Ex Parte WunschDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 13, 201612742860 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121742,860 05/13/2010 9748 7590 LAITRAM, L.L. C. LEGAL DEPARTMENT 200 LAITRAM LANE HARAHAN, LA 70123 07115/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Philip J. Wunsch 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. 2339.2 8804 EXAMINER SINGH, KA VEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3651 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/15/2016 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): jcronvic@laitram.com cbishop@laitram.com dgwalker@laitram.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PHILIP J. WUNSCH Appeal2014-002269 Application 12/742,860 Technology Center 3600 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, JAMES P. CALVE, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1-10, 12, 13, and 16. See Appeal Br. 3. Claim 11 is objected to. Id. Claims 14 and 15 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. Appeal2014-002269 Application 12/742,860 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 12 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A module for a modular conveyor belt comprising first and second lengthwise ends, a top surface for supporting a load disposed between the first and second lengthwise ends, a bore for receiving a hinge rod formed at one of the first and second lengthwise ends, a retainer having a fixed end and a free end, the retainer being bendable toward and away from the first lengthwise end between a first position in which the retainer prevents a hinge rod from being withdrawn from the bore and a second position in which a hinge rod can pass over the retainer to be withdrawn from the bore, and a stopper which supports the retainer at a location in a middle 50% of the length of the retainer when the retainer is in its second position. REJECTIONS Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Verdigets (US 6,857,516 Bl, iss. Feb. 22, 2005). Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Verdigets and Weiser (US 6,705,460 B2, iss. Mar. 16, 2004). ANALYSIS Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12, 13, and 16 as anticipated by Verdigets The Examiner found that V erdigets teaches a module, as recited in claims 1 and 12, with a retainer (shank 36) that is bendable between a first position that prevents hinge rod 24 from being withdrawn from bore 22 and a second position in which hinge rod 24 passes over retainer 32, and stopper 30. Final Act. 4. The Examiner also found that Verdigets teaches a retainer (between notch 40 and bend 32) with a flexible shank extending from a bend at one end to an enlarged head at the other end with a stopper (post 28) that supports the retainer at a location in a middle 50% of its length. Ans. 3. 2 Appeal2014-002269 Application 12/742,860 Appellant argues that bend 3 2 is not a retainer but instead is a part of retention member 30, and retention member 30 does not act as a stopper to support bend 32, as claimed. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant argues that neither post 28 nor guard 44 supports retainer 30' in a middle 50% of its length in the second, unblocking position, as claimed. Id. at 5; Reply Br. 1. Figures 5, 6A, and 6B of V erdigets illustrate the first and second positions of retainer 30, 30' and are reproduced below. Fl6. 5 J ,/ t; F14. &A Figure 5 shows rod retention member 30 in a first blocking position (hard line) and a second unblocking position 30' (dashed lines). Figure 6A shows the first position where head 34 blocks rod 24. Figure 6B shows the second position where rod 24 passes under head 34. Verdigets, 4: 19-52. 3 Appeal2014-002269 Application 12/742,860 The Examiner has not established by a preponderance of evidence that stopper 28 supports retainer 30 "when the retainer is in its second position," 1 as claimed. Verdigets discloses that retention member 30 clips to post 28 to secure retention member 30 in a conveyor module. Verdigets, 3:39--60, Figs. 3---6. Verdigets discloses that post 28 supports retention member 30 in all positions, to include the first blocking position (Figs. 5 (hardline ), 6A) and in the second open position 30' (Figs. 5 (dashed line), 6B). Id. Even if post 28 could be viewed as supporting retention member 30 when retainer 30' is in a second position, the Examiner has not established that post 28 supports retainer 30 "in a middle 50% of its length" as claimed. 2 Post 28 only supports shank 36 near its fixed end at bend 32 when retention member 30' is in a "second position" as shown in Figure 5 in dashed lines. See Reply Br. 5---6. The Examiner's finding that post 28 supports retention member 30 at its fixed end (Ans. 3) does not explain how post 28 supports retention member 30 at a location in a middle 50% of the length of retainer 30, i.e., along the length of shank 36 between the fixed end at bend 32 and the free end at retainer head 34. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 12 or their dependent claims 2---6, 8-10, 13, and 16. 1 Appellant discloses that stopper 35 restricts the amount of deformation that retainer 31 undergoes as retainer 31 is bent about its fixed end 32 to prevent retainer 31 from exceeding its design stress and deforming. Spec. 8:23-9:2. Stopper 35 "support[s] the retainer 31 at at least one point in the midportion of the retainer 31, i.e., in the middle 50% of the length of the retainer 31 and resist[s] further bending deformation of the retainer 31." Id. at 9:2-5. 2 Appellant discloses that "[t]he length of the retainer 31 as defined here is the distance measured along the bottom surface of the retainer 31 between the free end 33 and the point closest to the fixed end 32 .... " Spec. 9:6-8 (emphasis added), Figs. 2, 4, 5, 7-10. 4 Appeal2014-002269 Application 12/742,860 Claim 7 as unpatentable over Verdigets and Weiser The Examiner found that Weiser teaches a retainer and stopper that are formed of different materials, as recited in claim 7, which depends from claim 1. Final Act. 6. Appellant argues that Weiser does not remedy the deficiencies of Verdigets as to claim 1. Appeal Br. 8. We agree. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 7. DECISION We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1-10, 12, 13, and 16. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation