DELTA T CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 2, 2020

14439801 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 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.
14/439,801 04/30/2015 C. Jason Hollan 1527-532 2146
1009 7590 10/02/2020
KING & SCHICKLI, PLLC
800 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 200
LEXINGTON, KY 40503
EXAMINER
DUCKWORTH, BRADLEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2020 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):
laura@iplaw1.net
uspto@iplaw1.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte C. JASON HOLLAN
___________

Appeal 2019-003796
Application 14/439,801
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

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 Delta T, LLC. Appeal
Brief (“Appeal Br.”) 2, filed Jan. 11, 2019.

Appeal 2019-003796
Application 14/439,801

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to “an apparatus for mounting a
ceiling fan.” Spec. 3,2 Figs. 1, 3, 6, 7. Claims 1, 8, 21, 28, and 29 are
independent.
Claims 1 and 21 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter and
recite:
1. An apparatus for mounting a ceiling fan including a
support to one or more ceiling structures, comprising:
a plurality of mounts, each adapted for
connecting to the ceiling structure; and
a plurality of cables, each for extending
between the ceiling fan and one of the mounts,
whereby the cables provide additional
reinforcement and stability, enabling the fan to
remain secured to the ceiling structure during
seismic events.

21. A mounting assembly for connecting with a cable
extending between a support structure and a fan,
comprising:
first and second brackets, each including a
first leg and a second leg;
first fasteners, each for connecting with one
of the first legs of the brackets;
a bar for connecting to the first fasteners;
at least one second fastener for connecting
with the second legs; and
at least one connector for connecting with the
cable.

2 As Appellant’s Specification does not include line numbers, we reference
the page number only. Originally filed Specification (“Spec.”), filed Apr.
30, 2015.
Appeal 2019-003796
Application 14/439,801

3
REJECTIONS
I. Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for
lack of written description.3
II. Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for
indefiniteness.
III. Claims 1–344 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lueddecke (US 7,625,186 B1, issued Dec.1, 2009) and Hoffmann (US
2005/0189456 A1, published Sept. 1, 2005).
ANALYSIS
Written Description
Claim 35
Dependent claim 35 recites “wherein each mount comprises a bracket
and a connector for connecting to one of the plurality of cables, the
connector being attached to the bracket so as to be incapable of pivoting
movement.” Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).
The Examiner determines that claim 35 “recites that the connector is
attached to the bracket so as to be incapable of pivoting movement, this is
not described in the application as filed and constitutes new matter.” Final
Act. 2. In particular, the Examiner determines that Appellant’s disclosure
“provides no indication that the connector(405) is incapable of pivoting
movement relative the bracket(404). On the contrary, the connector(405) is

3 The Examiner does not present a prior art rejection for claim 35. See
generally Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), dated Oct. 11, 2019.
4 Claims 31–34 are not listed in the heading of the rejection but are
addressed in the body of the rejection. See Final Act. 4–6.
Appeal 2019-003796
Application 14/439,801

4
shown as being screwed onto bolt(406), [which] would rotate or pivot the
connector relative the bracket(404).” Ans. 3.5
Citing to the Specification at page 9 and Figure 5, Appellant contends
that a skilled artisan would understand that “each mount comprises a bracket
and a connector for connecting to one of the plurality of cables, the
connector being attached to the bracket so as to be incapable of pivoting
movement” due to the nature of the fastening shown: “that is, the nut
secured to bolt 406 prevents the connector 405 from pivoting as a result of
the connection with the bracket – i.e., the eye bolt 407 cannot ‘pivot’ as a
result.” Appeal Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 26 (“As is clearly described in the
specification, the nut secured to bolt 406 prevents the connector 405 from
pivoting at all.”).
To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must
describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art
can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed
invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir.
1991). Specifically, the specification must describe the claimed invention in
a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show
that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id. In addition,
the drawings in an application can be relied upon to show that an inventor
was in possession of the claimed invention as of the filing date. Id. at 1565.
Appellant’s Specification describes that “brackets (404) may be
placed below the flanges of the angle iron members (452) and coupled

5 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), dated Feb. 11, 2019.
6 Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed Apr. 11, 2019.
Appeal 2019-003796
Application 14/439,801

