Ex Parte HUHDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 30, 201814027859 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/027,859 09/16/2013 Moon Young HUH 23413 7590 11/01/2018 CANTOR COLBURN LLP 20 Church Street 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 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. WJ00069US 4258 EXAMINER FERREIRA, CATHERINE M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3732 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/01/2018 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): usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MOON YOUNG HUH Appeal 2018-001880 Application 14/027 ,859 Technology Center 3700 Before: LINDA E. HORNER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § l 12(b) and claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Huh (US 2012/0144567 Al, published June 14, 2012). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Otos Wing Co., Ltd is the Applicant and real party in interest. Br. 3. Appeal 2018-001880 Application 14/027,859 THE INVENTION Appellant's invention is a coupling structure for a headband visor hinge. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A coupling structure of a visor hinge for a headband, to connect a protective mask, which is configured to cover a wearer's face along with a viewing window, to both sides of the headband which assists a wearer in wearing the protective mask, the coupling structure of a visor hinge for a headband compnsmg: a rail base portion protruding from a headband; a plurality of distance adjustment recesses formed at regular intervals in a longitudinal direction on an outer surface of the rail base portion; rails formed on upper and lower surfaces of the rail base portion; a slider slidably installed on the rails, the slider enclosing the rails and moving in forward or rearward direction on the rails; an entry port formed in the slider, the entry port corresponding to the distance adjustment recesses; a push plate installed outward of the slider, the push plate having a through-hole in a center thereof and being configured to forcibly move away from the slider when upper and lower portions of the push plate are pressed by the wearer; a stopper installed physically separately from and outward of the push plate, the stopper inserted into one of the distance adjustment recesses through the entry port and the through- hole, the stopper being formed with a bent portion lengthened in forward and rearward directions thereof to be elastically supported by front and rear sides of the slider, the stopper being configured to move away from the one of the distance adjustment recesses when the push plate forcibly moves away from the slider; and a hinge installed outward of the stopper and the protective mask being pivoted on the hinge. 2 Appeal 2018-001880 Application 14/027,859 OPINION Indefiniteness Claim 1 The Examiner takes the position that the language "installed physically separately from and outward of' renders claim 1 indefinite. Final Action 2. In the Answer, the Examiner remarks that "installed physically separately" is susceptible to an interpretation that such refers to a manufacturing process. Ans. 3. A claim is properly rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) if, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the metes and bounds of a claim are not clear because the claim "contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear." In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (percuriam) (approving, for pre-issuance claims, the standard from MPEP § 2173.05(e)); see also Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416, 2017 WL 3669566, at *5 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential) (adopting the approach for assessing indefiniteness approved by the Federal Circuit in Packard). Having reviewed the disputed claim language in light of Appellant's Specification, we are of the opinion that the Examiner errs in finding the claim indefinite. A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that "installed physically separately from" means that the stopper and the push plate are two separate and distinct structural components and that "installed ... outward'' merely relates to their relative juxtaposition. We do not sustain the Examiner's section 112 indefiniteness rejection of claim 1. The Examiner based the indefiniteness rejection of claim 4 solely on this claim's dependency from claim 1. Final Action 2. Thus, we 3 Appeal 2018-001880 Application 14/027,859 also do not sustain the Examiner's section 112 indefiniteness rejection of claim 4. Claim 2 The Examiner takes the position that the term "wrinkle" renders claim 2 indefinite. We disagree. The word "wrinkle" appears at least three times in the Specification and the surrounding context informs the reader that the wrinkle form facilitates bending of connection portion 310 of push plate 300. Spec. 4, 10, 15 (describing that the connection portion is "configured to be bent in a wrinkle form"). The teaching in the Specification is augmented by graphical depictions that illustrate a "wrinkle form" in Figures 4, 5, and 7. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that structure with a wrinkle form stands in contrast to structure that is straight. While the term may be broad, it is not indefinite. In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (CCPA 1970) ("Breadth is not indefiniteness."); MPEP § 2173.04. We do not sustain the Examiner's section 112 indefiniteness rejection of claim 2. Claim 1 Anticipation of Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 by Huh The Examiner finds that Huh discloses all of the elements of claim 1. Final Action 4--5. In particular, the Examiner finds that Huh element 322 corresponds to Appellant's "push plate" and that element 220 corresponds to the claimed "stopper." Id. at 5. Appellant argues, among other things, that Huh lacks structure corresponding to Appellant's "stopper installed physically separately from and outward of the push plate." Br. 11. 4 Appeal 2018-001880 Application 14/027,859 Element 322 of Huh is a lever that is part of the hinge assembly. Huh, ,r 33, Figs. 4 and 5. The component of Huh that corresponds with Appellant's "push plate" is element 210/230. Id. ,r,r 27-29. With the foregoing in mind, element 220 of Huh, although denominated a "stopper," is not physically separate from push plate 210/230. Id. Fig. 4. Furthermore, even if element 322 were a "push plate" (it is not), it is not disposed "outward" of stopper 220. Id. For a prior art reference to anticipate a claim, it must disclose all of the limitations of the claim, "arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim." Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Huh's structure is patentably distinguishable from the subject matter of claim 1 and, therefore, does not anticipate. We do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 1. Claim 2, 4, and 5 These claims depend, directly or indirectly from claim 1. Claims App. The Examiner's rejection of these claims suffers from the same infirmity that was identified above with respect to claim 1. Thus, for essentially the same reason expressed above in connection with claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4, and 5. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, and 4 under section 112 as indefinite is reversed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 under section 102 as anticipated by Huh is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation