Mattel, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 21, 202014482419 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/482,419 09/10/2014 Tai To LEE 17528(1) 8152 92231 7590 04/21/2020 Edell, Shapiro & Finnan LLC 9801 Washingtonian Blvd. Suite 750 Gaithersburg, MD 20878 EXAMINER COLLINS, DOLORES R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3711 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/21/2020 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): epatent@usiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte TAI TO LEE, JIN QI QIN, and DAMON R. SADDLER __________ Appeal 2019-005618 Application 14/482,419 Technology Center 3700 __________ Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–12 and 22–29,2 which constitute all 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 “Mattel, Inc.” Appeal Br. 3. 2 The Examiner lists claim 21 as pending and rejected in the Office Action Summary. Final Act. 1. However, claim 21 has been canceled and is not rejected in the body of the Office Action. See Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.); Final Act. 3–6. Appeal 2019-005618 Application 14/482,419 2 of the claims pending in this application. Final Act. 1 (Office Action Summary); Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons explained below, we find error in the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. Accordingly, we REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter “relate[s] to dispensers for mixing and dispensing game tiles, and particularly to dispensers that are configured to dispense one or more tiles at a time.” Spec. ¶ 2. Apparatus claim 1 is independent. Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A tile dispenser, comprising: a tile chamber in which tiles are shuffleable; and a gate element that is moveable between a closed position in which the gate element is loadable with one or more tiles coming from the tile chamber and an open position for dispensing any tiles that have been loaded into the gate element; wherein the gate element is configured such that more than one tile is dispensable from the gate element when the gate element is moved from the closed position to the open position; wherein the gate element has a shape that defines a first exit channel and a second exit channel for dispensing tiles from the gate element; and wherein the first exit channel is separate from the second exit channel. REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER Škorić US 2,003,979 June 4, 1935 Geltser US 6,899,148 B1 May 31, 2005 Appeal 2019-005618 Application 14/482,419 3 THE REJECTION ON APPEAL Claims 1–12 and 22–29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Škorić and Geltser. Final Act. 3. ANALYSIS In regard to sole independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Škorić discloses a dispenser comprising a gate element (slide 23), that is moveable between a closed position and an open position (to provide access to single chute 30) “for dispensing any elements that have been loaded into the gate element.” Final Act. 3 (referencing Škorić 2:36–56, Fig. 4). Further, the Examiner relies on Geltser for teaching a gate element 24 having “a shape that defines a first exit channel (from feeds 1–7) and a second exit channel (from (30) to (32)) for dispensing tiles from the gate element.” Final Act. 3 (citing Geltser Fig. 2). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to combine these teachings in order “to maximize randomized items needed for game play.” Final Act. 4 (citing Geltser Abstract). Amongst Appellant’s arguments, Appellant addresses the limitation reciting “wherein the gate element has a shape that defines a first exit channel and a second exit channel for dispensing tiles from the gate element.”3 Appeal Br. 18. Appellant contends that no component in Geltser satisfies this limitation. See Appeal Br. 18. In other words, although Geltser discloses a gate element (24) that moves between open and closed positions, gate element 24 does not define first and second exit channels from which tiles are dispensed. See Appeal Br. 19 (referencing Geltser Fig. 2). This is 3 Claim 1 also recites, “wherein the first exit channel is separate from the second exit channel.” Appeal 2019-005618 Application 14/482,419 4 because each gate element 24 defines a single exit channel rather than first and second exit channels as recited.4 See Geltser Figs. 1–2; Appeal Br. 18– 19. Additionally, each of Geltser’s channels 1–7 (which the Examiner correlates to the recited “first exit channel” (Final Act. 3)) do not dispense product “from” gate 24 as recited, but instead feed product to gate 24. See Geltser Figs. 1, 2. In other words, these channels 1–7 are feed channels, not exit channels, and the Examiner does not explain how the one can be the other. In short, the Examiner does not explain how gate 24 “defines” any or all of these channels 1–7 as an “exit channel for dispensing tiles from the gate element.” Final Act. 3. Emphasis added. In summation, Geltser’s corresponding gate element 24 only dispenses tiles to a single channel, i.e., exit chute 30. See Geltser Figs. 1, 3; 4:47–50. As such, the Examiner incorrectly finds that Geltser’s gate element 24 meets the requirements of the recited gate element, as well as disclosing plural exit channels for dispensing tiles from the gate element. Thus, the Examiner’s position is based on a misunderstanding of Geltser. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–12 and 22–29 depending therefrom, as being obvious over Škorić and Geltser. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–12, 22–29 103 Škorić, Geltser 1–12, 22–29 4 It is not disputed that Škorić also discloses only a single exit channel (i.e., chute 30). See Final Act. 3; see also Appeal Br. 18. Appeal 2019-005618 Application 14/482,419 5 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation