Hanley, Michael P.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 31, 2019

15488781 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2019)

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.
15/488,781 04/17/2017 Michael P. Hanley 405393-517001US 7755
133139 7590 12/31/2019
Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C.
One Citizens Plaza
8th floor
Providence, RI 02903
EXAMINER
STERLING, AMY JO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2019 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):
APS.IPSS@cpaglobal.com
IPDocketing@apslaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL P. HANLEY

Appeal 2019-004739
Application 15/488,781
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–13 and 18–20.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Kenney
Manufacturing Company. Appeal Br. 2.
2 We note that Appellant indicates that claims 4, 7, 11, and 13 have been
cancelled. See Appeal Br. 20–21. However, the amendment to the claims
which cancelled those claims was not entered by the Examiner. See
Advisory Action, mailed Nov. 26, 2018. Further, Appellant addresses the
rejection of these claims in the Appeal Brief. See Appeal Br. 17. Thus, we
Appeal 2019-004739
Application 15/488,781

2
BACKGROUND
The Specification discloses that “[t]he present invention relates
generally to rod brackets and more specifically to a rod bracket for hanging
curtains and the like which is configured for easy install.” Spec. ¶ 2.
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 10, and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A rod bracket, comprising:
a bracket base, wherein the bracket base defines a first
bracket mounting cavity and a second bracket mounting cavity
and includes a base front, a base rear, a base top and a base
bottom,
a bracket arm, wherein the bracket arm includes a first
bracket arm end and a second bracket arm end and wherein the
first bracket arm end is securely associated with the bracket base,
and a curtain rod cradle integral with the second bracket arm end,
wherein the bracket base further includes a first base side
and a second base side and wherein the first bracket mounting
cavity is located on the first base side and the second bracket
mounting cavity is located on the second base side and wherein
the first bracket mounting cavity and second bracket mounting
cavity are configured at an angle between about 30° and about
60° relative to a horizontal plane.
Appeal Br. 20.

consider the listing of these claims as cancelled to be an inadvertent error
and we address these claims herein.
Appeal 2019-004739
Application 15/488,781

3
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5–12, and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Goldstein3 in view of Cabanes.4
2. The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Goldstein in view of Cabanes and Castellanos.5
DISCUSSION
Claims 1–3, 5–12, and 18–20
With respect to the first rejection, Appellant groups all claims together
and raises arguments only with respect to the rejection of claim 1. See
Appeal Br. 13–17. We address claim 1 as representative of this group, and
the claims 2, 3, 5–12, and 18–20 will stand or fall with claim 1. See 37
C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Goldstein discloses a rod
bracket as claimed, except that Goldstein does not disclose the claimed angle
for the mounting cavities. Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner finds that Cabanes
teaches a wall mounted device that includes angled mounting cavities, as
claimed, which may be used in Goldstein’s device to more securely fasten
the device to the wall. Id. at 3. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions with respect to claim 1. See id. at 2–3; Ans. 3–6.
As discussed below, we are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s arguments
Appellant first argues that Cabanes is not analogous art. Appeal
Br. 13. Appellant asserts that “no person of skill in the art of Appellant’s
claimed rod bracket would ever look to a device that hangs picture frames to

3 Goldstein, US 2009/0032659 A1, pub. Feb. 5, 2009.
4 Cabanes, US 9,687,092 B2, iss. June 27, 2017.
5 Castellanos, US 8,500,078 B2, iss. Aug. 6, 2013.
Appeal 2019-004739
Application 15/488,781