5
together by a fastener, which may comprise a bolt (406) and a separable
connector (405), which together form the eye bolt (407).” Spec. 9.
We appreciate Appellant’s position that “[a] skilled artisan would
understand such, as the fundamental purpose of a bolt is to secure an object
as to prevent it from moving in any fashion.” Reply Br. 2. However,
Appellant fails to address the Examiner’s position that Appellant’s
disclosure “provides no indication that the connector(405) is incapable of
pivoting movement relative the bracket(404)” and “[o]n the contrary, the
connector(405) is shown as being screwed onto bolt(406), [which] would
rotate or pivot the connector relative the bracket(404).” See id.; see also
Ans. 3 (emphasis added). Additionally, originally filed Figures 5 and 67 of
the subject application do not clearly illustrate that connector 405’s
attachment to bracket 404 via bolt 406 necessarily means that connector 405
is “incapable of movement” relative to bracket 404. Rather, as connector
405 is illustrated as being screwed onto bolt 406, it is possible that bolt 406
could rotate or pivot connector 405 relative to bracket 404, as pointed out by
the Examiner. See originally filed Figs. 5, 6; see also Ans. 3.
As such, we are of the opinion that the originally filed Specification
and drawings fail to fully and clearly disclose “the connector being attached
to the bracket so as to be incapable of pivoting movement” (Appeal Br. 15
(Claims App.) (emphasis added)), so as to demonstrate that Appellant was in
possession of the claimed subject matter at the time the application was

7 Originally filed drawings, filed Apr. 30, 2015.
Appeal 2019-003796
Application 14/439,801

6
filed. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner’s finding that the original
disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 35 for lack
of written description.
Indefiniteness
Claim 33
Dependent claim 33 recites “wherein each mount comprises a bolt
having a looped head for connecting to a first end of at least one cable of the
plurality of cables.” Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).
The Examiner determines that the limitation a “looped head” is
unclear, “as this term is not used in the [S]pecification or previously
submitted claims. Rather the ‘bolt having a looped head’ is described and
previously claimed as being an eye bolt”; thus, “[i]t is unclear if this term is
merely meant to reference an eye bolt, or if any additional limitations are
meant to be placed on the device.” Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 3–4 (“The
claimed bolt having a looped head of claim 33 is previously claimed in claim
5 as an ‘eye bolt.’” Thus, “[i]t is unclear if the term ‘bolt having a looped
head’ is simply meant to define an ‘eye bolt’ or if additional limitations are
meant to be claimed by the term.”).
In this case, we agree with Appellant that the fact that the term
“looped head” “‘is not used in the [S]pecification or previously submitted
claims’ is not a basis for a finding of indefiniteness” and “whether ‘the term
is merely meant to reference an eye bolt, or if any additional limitations are
meant to be placed on the device’ does not render the terminology unclear.”
Appeal Br. 5. Moreover, the Specification describes that “[t]he cable (410)
attaches to the mounting bracket (400) by way of a connector, such as an eye
Appeal 2019-003796
Application 14/439,801

7
bolt (407), as shown in FIG. 3.” Spec. 9 (emphasis added), Fig. 3. In other
words, “those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the
claim is read in light of the [S]pecification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety
Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations
omitted); see also Reply Br. 2. By specifying “a bolt having a looped head,”
claim 33 is merely broad, not indefinite. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008,
1016 n.17 (CCPA 1977) (breadth is not indefiniteness).
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
33 for indefiniteness.
Obviousness over Lueddecke and Hoffmann
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15–20, 28–31, and 33–35
Appellant does not offer arguments in favor of independent claims 8,
28, and 29, or dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 15–20, 30, 31, and 33–35
separate from those presented for independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 5–
10. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9,
13, 15–20, 28–31, and 33–35 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018). We address claims 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 21–27, and
32 separately below.
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s determination that “‘it would
have been obvious . . . to use the mounting bracket of Hoffman to connect
the cables of Lueddecke to the ceiling structure, as this would merely be
using known elements for their known functions and would yield predictable
results’” constitutes “merely a conclusory statement.” Appeal Br. 6 (quoting
Final Act. 4; Examiner’s emphasis omitted).As an initial matter, we disagree
with Appellant that the Examiner’s reasoning is merely a “conclusory
statement.” See id. Further, Appellant does not apprise us how the
Appeal 2019-003796
Application 14/439,801

8
Examiner’s proposed modification of Lueddecke’s fan device with the
mounting bracket of Hoffman would not “yield predictable results.” See
Appeal Br. 5–6; see also Reply Br. 1–4.
In the Answer, the Examiner explains that “Lueddecke does not
provide details as to how the cable members are to be mounted to the ceiling
structure, rather Lueddecke merely states that [the cables] are ‘attached to
the lower outer sleeve member 326 and to support points on the building.’”
Ans. 4 (citing Lueddecke 15:9–10). The Examiner further explains that
“Hoffman teaches an exemplary mounting bracket for attaching to ceiling
structures, such as the support points referenced by Lueddecke.” Id. The
Examiner reasons that it, therefore, would have been obvious to a skilled
artisan “to use the known mounting brackets of Hoffmann with the device of
Lueddecke, as this would be using known elements for their known
functions, which would yield predictable results.” Ans. 4; see also Final
Act. 4, 7. Appellant does not apprise us of Examiner error. See Appeal Br.
5–6; see also Reply Br. 1–4.
In particular, Appellant does not provide persuasive evidence or
argument as to why the Examiner’s proposed modifications would not have
yielded predictable results. A prima facie conclusion of obviousness may be
supported by a showing that the claims are directed to a process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter already known in the prior art that is
altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the
field, and such modification yields a predictable result. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). “[I]f a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
Appeal 2019-003796
Application 14/439,801

9
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” Id. at 417,
421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not
an automaton.”).
Further, Appellant does not explain with any specificity why a person
of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of
success in making the proposed modifications. See In re O’Farrell, 853
F.2d 894, 903–04 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining that absolute predictability
that the substitution will be successful is not required; all that is required is a
reasonable expectation of success).
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
unpatentable over Lueddecke and Hoffmann. We further sustain the
rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15–20, 28–31, and 33–35, which fall
with claim 1.
Claims 4 and 14
Claim 4 depends indirectly from claim 1 and recites “wherein the
adjustable bar comprises multiple bolt holes, and the brackets comprise slots
adapted for receiving a bolt extending within any of the multiple bolt holes.”
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Claim 14 depends
indirectly from claim 8 and recites “wherein each of the brackets includes a
slot for receiving one of the bolts.” Appeal Br. 12–13 (Claims App.)
(emphasis added). Appellant does not separately argue claim 14. See
Appeal Br. 3–10; see also Reply Br. 1–4. However, because claim 14
requires a similar limitation as that in claim 4 and the Examiner appears to
rely on the same teachings for claim 14 as for claim 4, we address claim 14
here also. See Appeal Br. 12–13 (Claims App.); see also Final Act. 5.
Appeal 2019-003796
Application 14/439,801

10
The Examiner finds that passage opening 38 of Hoffmann constitutes
the “slot” of the claims. See Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 5. Appellant
contends that “Appellant has defined a ‘slot’8 as ‘a narrow opening; a groove
or slit’” and that “passage opening 38 of Hoffman fails to qualify as a ‘long,
narrow cut or slot’, as is required by the claim[s].” Reply Br. 2–3; see also
Appeal Br. 6.
Hoffmann describes element 38 as a “passage opening” provided at
second clamp section 33 “for a rail nut configured as a fixation means 39 for
affixing the support section 13.” Hoffmann ¶ 33, Fig. 2. Hoffmann also
describes that “attachment elements 21 each have a receiving part 25 . . . ,
which are configured as slot-shaped apertures running from the first
member 22 via the connecting section 24 to the second member 23.”
Hoffmann ¶ 32 (emphasis added), Fig. 1. As Hoffmann explicitly illustrates
and describes a “slot-shaped aperture[]” 25 and merely describes element 38
as a “passage opening,” we agree with Appellant that the Examiner fails to
establish adequately by a preponderance of the evidence that “passage
opening” 38 of Hoffmann constitutes a “slot” as called for in claims 4 and
14. See Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2–3; Final Act. 5; Ans. 5;
Hoffmann ¶¶ 32, 33.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4
and 14 as unpatentable over Lueddecke and Hoffmann.

8 Appellant cites to “The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2018 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Publishing Company” for the definition of the term “slot.” Appeal Br. 6.
Appeal 2019-003796
Application 14/439,801

11
Claims 7 and 12
Claim 7 depends directly from claim 1 and recites “wherein the
ceiling structure comprises a plurality of joists, and each mount is adapted
for enveloping a portion of one of the joists.” Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.)
(emphasis added). Claim 12 depends indirectly from claim 8 and recites
“wherein each mounting bracket is adapted to envelop a portion of the joist.”
Appeal Br. 12–13 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that “the ceiling structures of Luddecke and
Hoffmann comprises joists(See Luddecke C14 L37-38, and Hoffmann 1)
and each mount of Hoffman is adapted for enveloping a portion of one of the
joists.” Final Act. 5.
Appellant contends that the Specification at page 9 describes “[w]hen
completely assembled, the exemplary mounting bracket (400) envelops a
ceiling joist (450) as shown in FIGS. 1, 3, and 5” and that “the Examiner’s
rejection is not based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims”
in that “[t]he claims require ‘enveloping,’ which is defined as
‘surrounding’”9 and that “[n]owhere does the rejection establish that the
mount in Hoffman ‘surrounds’ a portion of the joist, or that a broader
meaning of the term inconsistent with Appellant’s [S]pecification should be
applied as the broadest reasonable interpretation.” Appeal Br. 7.
Hoffmann discloses that attachment construction 11 “comprises two
retaining elements 31 for retaining the support section 13 on the steel

