CCL Label, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 24, 2020

14160835 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 2020)

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.
14/160,835 01/22/2014 Jay Sato 38208-01030 9523
33772 7590 07/24/2020
MCDONALD HOPKINS LLC
600 Superior Avenue, East
Suite 2100
CLEVELAND, OH 44114-2653
EXAMINER
CHAPMAN, JEANETTE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3635
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2020 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):
ipmailbox@mcdonaldhopkins.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAY SATO, ERIC CUSHING,
SUJITH CHACKO, and ALAN JAMESON

Appeal 2020-001066
Application 14/160,835
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 36, 43, 45, 47–50, 52, 53, and 55–57.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “the
assignee, CCL Label, Inc.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-001066
Application 14/160,835

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 36, 43, and 50 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 36, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
36. A secure hold hook comprising:
a generally planar body having top and bottom portions
and first and second opposed surfaces;
a hook monolithically formed with the body, the hook
extending from the first opposed surface on the bottom portion,
the hook having a cavity that is formed in the second opposed
surface and extends into the hook;
a generally planar portion along the second opposed
surface that circumscribes the cavity;
a double-sided adhesive attached with the second
opposed surface; and
wherein the double-sided adhesive includes a permanent
adhesive secured with the second opposed surface and a
removable adhesive extending from the permanent adhesive,
the removable adhesive operatively secures the body to a
surface and allows a user to pull downward on the top portion
for removal of the body from the surface generally without
damaging the surface.

Rejections
Claims 36, 43, 49, 50, 52, 53, and 55–57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Moriarty (US 5,979,675, issued Nov. 9, 1999)
and Kreckel (US 5,989,708, issued Nov. 23, 1999).
Claims 45, 47, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Moriarty, Kreckel, and Ryder (US 2010/0152686 A1,
published June 17, 2010).

Appeal 2020-001066
Application 14/160,835

3

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Moriarty discloses the claimed “generally
planar body.” Final Act. 2. The Appellant argues that Moriarty lacks a
“generally planar body.” Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 5. In this regard, we
note that independent claim 36 calls for “a generally planar body” having
two portions, i.e., top and bottom, and two opposed surfaces, i.e., first and
second. Appeal Br., Claims App. Independent claims 43 and 50 include
similar recitations. Id.
Figures 1–3 and 6 of Moriarty are shown below.

Appeal 2020-001066
Application 14/160,835

4

Figures 1–3 and 6 show an embodiment of Moriarty’s hanger, more
specifically: Figure 1 shows a perspective view of the hanger “including a
support portion supporting a manual pipette and a mounting portion attached
to a support surface comprising a flat wall”; Figure 2 shows a side view of
Figure 1’s hanger without the pipette; Figure 3 shows a sectional top view of
Figure 2; and, Figure 6 shows “a perspective and exploded rear view of the
hanger of [Figure] 1 showing a hollow housing and a rear of the hanger for
receiving a ring-shaped magnet confined in an annular shroud, and a double-
sided adhesive disc.” Moriarty, col. 3, ll. 34–50 (emphasis omitted).
With regard to the rejection of claim 36, the Examiner finds that the
claimed “top portion” of the “generally planar body” corresponds to back
plate 26 and the claimed “bottom portion” of the “generally planar body”
corresponds to decorative flange 31 and adhesive strip 50. Final Act. 2
(stating “a generally planar body having top 26 and bottom portions 31” and
“the hook 22/24 extending from the first opposed surface 44 on the bottom
portion 50”); see id. at 3 (rejecting claim 43). The Examiner also finds that
the claimed “first opposed surface” of the “generally planar body”
corresponds to plastic support portion 14, which is formed of separated
hollow support members 22 and 24, and flat ring shaped magnet 44, and the
claimed “second opposed surface” of the “generally planar body”
corresponds to back plate 26. Id. at 2 (stating “a generally planar body
having . . . first 14 and second 26 opposed surfaces” and “the hook 22/24
extending from the first opposed surface 44 on the bottom portion 50”); see
Moriarty, col. 4, ll. 24–32; see also Final Act. 3 (rejecting claim 43). In
view of the foregoing, it is apparent that the Examiner finds that the claimed
“generally planar body” reads on a collection of structures of Moriarty’s
Appeal 2020-001066
Application 14/160,835

5

hanger, including: back plate 26; decorative flange 31, which extends from
back plate 26; adhesive strip 50; plastic support portion 14, which is formed
of separated hollow support members 22 and 24; and/or flat ring shaped
magnet 44. Final Act. 2–4 (rejecting claims 35 and 43).
In this case, the Appellant has the better position because the
collection of structures of Moriarty’s hanger relied upon by the Examiner to
reject claims 35 and 43 do not correspond to the claimed “generally planar
body.” For example, we fail to understand how plastic support portion 14,
which is formed of separated hollow support members 22 and 24, along with
the remainder of the identified structures, e.g., back plate 26, has a generally
planar body.
The record does reflect that the Examiner may not have relied on all
of the collection of structures as discussed above. See, e.g., Ans. 13
(“Moriarty teaches the majority of elements such as the planar body 26.”). If
the Examiner only relied upon back plate 26 to correspond to the claimed
“generally planar body” for the rejections of claims 35 and 43, then other
findings appear to be inconsistent with the remainder of the findings
particular to the rejection (see supra) and/or the findings appear to be
incomplete for establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Additionally,
to the extent that the Examiner may have relied only on a portion of the
collection of structures identified above –– specifically, backing plate 26 and
decorative flange 31 (see, e.g., Final Act. 4 (rejecting claim 50)) –– the
Appellant points out that Moriarty’s body is generally hollow and that
“flange 31 has a generally angled config[ur]ation related to the backing plate
26 to form the open back housing to support the mounting portion 12.”
Reply Br. 6–7 (citing Moriarty, col. 4, ll. 46–52). The Appellant contends
Appeal 2020-001066
Application 14/160,835

6

that “the angled configuration of the decorative flange 31 in combination
with the back plate 26 [is not] comparable to a generally planar body as
recited by the claims.” Reply Br. 7. We agree with the Appellant’s
contention.
Further, the Examiner fails to rely on Kreckel and/or Ryder in any
manner that would remedy the deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection as
discussed above. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
independent claims 36, 43, and 50 and dependent claims 45, 47–50, 52, 53,
and 55–57.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
36, 43, 49,
50, 52, 53,
55–57
103 Moriarty, Kreckel

36, 43, 49,
50, 52, 53,
55–57
45, 47, 48 103 Moriarty, Kreckel,
Ryder
45, 47, 48
Overall
Outcome
36, 43, 45,
47–50, 52,
53, 55–57

REVERSED