Joaquin Rodriguez

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 4, 2019

15256385 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 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.
15/256,385 09/02/2016 Joaquin Rodriguez JR.0002_QC 1002
138757 7590 09/04/2019
QuickChore Corp.
701 Tennessee Avenue #201
Alexandria, VA 22305
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2019 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):
anthony.whittington1@gmail.com
awhittington@quickchore.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOAQUIN RODRIGUEZ
________________

Appeal 2018-007732
Application 15/256,3851
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1‒20 and 22, which are all the claims pending in this
application. Claim 21 was canceled. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Joaquin Rodriguez.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-007732
Application 15/256,385

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to a mobile phone case that holds
accessories. Spec. ¶ 6. Claim 1 illustrates the appealed subject matter and
reads as follows:
1. A device for storing one or more accessories comprising:
a case having one or more earphones cavities to hold one
or more earphones;
one or more apertures stored on the case to operate a
camera;
one or more channels stored on the case to wrap up one
or more wires of the earphones;
a panel that forms a portion of the case, wherein the
earphone cavities and the channels are both directly embedded
on the panel and the channels are configured to wind the wires
of the earphones without the use of an automatic operation and
the earphone cavities have a depth between 5 mm and 20 mm;
a storage area for storing the one or more accessories;
and
a retractile portion that includes one or more slits to
mount the earphones to the panel.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6‒10, 12, 14‒16, 18, 20, and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 2007/0293288 A1; Dec.
20, 2007), Brandenburg (US 2009/0036175 A1; Feb. 5, 2009), and Stern
(US 2013/0208937 A1; Aug. 15, 2013). Final Act. 3‒5.2

2 All references to the Final Action refer to the Final Action entered on
October 20, 2017.
Appeal 2018-007732
Application 15/256,385

3
Claims 3, 11, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lin, Brandenburg, Stern, and Singhal (US 2014/0252786
A1; Sept. 11, 2014). Final Act. 5.
Claims 5, 13, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lin, Brandenburg, Stern, and Gronewoller
(US 2016/0173160 A1; June 16, 2016). Final Act. 5‒6.

ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
unpatentable over Lin, Brandenburg, and Stern. See Br. 5‒7. In particular,
Appellant argues Stern teaches away from the Examiner’s proposed
combination because Stern teaches an automatic cord retraction system,
contrary to the claimed device that comprises channels “configured to wind
the wires of the earphones without the use of an automatic operation.”
Br. 5‒6. According to Appellant, Stern’s enclosed, automatic winding
mechanism is incompatible with Brandenburg and Lin. Id.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Lin teaches a mobile phone case that includes a channel
with a spool where an earphone cable may be coiled. Final Act. 3 (citing
Lin, Figs. 5, 6A, 6B, 7, ¶ 30); Ans. 8 (citing the same). The Examiner finds
Stern teaches varying geometries of cavities that hold earphones according
to the size of the earphones. Ans. 8 (citing Stern ¶ 59). The Examiner finds
an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined Stern’s earphone cavities
with Lin’s manual retraction system. See id.
Appeal 2018-007732
Application 15/256,385

4
Appellant’s argument that Stern teaches away from the proposed
combination is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, the proposed
combination does not incorporate Stern’s cord retraction system as
suggested by Appellant. Instead, the proposed combination relies on Stern’s
teaching of earphone cavity geometries. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 8. Second,
Stern does not teach away from a manual retraction system. Although Stern
teaches the cord may be retracted in an automatic fashion, Stern also teaches
an alternative embodiment where the user may spin a reel manually to
retract the earphone cord. Stern ¶ 55. A teaching away requires a reference
to actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution.
See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The prior art’s
mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching
away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not
criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.”). Thus,
Stern’s teaching of two alternative cord retraction systems, including both
automatic and manual systems, does not constitute teaching away from
manual cord retraction.
Appellant also argues the proposed combination does not teach or
suggest “the earphone cavities have a depth between 5 mm and 20 mm,” as
recited in claim 1. Br. 6. Appellant argues Stern teaches the storage
compartment geometry corresponds to the shape and size of ear buds, but
does not explicitly teach every possible range of measurements that are
claimed. Id.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Stern teaches the size of the storage compartment (the
claimed “earphone cavities”) may vary according to the size of earphones to
Appeal 2018-007732
Application 15/256,385

5
be stored. Final Act. 4 (citing Stern ¶ 59); Ans. 9 (citing the same). The
Examiner finds, and we agree, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
understood from this teaching that the storage compartment may have a
depth in the 5mm to 20mm range. Ans. 9. Appellant has not persuasively
identified error in the Examiner’s findings. Nor has Appellant overcome the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness by establishing that the claimed
range is critical by showing that the range achieves unexpected results
relative to the range of earphone sizes taught by Stern. See In re Peterson,
315 F.3d 1325, 1330‒31 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing In re Geisler, 116 F.3d
1465, 1469‒70 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Appellant also argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
Stern does not teach a retractile portion with slits, as recited by claim 1. Br.
6 (citing Stern Figs. 6A, 6B, 7, ¶¶ 31‒33). Appellant has not persuaded us
of Examiner error. The Examiner relies on Lin, not Stern, for teaching these
limitations. See Final Act. 5 (citing Lin, Figs. 6A, 6B, 7); Ans. 10 (citing
Lin ¶¶ 31–32). The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter
would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the
combined teachings of the references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981). Here, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Lin teaches a
pedestal (the claimed “retractile portion”) that includes a pair of earphone
sockets (the claimed “one or more slits”) that elastically deform to allow the
earphone to enter the sockets. Ans. 10 (citing Lin ¶¶ 31‒32). Appellant has
not persuasively identified error in these findings.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claims 9 and 15, which Appellant argues are patentable for the
Appeal 2018-007732
Application 15/256,385

6
same reasons. See Br. 7. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of dependent claims 2‒8, 10‒14, and 16‒20, for which Appellant
provides no separate arguments. See id.
Claim 22
Claim 22 recites “[t]he apparatus of claim 9, wherein the one or more
accessories stored in the storage area are digital media accessories.”
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 223 because Lin does
not teach or suggest “wherein the one or more accessories stored in the
storage area are digital media accessories.” Br. 6‒7. In particular, Appellant
argues Lin teaches a cell phone case, not an additional storage area for
storing digital media accessories. Id. According to Appellant, the claimed
storage area may be used to protect “digital media devices,” which may
include credit cards, smart cards, digital cards, etc. Br. 7 (citing Spec. ¶ 24).
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Lin teaches a protective apparatus that holds a portable
device and one or more accessories. Final Act. 5 (citing Lin ¶ 21); Ans. 12
(citing Lin ¶¶ 7, 21). The Examiner finds, and we agree, the portable device
is a digital media device and the accessories are, therefore, digital media
accessories. Id. Appellant’s argument that “digital media devices” may
include credit cards, smart cards, and digital cards, is not commensurate with
the scope of the claim, which recites none of these particular devices.

3 Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21 because Lin fails
to teach or suggest this “wherein” limitation. See Br. 6‒7. Claim 21 was
withdrawn, but claim 22 recites this limitation. Accordingly, we treat the
listing of claim 21 as a typographical error and address the argument as
directed to claim 22.
Appeal 2018-007732
Application 15/256,385

7
See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (stating that limitations
not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability). Indeed,
claim 22 does not recite “digital media devices,” instead reciting “digital
media accessories.” Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us the
Examiner erred in finding an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
understood Lin’s “one or more accessories” that are stored in a cell phone
case to be “digital media accessories,” as claimed. We, therefore, sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 22.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1‒20 and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED