Ex Parte Platt

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 12, 2013

11481374 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2013)

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.
11/481,374 07/05/2006 William J. Platt 0620 4062
2057 7590 07/15/2013
EUGENE CHOVANES
JACKSON AND CHOVANES
SUITE 319
ONE BALA PLAZA
BALA CYNWYD, PA 19004
EXAMINER
BUCKLE JR, JAMES J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3633
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/15/2013 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 WILLIAM J. PLATT
________________

Appeal 2012-007879
Application 11/481,374
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, RICHARD E. RICE and
MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-007879
Application 11/481,374

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final
rejection of claims 5-7. App. Br. 6. Claims 1-4 have been cancelled. App.
Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates to beams that form a grid in a
suspended ceiling.” Spec. 1:8-9. Claim 5, the sole independent claim, is
illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below:
5. In a beam for a grid that supports drywall ceiling sheets
in a suspended ceiling, formed from a single layer of metal
folded longitudinally into a cross section having
(a) a bulb at the top,
(b) a single-layered web extending downwardly from the
bulb,
(c) a first and second flange at the bottom of the web,
each of which extends horizontally on the opposite side of the
web from the other flange, with the first flange formed of an
upper and lower layer of metal, the upper layer of which
extends from the bottom of the web, and the second flange
formed of at least a single layer of metal extending from the
lower layer of the first flange;
(d) downwardly extending hems that reinforce the
flanges, and

1The present application is a continuation-in-part of parent application
number 11/446,729, which was separately appealed under Appeal No. 2011-
004755. Spec. 3-5. A Decision in that parent case was mailed on May 22,
2013. A separate continuation-in-part application of the above parent
application was also filed by Appellant (see application number 11/490,208).
App. Br. 4. This separate CIP filing was also appealed to the Board (see
Appeal No. 2012-005875). A Decision in that separate filing was mailed on
June 7, 2013.
Appeal 2012-007879
Application 11/481,374

3
(e) upward indentations on the bottom of each flange that
receive and anchor self-tapping screws that secure drywall
sheets to the beams;
the improvement comprising
a balanced beam for a drywall suspended ceiling wherein the second
flange is cantilevered from the bottom of the web by a binding, so that the
resultant load of an equal vertical load on each of the first and second
flanges from the drywall sheets attached to each of the flanges of the beam
passes directly through the vertical plane of the web.

REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Platt US 6,722,098 B2 Apr. 20, 2004
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art

THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Applicant's Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of Platt.
Ans. 5.

ANALYSIS
Sole independent claim 5 includes the limitation of a “balanced beam”
wherein the beam has a second flange that “is cantilevered from the bottom
of the web by a binding.”
The Examiner identifies Appellant’s Figure 4 as Applicant’s Admitted
Prior Art (AAPA). Ans. 6. The Examiner finds that AAPA discloses the
limitations of this claim with the exception that “AAPA (Fig. 4) does not
disclose . . . the beam wherein the second flange is cantilevered from the
bottom of the web by a binding.” Ans. 6. For this, the Examiner relies on
Platt for teaching that it is known to have a beam that includes a “binding
(67) to increase the rigidity of two layers.” Ans. 6 referencing Platt 4:3-7.
Appeal 2012-007879
Application 11/481,374

4
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to modify the
beam as disclosed by AAPA (Fig. 4)” by “binding two layers together to
increase the rigidity of the layers and by binding the flanges at the claimed
location.” Ans. 6-7. The Examiner reasons that “binding the flanges at the
claimed location” (italics added) would not achieve a new or unpredictable
result and that the claimed balanced beam “would be achieved” or “would
have been incidental to stitching two layers together along the flange of the
beam.” Ans. 7, 8.
Appellant stresses the importance of the second flange being
“cantilevered from the bottom of the web by a binding” as claimed to
achieve a balanced beam, i.e., no twisting or torque. App. Br. 13-14, 18; see
also Reply Br. 2. Appellant also references the Specification for such a
discussion. App. Br. 16-17, Reply Br. 2, 3, see also Spec. 1:25 to 2:5, 3:15-
18, 3:22 to 4:2, 7:23 to 8:8 and 9:24 to 10:7. In essence, Appellant contends
that the combination of AAPA Figure 4 and Platt does not teach the claimed
limitation.
Platt clearly discloses a double-thickness web (70) bound or stitched
(67) together. Platt figs 2-4. Platt also clearly teaches that “[s]titches 67, or
other forms of fastening, such as welding, hold the two layers 68 and 69 of
web 70 together to give a rigidity to the beam 23.” Platt 4:3-5. However,
there is no discussion in Platt, nor is there any illustration in Platt, of
locating the stitching 67 at the juncture between Platt’s web 70 and the
bottom flanges 61, 62. While we understand that the Examiner’s
combination of AAPA and Platt results in the stitching together of double-
thickness flange 25 of AAPA for rigidity purposes (Ans. 6, 7), we are not
informed of a reason to place such stitching at the juncture between the web
Appeal 2012-007879
Application 11/481,374

5
and the flange. Such a location is necessary for the limitation that “the
second flange is cantilevered from the bottom of the web by a binding” and
further, the limitation that such a cantilevered construction results in a beam
that is “balanced” (i.e., no torque or twisting). Instead, the Examiner finds it
obvious to bind the flange “at the claimed location” without providing a
reason as to why such a location would have been obvious. Clearly, Platt’s
stitching can be located elsewhere along flange 25 of AAPA for rigidity
purposes but in doing so, the limitation of the second flange being
cantilevered from the bottom of the web would not have been satisfied
because the cantilever would have been from such other location and not
“from the bottom of the web” as claimed. Appellant addresses this matter
by stating:
The claims defining the invention are directed to a
balanced single-layered web beam for a drywall suspended
ceiling. In the balanced beam 20 of the invention, the opposing
torque (twisting) forces exerted on the first 25 and second 23
flanges by the panel or drywall load, are equal, as seen in
Figure 5 of the application, so they cancel each other out. The
beam does not twist since the resultant load 32 is only the sum
of the downward components of the load 26, 27 as also seen in
Figure 5. Resultant load 32 passes through the vertical plane of
the web 22 to the hang wires. There are no unbalanced torque
forces exerted on the beam of the invention, as shown in Figure
5, since the opposing torque forces which are equal in
magnitude, but opposed in direction, balance each other out.
In the present invention, as defined in independent claim
5, such balanced beam 20 is created by cantilevering the second
flange 23, which extends from the first flange 25, from the
bottom of the web 22, by a binding 40.
App. Br. 13-14.
Appellant also discusses unbalanced torque forces with respect to
AAPA Figure 4. See App. Br. 15-16, Reply Br. 3 and Spec. 7:13-22.
Appeal 2012-007879
Application 11/481,374

6
We have been instructed by the predecessor to our reviewing court
that
[t]he Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual
basis for its rejection. It may not, because it may doubt that the
invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded
assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies
in its factual basis. To the extent the Patent Office rulings are
so supported, there is no basis for resolving doubts against their
correctness. Likewise, we may not resolve doubts in favor of
the Patent Office determination when there are deficiencies in
the record as to the necessary factual bases supporting its legal
conclusion of obviousness.

In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).
Here, we are not persuaded the Examiner has provided the necessary
factual basis for locating Platt’s stitching at the juncture between the web
and the flange as required for the claim limitation that “the second flange is
cantilevered from the bottom of the web by a binding.” Accordingly, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 5 or dependent claims 6 and 7.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 5-7 is reversed.

REVERSED

mls