
teaches that a tool is required to pry the teeth 59 from the bulb 26 when the
V-clip 55 is removed// repositioned on the grid mains 26." See Appeal Br.
11 (emphasis omitted) (citing Kliegle 6:31-35).
Kliegle discloses that "[ s ]ide load mounting clips 33 are attached to
the bulbs 26 of the cruciform grid main 25 and are held in place by a
pressure fit .... The inside tolerances of the u-shaped channel 34 are such
that they can be friction fit onto the bulb 26 of the cruciform grid main 25
yet can be repositioned, such as to avoid ceiling obstructions." Kliegle
5:29-37 (emphasis added), Figs. 4, 5. Kliegle also discloses that his
invention is different from that of conventional grid systems, as "a screw or
other attachment device is not necessary because the friction force between
the side load mounting clip 33 and the bulb 26 of the cruciform grid main
25 is greater than the friction force between the spring 30 and the side load
mounting clip 33." Id. at 5:37--43 (emphasis added), Figs. 4, 5.
Given Kliegle already "provide[s] a tool-less connection between the
clips and the grid support," we fail to see and the Examiner fails to
adequately explain how adding "teeth (item 59) on ... spring clip (item 33)"
of Kliegle would add to Kliegle's tool-less connection between the clips and
the grid support. See Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 3; Appeal Br. 10-12.
We agree with Appellant that "Kliegle explicitly teaches that the teeth
[59] of the v-clip [55] tightly grip the bulb [26]" and that "a tool is used to
pry the v-clip [55] from the bulb [26] when movement of the v-clip [55] is
desired." See Reply Br. 3; see also Kliegle 6:31-35 ("Teeth 59 tightly grip
the v-clip to the bulb 26. A removal slot 56 in the sidewalls 58 permit the
insertion of a fiat object, e.g., screwdriver blade, to pry the v-clip 55 from
5
Appeal2018-003777
Application 14/945 ,515
the surface of the bulb 26 by pressing against a lever member 61." ( emphasis
added)), Figs. 8a, 8b. 4
Although Kliegle does not explicitly disclose the term "reposition"
when referring to the use of the tool with v-clip 55, a preponderance of the
evidence supports Appellant's contention that "Kliegle implicitly teaches a
tool is necessary when creating relative movement, in general, between the
v-clip and the bulb - regardless of whether that movement is during removal
or repositioning of the v-clip." Reply Br. 2-3; see also Ans. 5; Kliegle
6:23-35, Figs. 8a, 8b. We agree with Appellant that "[t]here is no basis in
Kliegle that supports the arbitrary distinction in how the teeth of the v-clip
prevent only one-directional movement relative to the bulb - i.e., preventing
vertical movement as compared to lateral movement," and without a factual
basis indicating that teeth 59 ofv-clip 55 create a one-way locking function
(i.e., preventing vertical movement only) as proposed by the Examiner (see
Ans. 3--4), "the Examiner's position that 'the teeth [ofKliegle] would
provide added friction between the spring clip and the bulb, but would not
prevent lateral movement of the spring clip in relation to the bulb,' is
nothing more than unfounded conjecture." See Reply Br. 3--4; see also Ans.
3--4.
Moreover, Kliegle explicitly discloses that spring clip 33 "can be
repositioned." See Kliegle 5:29-37; see also id. at 5:48-51 ("[T]he side load
mounting clips 33 can be moved laterally on the cruciform grid mains 25 to
accommodate small position changes and/or to align with the spring retainer
clip 35." (emphasis added)); Appeal Br. 10-11. Based on the teachings of
4 Reply Brief ("Reply Br."), filed Feb. 22, 2018.
6
Appeal2018-003777
Application 14/945 ,515
Kliegle, the Examiner fails to adequately explain how adding "teeth (item
59) on ... spring clip (item 33)" of Kliegle would still enable spring clip 33
to be repositioned/moved laterally on cruciform grid mains 25. See Final
Act. 3; see also Ans. 3-5; Appeal Br. 10-12.
As to the Examiner's proposed reason for combining Kliegle and Paul
(i.e., "[ u ]sing the spring portions of Paul instead of the locking tabs of
Kliegle would allow for easy removal when desired"), Appellant correctly
notes that "Paul gives a detailed explanation as to how the hold down clip
prevents 'easy' or 'unintentional' removal of ceiling panels from the grid
mains." See Appeal Br. 13 ( emphasis added); see also Final Act. 3; Paul
1 :53-56 ("Upward facing locking arms lock onto the upper horizontal
portion of the cross support to prevent easy or unintentional removal of the
ceiling tile." (emphasis added)); id. at 1:62-65. As Paul discloses that the
locking arms are used to prevent, not allow, easy removal, of ceiling
tiles/panels, the Examiner fails to provide an adequate reason with rational
underpinnings to combine the teachings of Kliegle and Paul.
Independent claims 5 and 13 are directed to apparatus claims for a
spring clip and include similar limitations as discussed above for
independent claim 1; thus, the Examiner's findings with respect to Kliegle
and Paul are deficient for claims 5 and 13 as well. See Appeal Br. 16-18,
Claims App.; see also Final Act. 2, 4, 6; Ans. 3-5. 5
5 For claims 5 and 13, the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to
a skilled artisan to place the locking tabs of Paul onto the spring clip of Kliegle
to provide a quick, strong/secure connection between the clip and the grid
member. See Final Act. 4, 6. However, Appellant correctly notes that (1)
"Kliegle requires that the secure connection between mounting clip [33] and
grid main [25] be capable of being temporarily-suspended and/or weakened
7
Appeal2018-003777
Application 14/945 ,515
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-15 as unpatentable over Kliegle and Paul.
Obviousness over Kliegle, Paul, and Rogers
Claim 4
Claim 4 depends directly from claim 1. See Appeal Br. 16, Claims
App. The Examiner does not rely on the teachings of Rogers to remedy the
deficiencies of Kliegle and Paul. See Final Act. 6-7. Accordingly, for
reasons similar to those discussed above for claim 1, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 4 as unpatentable over Kliegle, Paul, and
Rogers.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-8 and 10-15
on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting.
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-8, and
10-15 as unpatentable over Kliegle and Paul.
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision to reject claim 4 as
unpatentable over Kliegle, Paul, and Rogers.
without the aid of tools in order to allow for simple yet precise repositioning
the mounting clip on the grid main" ( emphasis omitted); (2) "[B]ased on the
teachings of Kliegle, using a secondary locking feature, such as teeth 59,
necessitate[ s] a separate tool when [ removing/]repositioning the
corresponding clip [55]"; and (3) "Paul never establishes that the placement
of the tooth below the bulb of the grid main would eliminate the need for a
tool when removing / repositioning the mounting clip relative to the grid
main." See Appeal Br. 10-13; see also Kliegle 5:29-37, 48-51, 6:31-35; Paul
1 :45---65.
8
Appeal2018-003777
Application 14/945 ,515
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
9