9 Appellant cites to “The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2018 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Publishing Company” for the definition of the term “enveloping.” Appeal
Br. 7.
Appeal 2019-003796
Application 14/439,801

12
support 1” and that “[e]ach retaining element 31 has a first clamp section 32,
a second clamp section 33 and a connecting section 34, connecting the first
clamp section 32 and the second clamp section 33, for gripping around an
edge of the support [1].” Hoffmann ¶ 33 (emphasis added), Fig. 2. Based
on Hoffmann’s disclosure, under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
which is consistent with Appellant’s Specification, we agree with the
Examiner that “mount (11) of Hoffman, shown in figure 1 of Hoffman
clearly envelopes or surrounds a portion of the joist (1)[,] as required by the
claims.” Ans. 5; see also Hoffmann, Figs. 1, 2.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and
12 as unpatentable over Lueddecke and Hoffmann.
Claim 10
Claim 10 depends indirectly from claim 8 and recites “wherein the
support comprises an elongate, metal tube-like structure that couples the fan
to the ceiling.” Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that “the support(300) of Luddecke comprises an
elongate metal tube like structure that coupled the fan to the ceiling.” Final
Act. 5.
Appellant contends that “support 300 in Lueddecke appears to be an
angle iron, which is not established as being ‘tube-like.’” Appeal Br. 8; see
also Reply Br. 3–4. Appellant also includes a definition of the term “tube”10

10 Appellant cites to “The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2018 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Publishing Company” for the definition of the term “tube.” Appeal Br. 8.

Appeal 2019-003796
Application 14/439,801

13
as “[a] hollow cylinder, especially one that conveys a fluid or functions as a
passage” and contends that “support 300 is merely a flat plate” that “does
not qualify as a tube.” See Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 4.
Lueddecke discloses that Figure 9 “shows one exemplary embodiment
of a support structure 300 usable with the large area fan 100 according to
this invention,” that Figure 10 “shows one exemplary embodiment of a fan
hub drive shaft 200 according to this invention, as attached to the exemplary
embodiment of the support structure 300 showing FIG. 9, and that Figure 15
“illustrates one exemplary embodiment of the guy wires 350 and the sleeve
assembly 320 of the support structure 300.” Lueddecke 14:35–37, 15:18–
21, 17:35–37 (emphasis added), Figs. 9, 10, 15.
From Lueddecke’s disclosure and figures, we understand structure
300 of Lueddecke to represent the “entire” support structure 300, which
includes, for example, support member 310, upper outer sleeve 322/lower
outer sleeve 326 (i.e., sleeve assembly 320), and mounting plate 330. These
structures “collectively” represent support structure 300 that “is capable of
supporting the weight and forces of the large area fan 100.” See Lueddecke
14:37–41, 17:35–37, Figs. 9, 10, 13, 14, 15. Based on this understanding, a
skilled artisan would recognize that support structure 300 of Lueddecke
comprises (includes) an elongate, metal tube-like structure 320 that couples
the fan 100 to the ceiling. See Final Act. 5; see also Appeal Br. 12 (Claims
App.).
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 as
unpatentable over Lueddecke and Hoffmann.

