Ex Parte Appino et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2013

11538884 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte BRUCE R. APPINO, MAX W. HIBNER
_____________

Appeal 2011-002489
Application 11/538,8841
Technology Center 2800
______________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DAVID M. KOHUT, BRYAN F.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 An oral hearing was held in this appeal on March 13, 2013.
Appeal 2011-002489
Application 11/538,884

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Final Rejection of claims 1-24 which represent all the pending claims.
App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to network cabinets for cable
connections and, more particularly to grounded cabinets for switching
and patching applications. See Spec. ¶ [0002].
Claim 1 is exemplary of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A network cabinet, comprising:

at least one side panel;

a door movable between an open position and a closed
position, the door and the at least one side panel being
adjacent each other;

a base frame providing structural support for the network
cabinet, the base frame comprising at least one vertical frame rail
comprising first and second opposing sidewalls, wherein each of
the opposing sidewalls define a plurality of apertures positioned
along a length of the vertical frame rail and the at least one
vertical frame rail provides structural support for the base frame;
and

a cable management unit comprising a base, a plurality of
fingers extending from the base, and at least one projection
extending from the base;

wherein the projection is constructed of a size and shape
such that the projection engages any one of the apertures of the
first sidewall.

Appeal 2011-002489
Application 11/538,884

3
REFERENCES
Wright US 6,600,107 B1 Jul. 29, 2003
Vongseng US 2005/0281526 A1 Dec. 22, 2005
Smith US 7,083,051 B2 Aug. 1, 2006

REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Smith, Vongseng, and Wright.
Ans. 3-11.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Smith
and Wright collectively teaches or suggests the following
limitations recited in claim 1:
a. “plurality of apertures positioned along a length of the
vertical frame rail and the at least one vertical frame rail
provides structural support for the base frame,”
b. “wherein [ a] projection [of a cable management unit 1]
engages any one of the apertures of the first side wall”
of the vertical frame rail,
c. “a base frame providing structural support for [a]
network cabinet;” and
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Smith teaches "wherein
the plurality of apertures of the first sidewall are different in at
least one of size and shape than the plurality of apertures of
the second sidewall,” as recited in claim 10?
Appeal 2011-002489
Application 11/538,884

4
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-9, and 11-24
Appellants argue that the combination of Smith, Vongseng, and
Wright does not teach “plurality of apertures positioned along a length
of the vertical frame rail and the at least one vertical frame rail provides
structural support for the base frame.” App. Br. 9-17. Specifically,
Appellants argue that columns 104 and 108 of Smith do not meet the
limitation to a vertical frame rail because columns 104 and 108 of
Smith do not have apertures. App. Br. 11.
Figure 18 of Smith is reproduced below (on the following page):
Appeal 2011-002489
Application 11/538,884

5

Figure 18 as shown depicts a side view of a panel including
element 104 and 108 discussed above.

We note that the Examiner relies on the panel 14´ of Smith in
combination with the vertical frame member 1 of Wright to meet the
limitation to “vertical frame rail.” Ans. 12, 13 (citing Smith, Fig. 18;
Wright Fig. 12A).

Appeal 2011-002489
Application 11/538,884

6
Figure 12A of Wright is reproduced below:

Figure 12A as shown depicts a perspective view of a frame
assembly including a pair of vertical frame members including
element 1 discussed above.
Thus, this argument does not respond to the Examiner’s specific
findings and is not persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellants further argue that panel 14´ of Smith does not provide
structural support for the base frame of the rack 12 of Smith because it
is “hang” onto columns 104 of Smith and provide weight instead of
support. App. Br. 11. As noted above, the Examiner relies on the panel
Appeal 2011-002489
Application 11/538,884

7
14´ of Smith in combination with the vertical frame member 1 of
Wright to meet the limitation to “vertical frame rail.” Ans. 12, 13
(citing Wright Fig. 12A). Thus, this argument does not respond to the
Examiner’s specific findings and is not persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellants argue that the frame member 1 of Wright does not
meet the limitation to a vertical frame rail because the Examiner relies
on horizontal crossbar 30 as the base frame to which frame member 1
provides support and horizontal crossbar 30 cannot be the base frame
30 and is not “a base frame providing structural support for the network
cabinet.” This argument is not persuasive of Examiner error.
We initially note that the Examiner defines support as follows:
“to supporting structure that holds up or provides a foundation;” OR
“the act of bearing the weight of or strengthening.” Ans. 12 (citing
wordnetweb.priceton.edu/perl/webwn). We construe support in a
similar manner as “to carry the weight of.” The Collins English
Dictionary, © HarperCollins Publishers (2000) (retrieved from
http://www.xreferplus.com/entry/hcengdict/support) (last visited
March. 20, 2013). Appellants do not offer a construction of the term
“support.”
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
have recognized that Wright suggests that horizontal crossbar 30 may
be attached to the base frame of Wright, represented in Fig. 12B, in the
same manner as horizontal crossbar 34 is attached to base frame 32.
Ans. 16. Appellants admit that this is the case. App. Br. 14 (“the top
and bottom cross members 30 may be mounted to the frame elements 3
Appeal 2011-002489
Application 11/538,884

