Ex Parte Tassin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2018

14296529 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/296,529 06/05/2014
39820 7590 06/26/2018
LIVINGSTON LOEFFLER, P.A.
963 TRAIL TERRACE DRIVE
NAPLES, FL 34103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Timothy Wayne Tassin
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.
13-8393 9009
EXAMINER
WILKENS, JANET MARIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3637
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2018 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 TIMOTHY WAYNE TASSIN, MYRON JUDE TASSIN, and
CHRISTIAN TASSIN
Appeal2017-008877
Application 14/296,529
Technology Center 3600
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE-
Timothy Wayne Tassin et al. ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision in the Final Office Action (dated
Aug. 3, 2016, hereinafter "Final Act.") rejecting claims 15, 19-23, 29, and
30.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
1 Hingenuity International, LLC is identified as the real party in interest in
Appellants' Appeal Brief (filed Jan. 3, 2017, hereinafter "Appeal Br.").
Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 1-14, 16-18, and 24--28 are cancelled. See Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-008877
Application 14/296,529
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a cabinet supported by the same
hinges that support a door. Spec. 1, 11. 5---6 (filed July 14, 2014).
Claim 15, 29, and 30 are independent. Claims 15 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
15. A pivotally mounted storage device comprising:
a cabinet having a top panel, a bottom panel, a rear panel,
an interior side panel and an exterior side panel;
a plurality of full apertures located on the interior side
panel that extend from an exterior surface of the interior panel
to an interior surface of the interior panel;
said plurality of full apertures being arranged in at least
one vertical line extending from a top edge of the interior side
panel to a bottom edge of the interior side panel;
a plurality of partial apertures located on an interior
surface of the exterior side panel;
said plurality of partial apertures extending a
predetermined distance through the exterior side panel and
terminating prior to an exterior surface of the exterior side panel
so no apertures are visible on the exterior surface of the exterior
side panel;
said plurality of partial apertures being arranged in at
least one vertical line extending from a top edge of the exterior
side panel to a bottom edge of the exterior side panel;
at least two hanging brackets attached to said cabinet;
said at least two hanging brackets each comprising a
planar plate having a top, a bottom and sides;
said at least two hanging brackets each comprising at
least one aperture located on the plate;
said at least two hanging brackets each comprising an
arm extending perpendicularly from a top edge of the planar
plate, thereby creating an L-shaped hanging bracket;
said at least two hanging brackets each comprising an
aperture located on a distal end of said arm for engaging a hinge
pin of a door hinge; and
2
Appeal2017-008877
Application 14/296,529
said at least two hanging brackets each being adjustably
attachable to any single full aperture of the plurality of full
apertures via at least one nut and at least one bolt so as to adjust
to the vertical location of the location of the hanging brackets in
relation to a location of hinges and hinge pins on a door jam.
REJECTIONS
I. The Examiner rejects claims 15, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Greaux (US 6,616,253 Bl, issued Sept. 9,
2003), Lowe (US 4,721,212, issued Jan. 26, 1988), Smit et al. (US
5,349,909, issued Sept. 27, 1994, hereinafter "Smit"), and Osroff (US
3,822,925, issued July 9, 1974).
II. The Examiner rejects claims 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Greaux, Lowe, Smit, Osroff, and Hearst (US
2,450,337, issued Sept. 28, 1948).
III. The Examiner rejects claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Greaux, Lowe, Smit, Osroff, and James (US
750,193, issued Jan. 19, 1904).
IV. The Examiner rejects claims 15, 29, and 30 on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
over claims 1-3 of Tassin et al., (US 8,777,339 B2, issued July 15,
2014, hereinafter "Tassin") and Huizenga (US 4,928,833, issued May
29, 1990).
V. The Examiner rejects claims 19-22 on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims
1-3 of Tassin, Huizenga, and Hearst.
3
Appeal2017-008877
Application 14/296,529
VI. The Examiner rejects claim 23 on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims
1-3 of Tassin, Huizenga, and James.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Greaux discloses a door mountable cabinet
10 including a top panel 24, a bottom panel 26, a rear panel/storage insert
14, an interior panel 20, and an external panel 22. Final Act. 6; see also
Greaux Fig. 3. However, the Examiner finds that Greaux fails to disclose:
(1) "a plurality of full apertures located on the interior side panel" and
"extending from a top edge ... to a bottom edge of the interior side panel";
(2) "a plurality of partial apertures located on an interior surface of the
exterior side panel" and "extending from a top edge ... to a bottom edge of
the exterior side panel"; and
(3) "at least two hanging brackets ... for engaging a hinge pin of a
door hinge," as called for by each of claims 15, 29, and 30. Final Act. 6-7;
Claims App. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that Lowe discloses a
structure having apertures 24 that extend from an exterior surface to an
interior surface, and two universal hinge brackets 30 attached to the structure
using at least one nut and at least one bolt 40 and to door hinges 62, 64. Id.
at 6 (citing Lowe, col. 2, 11. 45--47); see also Lowe, Figs. 1, 2. The
Examiner concludes that
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to modify the pivotal attachment
of the cabinet on the door of Greaux by using brackets that
4
Appeal2017-008877
Application 14/296,529
attach to the existing door hinges, such as is taught by Lowe,
instead of the separate hinges presently used, to simplify the
cabinet/door assembly (by eliminating the cabinet/door hinge).
Final Act. 6.
The Examiner further finds that Osroff discloses a cabinet 13 having a
vertical row of apertures 18a-18d that extend through side panels for
inserting door/cabinet attachments and projections 17 that support shelves
21. Id. at 7; see also Osroff, Figs. 2, 4B. The Examiner also finds that Smit
discloses a structure (shelving unit) having on its side walls parallel rows of
interior surface apertures 30 extending from a top edge to a bottom edge that
accept shelf supporting projections 70. Final Act. 7; see also Smit, Fig. 1.