4
aid in hanging curtain rods.” Id. Appellant further asserts that one of
ordinary skill would not consider “a picture frame as being reasonably
pertinent to a bracket for a rod.” Reply Br. 2.
We are not persuaded of error by this argument.
A reference is considered analogous if the reference is from the same
field of endeavor as the claimed invention, or if the reference is not within
the same field of endeavor, but is reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which the inventor is involved. See In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343
(Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, we agree with the Examiner that the Cabanes is at
least reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was
involved. See Ans. 4. The Specification makes clear that the problems
addressed by the inventor relate to problems associated with mounting
curtain rods to walls and window casings easily using a bracket. Spec.
¶¶ 2–3. Cabanes is concerned with providing an easy to install bracket for
hanging pictures that allows for easy leveling. See Cabanes col. 1, ll. 14–40.
Based on this evidence, we find that Cabanes’s disclosure of a wall bracket
for hanging pictures is reasonably pertinent to problems related to hanging
curtain wall brackets as addressed in the present Specification.
Next, Appellant argues that the art of record fails to teach “a curtain
rod cradle integral with the second bracket arm end.” Appeal Br. 13.
Appellant asserts that the rejection does not articulate where this feature is
present in Goldstein, and that “Goldstein’s cradle is made up of several very
distinct, non-integral, parts” including a tray 15, clamping piece 23, and
screw 21. Id. at 13–14. We disagree. We agree with the Examiner that
Goldstein’s element 17 forms an integral part of the apparatus. In particular,
Figure 6 shows that element 17 with element 15 are a permanently attached
Appeal 2019-004739
Application 15/488,781

5
portion of the device and thus, may be considered integral thereto.
Goldstein Fig. 6. And, without further explanation by Appellant, we fail to
see why elements 17 along with tray 15 may not be considered a cradle
without the additional elements noted by Appellant. We agree with the
Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider these elements
to form a cradle as they form a base and side walls in which curtain rod 1
rests. See id. at Figs. 3, 6. Finally, we find that these elements are integral
to the device even if we apply the definition of “integral” proposed by
Appellant. See Reply Br. 2.
Appellant also argues that the art of record does not teach or suggest
mounting cavities on first and second base sides because Goldstein only
discloses mounting cavities that are centrally located on top and bottom
sections of the device. Appeal Br. 14–15. Appellant asserts that the top and
bottom do not equate to the sides and that Goldstein’s device cannot be used
if it were rotated ninety degrees. Id. at 15. Although one might conclude
that Goldstein’s device cannot be used when turned ninety degrees, we agree
with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms
“first base side” and “second base side” would include a top side and a
bottom side of Goldstein’s bracket, particularly because the claim includes
no further directional limitations that would limit the locations of the
claimed sides. Ans. 5–6 (emphasis omitted). Further, we disagree with
Appellant to the extent the Reply Brief indicates that a side must be
interpreted as a surface face of the device, as the Specification does not use
the term side in this manner. See Reply Br. 2. Specifically, the
Specification refers to the first and second bracket sides as opposing lateral
portions of the same surface of the bracket. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 4; Figs. 1, 2.
Appeal 2019-004739
Application 15/488,781

6
Finally, Appellant argues that the art of record does not teach or
suggest the claimed mounting cavity angle of between 30 and 60 degrees.
Appeal Br. 16–17. The rejection relies on the angled cavities shown in
Cabanes to show that it would have been obvious to include angled cavities
in Goldstein’s apparatus. Final Act. 3; Ans. 6 (citing Cabanes Fig. 6). We
agree with the Examiner that Cabanes shows angled mounting cavities
through which nails are driven to attach the bracket to a wall. See Cabanes
col. 3, l. 64–col. 4, l. 9; Fig. 6. Further, we agree with the Examiner that the
figures at least suggest an angle within the claimed range. See Final Act. 3.
Without further explanation from Appellant, we are not persuaded of error
with respect to the Examiner’s findings on this point.6
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We
also sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5–12, and 18–20 for the same
reasons.
Claims 4 and 13
With respect to the rejection of claims 4 and 13, Appellant does not
present any arguments, and instead relies on those arguments addressed
above with respect to claim 1. Thus, for the reasons discussed above, we
also sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 13.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1–13 and 18–20.

6 To the extent Appellant refers to cavities 80 in Cabanes regarding this
claim limitation, we note that the Examiner has identified the cavities in the
wall mount as disclosing the claimed angle. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 6.
Appeal 2019-004739
Application 15/488,781

7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 (a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136 (a)(l)(iv).
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–12,
18–20
103 Golstein,
Cabanes
1–3, 5–12,
18–20

4, 13 103 Golstein,
Cabanes,
Castellanos
4, 13
Overall
Outcome
1–13, 18–
20

AFFIRMED