10763426 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 27, 2012)

Ex Parte Bauerly

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 27, 2012

10763426 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/763,426 01/23/2004 Shelly Lenna Bauerly Bauerly 00100 6800 66842 7590 08/27/2012 Law Office of Ronald Shea P.O. Box 5584 Sherman Oaks, CA 91413 EXAMINER LE, TAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3632 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/27/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte SHELLY LENNA BAUERLY ____________ Appeal 2010-005076 Application 10/763,426 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and BRADFORD E. KILE, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1, 2, 22, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lurie (GB 2 253 998 A, pub. Sept. 30, 1992) and Omura (JP 10-113275 A, pub. May 6, 1998). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2010-005076 Application 10/763,426 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 22, and 37 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A purse hanger comprising: a) a rigid interface member defining a planar interface area; b) a rigid arm with a proximal segment terminating at a proximal end, a distal segment terminating at a distal end, and a central extension disposed between a proximal segment and a distal segment, wherein the proximal end is coupled with the rigid interface member, the proximal segment being in a orientation substantially parallel to the planar interface area and curving into the central extension, and wherein the central extension curves into the distal segment which extends vertically downward from the central extension when the distal end is positioned vertically beneath the planar interface area; and, c) a flexible member with a first end coupled to the distal end of the rigid arm, and a second end coupled to a purse engagement member. OPINION Lurie discloses a hanger device 10 that supports a handbag 11, where hanger device 10 includes a housing 12 that rests a on a table top, a support shaft 13, and a support arm 14. Fig. 1, p. 6, ll. 7-13. Support arm 14 includes segments 20 and 21, deflections (i.e., bends) 22 and 23, and hook 15. See Fig. 2, p. 7, ll. 8-14. The Examiner finds Lurie’s support shaft 13 and support arm 14 corresponds to the rigid arm as recited in claims 1, 22, and 37. See Ans. 3-4. Appeal 2010-005076 Application 10/763,426 3 For claims 1 and 22, the Examiner finds that Lurie’s shaft 13 corresponds to the claimed “proximal segment” of the rigid arm, the bend between shaft 13 and segment 20 of arm 14 corresponds to the claimed “central extension” of the rigid arm, and the arm 14, including segments 20, 21, bends 22, 23, and hook 15, corresponds the claimed “distal segment” of the rigid arm. Ans. 3- 4. For claim 37, the Examiner appears to find that Lurie’s arm 14 save segment 20 corresponds to the claimed “proximal segment” of the rigid arm because the Examiner refers to segment 20 as the central extension of the rigid arm.1 See Ans. 4. Claim 1 recites that “a rigid arm with . . . a distal segment terminating at a distal end . . . wherein the central extension curves into the distal segment which extends vertically downward from the central extension when the distal end is positioned vertically beneath the planar interface area.” App. Br., Claims Appendix. As such, claim 1 designates the distal end as part of the distal segment. The Examiner finds that Lurie’s arm 14, including hook 15, is the distal segment, and that the distal segment extends vertically downward via segment 20. Ans. 4. However, segment 20 is merely a portion of arm 14. For Lurie’s arm 14 to correspond to the distal segment of the rigid arm, as called for in claim 1, arm 14 would need to extend vertically2 downward until its termination at its distal end. In this case, bends 22 and 23 do not make such a scenario possible. See also App. 1 Although the Examiner finds “the central extension in this case is [Lurie’s] element 20,” claim 37 does not recite a central extension as a part of the claimed invention. App. Br., Claims Appendix. 2 Vertically (adv.), vertical (adj.) “being in a position or direction perpendicular to the plane of the horizon; upright; plumb.” (DICTIONARY.COM UNABRIDGED, http://dictionary.reference.com/ browse/vertically?s=t (last visited Aug. 13, 2012)(“vertical,” def. 1)). Appeal 2010-005076 Application 10/763,426 4 Br. 26. For example, when Lurie’s housing 12 rests upon a horizontal table top, so that the distal end of arm 14 is positioned beneath the table top, hook 15 is “deflected upwardly” at bend 23. App. Br. 26, citing to Lurie, p. 6, ll. 11, 12. Moreover, even if housing 12 was resting on a non-horizontal surface it cannot be said that arm 14, including its distal end, would extend vertically downward because, as depicted in Figure 2, segment 21 and hook 15 are orientated in opposite directions. In other words, since hook 15 is described as “deflected upwardly” at bend 23, segment 21 would be understood as deflected downwardly from deflection 22. See also Lurie, p. 7, ll. 8-14. As such, the Examiner’s finding that arm 14 corresponds to the distal segment, as called for in claim 1, is not adequately supported. Claim 22 recites, “the rigid arm is configured to position the distal segment in a vertical orientation that is vertically aligned beneath the rigid interface member when the rigid interface member is disposed on the horizontal surface.” App. Br., Claims Appendix. Similarly, claim 37 recites, “the rigid arm being configured such that the distal segment is aligned in a vertical orientation vertically beneath the planar interface area when the planar interface area is horizontal.” App. Br., Claims Appendix. The Appellant correctly contends that when Lurie’s housing 12 is disposed on a table top (i.e., horizontal surface) the segments of Lurie’s arm 14 that are beneath the housing 12 are not vertically aligned as called for in claims 22 and 37. See App. Br. 26. Indeed, the only parts that can possibly be beneath housing 12 are a portion of segment 21, bend 23, and/or hook 15, all of which are not vertically oriented or aligned beneath housing 12 when disposed on the horizontal surface or situated horizontally. App. Br. 26-27. Appeal 2010-005076 Application 10/763,426 5 As such, the Examiner’s finding that Lurie’s arm 14 corresponds to the distal segment as recited in claims 22 and 37 is not adequately supported. Further, the Examiner does not provide any findings with respect to Omura’s disclosure that remedies the unsubstantiated findings with respect claims 1, 22 and 37. To the extent that the Examiner determines Omura’s ring hook 7 could hang from bend 23 of Lurie’s arm 14 (Ans. 5-6), since ring hook 7 is a separate component from the rigid arm (e.g., iron bar 3), the ring hook 7 cannot be considered as part of the Lurie’s arm 14. App. Br., Exhibit 7, Verified Translation of Japanese Patent Application JP 10-113275 A. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 1, 2, 22, and 37 as unpatentable over Lurie and Omura is not sustained. DECISION We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1, 2, 22, and 37. REVERSED MP