8
and 4 [from the Wright PCT which are equivalent to frame 32 of
Wright] similarly to the transverse members 34 . . . .”).
Figure 12B of Wright is reproduced below:

Figure 12A as shown a perspective view of a rack receiving a
frame assembly including the attachment of elements 32 and 34
discussed above.
Thus, essentially the horizontal crossbar 30 becomes a part of
the base frame 32. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that horizontal
crossbar 30 can be properly characterized as the claimed base frame.
Appeal 2011-002489
Application 11/538,884

9
Given the fact that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention would have recognized that Wright suggests that
horizontal crossbar 30 is part of the base frame of Wright because it can
be attached in the same location and manner as horizontal crossbar 34.
We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention would recognize that a horizontal crossbar 34 is
located at the bottom and the top of the network cabinet in Fig. 12B, but
is obscured from view by network top panel 35. Id. Therefore, we agree
with the Examiner that Fig. 12B of Wright shows that the network top
panel 35 will weigh down on horizontal crossbar 34. Thus, when
horizontal crossbar 30 is attached below the network top panel 35,
network top panel 35 will weigh down on horizontal crossbar 30. Id.
Thus, the horizontal crossbar 30 is providing support for the network
cabinet as recited in claim 1.
Additionally, since one of horizontal crossbars 30 shown in Fig.
12B, is attached above frame member 1, horizontal crossbars 30 (the
claimed base frame) will weigh down on frame member 1 (the claimed
vertical frame rail). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Smith and Wright teaches or suggests that “vertical
frame rail [that] provides structural support for the base frame,” recited
in claim 1.
Appellants also argue that neither frame member 1 of Wright or
panels 14´ of Smith teach plurality of apertures in opposing sidewalls
that engage cable management units, as recited in claim 1. The
Examiner relies on Figure 17 of Smith which shows apertures (the
unnumbered light bulb shaped opening in rail 214) in opposing
Appeal 2011-002489
Application 11/538,884

10
sidewalls (rail 214 in Fig. 17 (also see, rail 14 in Fig. 18 which shows
opposing sidewalls)) that engage cable management units (50a-f). Ans.
15 (citing Wright, Figs. 17 and 18).
Appellants also argue that by arguing that horizontal crossbar 30
becomes a part of the base frame 32 the Examiner has duplicated base
frames and thus Wright teaches away from considering horizontal
crossbar 30 as part of the base frame. “A reference may be said to teach
away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, . . .
would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by
the applicant.” In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
quoting Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360
(Fed. Cir. 1999). A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely
expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not
“criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the
invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appellants do not argue, nor do we find, that Wright criticizes,
discredits, or discourages attaching horizontal crossbar 30 to the base
frame 32 or considering the horizontal crossbar 30 a part of the base
frame 32. Thus we are not persuaded by this argument.
We also note that Appellants argue that even if it were obvious to
combine the structure of Smith into a network cabinet, the resulting
combination would not teach the claimed invention. App. Br. 22.
Specifically, Appellants argue that “[e]ven with this modified structure,
the Examiner still fails to establish how any portion of the modified
structure would qualify as a ‘base frame’ as recited in independent
claim 1.” Id. We answered this question above when discussing using
Appeal 2011-002489
Application 11/538,884

11
horizontal crossbar 30 and base frame 32 of Wright to show a base
frame. Thus, that argument is not persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellants do not substantively argue the rejection of claims 2-9,
and 11-24. Thus, for the reasons stated above, we affirm the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1-9 and 11-24.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites “wherein the plurality of apertures of the first
sidewall are different in at least one of size and shape than the plurality
of apertures of the second sidewall.” Appellants argue that although
Smith teaches various aperture configurations, each configuration is
represented in a separate figure and, thus, a separate and independent
embodiment. Thus, Appellants argue, the “Examiner acknowledges that
Smith fails to teach putting one configuration of aperture on one wall of
a vertical frame member and a second configuration of aperture on a
second opposing wall of the same vertical frame member.” App. Br. 25.
The Examiner acknowledges that Smith fails to teach putting one
configuration of aperture on one wall of a vertical frame member and a
second configuration of aperture on a second opposing wall of the same
vertical frame member.
Smith teaches apertures of different sizes and shapes in Figures 6,
11, 13, and 15. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that:
[O]ne ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention can
apply the various size and shape patterns of each side wall
and rearrange the sidewall of (16a-c) to have different
patterns of which one pattern having a different size and
shape from the other such as the one shown in Figure 11,
13, 15, and 17.
Appeal 2011-002489
Application 11/538,884

12
Ans. 22. Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that the motivation
to do so would be dictated by “intended use practice depending on the
actual mounting base of the cable management units (50a-g).” Id. In
other words, the arrangement of apertures would be dictated by the
types of devices one intends to mount in the network cabinet. We also
find that the combination of embodiments of Smith involves the simple
substitution of one type of aperture with another to yield predictable
results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 10.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-24 is affirmed.
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).

AFFIRMED

tj