Appeal 2019-003796
Application 14/439,801

14
Claims 11 and 32
Claim 11 depends directly from claim 8 and recites “wherein the
cables are connected to the fan by way of turnbuckles attached to a bracket
located between a motor assembly and a gearbox of the fan.” Appeal Br.
12–13 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Claim 32 depends directly from
claim 8 and recites “wherein the cables are attached to the fan between a
motor assembly and a gearbox of the fan.” Appeal Br. 12, 14 (Claims App.)
(emphasis added). Appellant does not separately argue claim 32. See
Appeal Br. 3–10; see also Reply Br. 1–4. However, as claim 32 requires a
similar limitation as claim 11 and the Examiner relies on the same teachings
for claim 32 as for claim 11, we address claim 32 here also. Appeal Br. 13–
14 (Claims App.); see also Final Act. 5.
The Examiner finds Luddecke does not teach that bracket 330 is
located between motor assembly 250 and gearbox 230. Final Act. 5.
However, the Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to a skilled
artisan “to place the bracket between the motor and gearbox, such as
locating the bracket(330) on the face of the gearbox connected to the motor
assembly, as a matter of obvious design choice, as this would result in the
same functionality as the arrangement disclosed by Luddecke.” Id.
Here, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s position that
locating bracket 330 between motor assembly 250 and gearbox 230 of
Luddecke “would result in the same functionality as the arrangement
disclosed by Luddecke” “is pure speculation” and is not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. See Appeal Br. 9; see also Final Act. 5;
Luddecke, Fig. 10. Additionally, we agree with Appellant that locating
“mounting plate 330 ‘between’ the motor [250] and the gearbox [230] would
Appeal 2019-003796
Application 14/439,801

15
require a complete reworking of the Lueddecke arrangement.” See Appeal
Br. 9; see also Luddecke, Fig. 10 (depicting motor 250 and gearbox 230
being spaced laterally away (offset) from bracket 330).
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 11 and 32 as unpatentable over Lueddecke and Hoffmann.
Claims 21–27
Appellant does not offer arguments in favor of dependent claims 22–
27 separate from those presented for independent claim 21. See Appeal Br.
10. We select claim 21 as the representative claim, and claims 22–27 stand
or fall with claim 21. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
Independent claim 21 is directed to “[a] mounting assembly for
connecting with a cable extending between a support structure and a fan”
including “first and second brackets, each including a first leg and a second
leg” and “at least one second fastener for connecting with the second legs.”
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.)
The Examiner finds that Hoffmann discloses “the first and second
brackets include a first leg(34) and a second leg(32), first fasteners(39) for
connecting with one of the first legs, second fasteners(37) for connecting
with the second legs.” Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 7 (“[A]s can clearly be
seen in Figure 2 of Hoffman, the fastener (37) is clearly shown as
connecting with the second leg(32).”).
Appellant contends that “the Examiner never articulates the basis for
claiming that the fastener 37 in Hoffman is for ‘connecting with the second
leg’ 32.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant also contends Hoffman discloses that
“the fixation means 37 is tightened on a first clamp section 32. The fixation
means 37 is further used to fasten construction 11 on the steel support, rather
Appeal 2019-003796
Application 14/439,801

16
than connect with the first clamp 32.” Reply Br. 3. As such, “[g]iven this
description, Appellant asserts that the fastener 37 of Hoffman is not for
‘connecting with second leg 32’, but rather, for connecting construction 11
with the disclosed steel support.” Reply Br. 3.
Hoffmann discloses that “[b]y tightening the fixation means 37 on the
first clamp section 32, the fastening construction 11 is removably affixed on
the steel support [1].” Hoffmann ¶ 34, Figs. 1, 2. Stated differently,
connecting fixation means 37 with first clamp section 32 enables fastening
construction 11 to be removably affixed on steel support 1 via the tightening
of fixation means 37. As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
the Examiner adequately establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that
Hoffmann discloses “at least one second fastener for connecting with the
second legs,” as called for in claim 21. See Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.);
see also Final Act. 6; Ans. 7.
Appellant contends that the Examiner fails to articulate a reason based
on rational underpinnings for combining Luddecke and Hoffman. See
Appeal Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 3. However, as clarified by the Examiner
in the Answer, similar to claim 1, the Examiner proposes modifying
Lueddecke’s fan device with the mounting bracket of Hoffman and reasons
that such a proposed modification would “yield predictable results.” See
Ans. 4, 7; see also Final Act. 4, 6. Additionally, similar to that discussed
above for claim 1, Appellant does not apprise us how the Examiner’s
proposed modification of Lueddecke’s fan device with the mounting bracket
of Hoffman would not “yield predictable results.” See Appeal Br. 10; see
also Reply Br. 3. As such, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s proposed reasoning for modifying Lueddecke with Hoffman.
Appeal 2019-003796
Application 14/439,801

17
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 as
unpatentable over Lueddecke and Hoffmann. We further sustain the
rejection of claims 22–27, which fall with claim 21.

CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
35 112, first
paragraph
Written
Description
35
33 112,
second
paragraph
Indefiniteness 33
1–34 103(a) Lueddecke,
Hoffmann
1–3, 5–10,
12, 13, 15–
31, 33–35
4, 11, 14, 32
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–10,
12, 13, 15–
31, 33–35
4, 11, 14, 32

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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED IN PART