Thus, the Examiner determines that
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to modify the cabinet of Greaux
in view of Lowe by adding multiple through apertures, such as
is taught by Osroff, on one of the side panels to provide places
to connect the hinge brackets of Lowe and to add interior
surface apertures on the interiors of the side walls, such as is
taught by Smit, as well as projections, as taught by Osroff,
thereon, to provide shelf supporting means within the cabinet.
Final Act. 7.
Appellants argue that Greaux fails to disclose "a cabinet being
attached to existing hinges" and "the use of full apertures or partial apertures
for the use of mounting internal shelves or for the purpose of mounting the
cabinet to a set of hinges via hanging brackets." Appeal Br. 12. Appellants
further argue that both Osroff and Smit fail to disclose mounting an existing
5
Appeal2017-008877
Application 14/296,529
cabinet or shelving unit, respectively, on pre-existing hinges. Supplemental
Appeal Brief 13-14 (dated June 18, 2017, hereinafter "Suppl. Appeal Br."). 3
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument because
"[ n ]onobviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references. [Each reference] must be read, not in isolation,
but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole."
See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this
case, the Examiner employs Lowe, not Greaux, to disclose two universal
hinge brackets 30 attached to a structure, via full apertures, a nut, and a bolt,
and to existing door hinges 62, 64. Examiner's Answer 3 (dated Feb. 10,
2017, hereinafter "Ans."). We agree with the Examiner that "substitut[ing]
one type of hinge for another, i.e. the hinge hanging brackets of Lowe for the
cabinet hinges of Greaux, would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art, to simplify the cabinet/ door assembly [of Greaux] by
eliminating" the cabinet door hinge of Greaux. Id. Appellants have not
persuasively shown error in the Examiner's findings and reasoning.
Furthermore, the teachings of Osroff are used by the Examiner to
disclose full (through) apertures 18a-18f on a side panel of a cabinet that
"allow the cabinet to be attached to ... adjacent features via fasteners"
3 Pages 13 and 14 of the Appeal Brief filed Jan. 3, 2017 are missing from the
record of the instant application. See Appeal Br. 12-15. Appellants filed
the missing pages as part of this Supplemental Appeal Brief. In the interests
of compact prosecution, we address the merits of Appellants' arguments as
presented on pages 13 and 14 of this Supplemental Appeal Brief.
6
Appeal2017-008877
Application 14/296,529
received in receptacles 20a, 20b, and 20c of door 22. Id. at 3--4; see also
Osroff, col. 4, 11. 2---6, Figs. 4a, 4b. Hence, the Examiner is correct in that
"[h ]aving these multiple through apertures on one of the side panels of
Greaux would provide places to connect the hinge brackets of Lowe." Ans.
4. Appellants have not persuasively shown error in the Examiner's findings
and reasoning.
As for the teachings of Smit, the Examiner uses Smit to disclose
parallel rows of partial apertures 30 on sidewalls of a shelving unit for
mounting internal shelves using shelf-supporting projections 70. Id. Once
more we agree with the Examiner that "[t]o add the interior surface apertures
of Smit[] and the projections of Osroff on the interiors of the side walls of
Greaux in view of Lowe would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art, to provide shelf supporting means within the cabinet." Id.
We further agree with the Examiner that providing rows of apertures
extending from a top edge to a bottom edge of the panels, as taught by Smit,
to the cabinet of Greaux, as modified by Lowe and Osroff, provides "more
possible shelf and bracket locations." Id. Appellants have not persuasively
shown error in the Examiner's findings and reasoning.
Finally, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that, because
"Greaux fails to teach a cabinet designed to close against a surface of a door
wherein the opening of the cabinet faces the door," as in Appellants'
invention, Greaux "require[s] a second 'door' to be attached directly to the
cabinet." Appeal Br. 12. Appellant's argument is not persuasive, because
none of claims 15, 29, and 30 requires that the opening of the claimed
storage device face the door, as Appellants' argue. Limitations not
7
Appeal2017-008877
Application 14/296,529
appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self,
671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Furthermore, the Examiner is correct in
that because each of independent claims 15, 29, and 30 employs the open-
ended transitional term "comprising," the claimed "pivotally mounted
storage device" may include elements in addition to those specifically set
forth in each of claims 15, 29, and 30, "such as a cabinet door." Ans. 4.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 15, 29, and 30 as unpatentable over
Greaux, Lowe, Smit, and Osroff.
Re} ections II and III
Appellants do not set forth any substantive arguments with respect to
Rejections II and III. See Appeal Br. 11.
Therefore, for the same reasons discussed supra, we likewise sustain
the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 19-22 as unpatentable over
Greaux, Lowe, Smit, Osroff, and Hearst, and of claim 23 as unpatentable
over Greaux, Lowe, Smit, Osroff, and James.
Rejections IV-VI
As Appellants do not present any arguments with respect to
Rejections IV-VI, we summarily sustain these rejections. See Appeal Br.
11.
8
Appeal2017-008877
Application 14/296,529
SUMMARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 15, 29, and 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Greaux, Lowe, Smit, and Osroff is
affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 19-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Greaux, Lowe, Smit, Osroff, and Hearst is
affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Greaux, Lowe, Smit, Osroff, and James is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 15, 29, and 30 on the ground
of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over
claims 1-3 of Tassin and Huizenga is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 19-22 on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims
1-3 of Tassin, Huizenga, and Hearst is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claim 23 on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims
1-3 of Tassin, Huizenga, and James is affirmed.
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