Ex Parte Barr et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2016

12784260 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121784,260 05/20/2010 Geoffrey Barr
23413 7590 06/22/2016
CANTOR COLBURN LLP
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
ICS-018 8453
EXAMINER
REPHANN, JUSTIN B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3634
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2016 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEOFFREY BARR, FRED L. SA WGLE, and
KENNETH M. EASTER
Appeal2014-005718
Application 12/784,260
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JILL D. HILL, and LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
Hill, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Geoffrey Barr et al. ("Appellants") appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-8, and 21-22. 1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 Claim 2 is cancelled (see Amendment dated Aug. 26, 2013; Adv. Act.
dated Sept. 13, 2013), and claims 18-20 are withdrawn (see Response to
Restriction Requirement dated Aug. 3, 2012). Claims 15-17 are allowed,
and as explained in footnote 2, claim 23 should also be allowed. Final Act.
11. We understand claims 9-14 to be objected to as depending from a
rejected base claim, because we understand the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
Appeal2014-005718
Application 12/784,260
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claims 1 and 21 are pending and subject to appeal.
Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the subject matter on appeal. The key
disputed limitation is highlighted.
1. A plastic carrier plate for a vehicle door, wherein the
plastic carrier plate has a main surface: and
a channel structure molded into the plastic carrier plate,
the channel structure having a pair channels integrally molded
into the main surface of the plastic carrier plate, wherein the
channels provide structural reinforcement to the plastic carrier
plate and the channels intersect each other and wherein the main
surface extends outwardly and away from the pair of channels,
wherein the plastic carrier plate further comprises a plurality of
pulley supports each being integrally molded into the plastic
carrier plate and located proximate to a distal end of at least one
of the pair of channels and wherein the pulley supports are
configured to have pulleys rotationally snap fit therein without
any other securement means.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1and21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Kirejczyk (US 2004/0163320 Al; pub. Aug. 26, 2004).
II. Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kirejczyk and Urieta (US 2006/0196122 Al; Sept. 7,
2006).
paragraph, rejection of claims 9-13 has been withdrawn. See Final Act. 11;
Response after Final Action dated Aug. 26, 2013.
2
Appeal2014-005718
Application 12/784,260
Ill. Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kirejczyk and Staser (US 2008/0222962 Al; Sept. 18,
2008).
IV. Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kirejczyk, Staser, and Urieta.
V. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kirejczyk.2
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Regarding independent claims 1 and 21, the Examiner finds, inter
alia, that Kirejczyk discloses a plurality of pulley supports, each support
being "configured to have an unclaimed pulley inserted and snap-fit in
between [its] opposed surfaces." Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 3. The Examiner
notes that "the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural
limitation" because the "configured to have pulleys rotationally snap fit
therein" limitation is an intended use. Ans. 4. The Examiner reasons that
the pulleys in Kirejczyk are "capable of being 'snap-fit' into the integrally
molded pulley supports based on the size of the pulley being installed." Id.
4.3
2 The statement of the rejection in the Final Action includes claim 23. Final
Act. 23. However, claim 23 depends from allowable independent claim 15,
and claim 23 is therefore presumed to also be allowable. See Ans. 2-3;
Appeal Br. 2.
3 The Examiner also "notes that it is known in the art to feature a 'snap fit'
pulley system" as evidenced by Staser. Adv. Act. 2 dated Sept. 13, 2013.
However, the Examiner has not made any specific findings regarding the
prior art teaching pulley supports configured to have pulleys rotationally
3
Appeal2014-005718
Application 12/784,260
Appellants argue that Kirejczyk's pulleys are pivotally mounted in its
pulley supports, and Kirejczyk is silent regarding the pulleys being snap fit
in the supports. Appeal Br. 10. Appellants also argue that the claim
language "is more than an 'intended use statement' as this clearly adds
structural limitations to the pulley supports namely, being able to have
pulley[s] rotationally 'snap fit' therein." Reply Br. 4. Appellants explain
that, for pulley supports to be configured to have pulleys rotationally snap fit
therein, the pulley supports need mounting structure such as a cavity to
receive tabs of a pulley and prevent or limit movement of the pulley away
from the mounting structure. Id. at 3--4.
Appellants have the better position. Kirejczyk discloses carrier panel
202 including a plurality of mounts 226, 228, 230, and 232 for supporting
pulleys 234, 236, 238, and 240. Kirejczyk i-fi-139 and 40; Figs. 11, 13, and
14. Each mount 226, 228, 230, and 232 comprises a series of flanges that
extend perpendicular to the face of panel 202, and "[p ]ulleys 234, 236, 238
and 240 are pivotally mounted on the mounts 226, 228, 230 and 232." Id. i1
40. Kirejczyk is silent as to how the pulleys are pivotally mounted on the
mounts. See id. Thus, the Examiner's finding that the mounts of Kirejczyk
are configured to have pulleys rotationally snap fit therein is speculative and
not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. For this reason, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 21 over Kirejczyk.
Rejections 11-V
snap fit therein and has proffered no reason for combining the carrier plate
of Kirejczyk with the known snap fit pulley systems.
4
Appeal2014-005718
Application 12/784,260
Rejections 11-V pertain to claims that depend from independent
claims 1 and 21. The Examiner's findings regarding Urieta or Staser do not
cure the deficiencies in the Examiner's findings with respect to Kirejczyk, as
discussed supra. We therefore do not sustain Rejections II-V for the
reasons set forth above regarding Rejection I.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1and21under35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kirejczyk.
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kirejczyk and Urieta.
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kirejczyk and Staser.
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kirejczyk, Staser, and Urieta.
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kirejczyk.
REVERSED
5