Ex Parte Bohlen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 11, 2018

14309499 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/309,499 06/19/2014
130532 7590 07/13/2018
Dority & Manning, P.A. and Hunter Douglas Inc
Post Office Box 1449
Greenville, SC 29602-1449
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jorg Bohlen
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.
HUD-98PCTUSCON 4261
EXAMINER
MITCHELL, KATHERINE W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3634
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2018 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):
usdocketing@dority-manning.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JORG BOHLEN and LARS KOOP
Appeal2017-008334 1
Application 14/309,4992
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-8, 10-13, and 16-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Jan. 23,
2017), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed May 9, 2017), the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Mar. 9, 2017), and the Non-Final Office Action
("Non-Final Act.," mailed June 23, 2016).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hunter Douglas
Industries B.V. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-008334
Application 14/309,499
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, "[t]he invention relates to spring driven and
spring assisted roller blinds and a spring mechanism for such roller blinds."
Spec. ,r 2.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A method of selecting one or more springs for a roller
blind, comprising:
providing a roller blind including a roller, a sheet attached
to said roller for winding and unwinding from said roller, and a
bottom rail;
determining one or more parameters of the blind,
including a roller length, a roller outer diameter, a sheet length,
a sheet weight, a sheet height, a sheet thickness, and a bottom rail
weight;
determining a torque curve of the blind based on the one
or more parameters of the blind;
selecting a first spring having a wire diameter and a spring
diameter, said first spring being operatively connected to the
roller to drivingly rotate the roller in at least one direction of
rotation; and
based on the torque curve, the wire diameter of the first
spring, and the spring diameter of the first spring, determining a
length of the first spring; wherein the wire diameter, the spring
diameter, and the length of the first spring are selected to match
the torque curve.
Appeal Br. 24.
2
Appeal2017-008334
Application 14/309,499
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1-8, 10-13, and 16-193 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Hirao4 in view ofWebb. 5
DISCUSSION
Claim 1
We are persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claim 1 by
Appellants' arguments. Specifically, we find that the Examiner has not
adequately established that the art of record makes obvious the method step
"based on the torque curve, the wire diameter of the first spring, and the
spring diameter of the first spring, determining a length of the first spring;
wherein the wire diameter, the spring diameter, and the length of the first
spring are selected to match the torque curve."
In the rejection, the Examiner provides little detail regarding how
Hirao teaches a method as claimed or how Hirao would be modified to
arrive at the claimed method. Specifically, the Examiner finds
Hirao et al discloses a counterbalanced roller closure that
uses various parameters, including the weight of the curtain, the
thickness of the curtain, the winding diameter of the curtain, and
the radius of the winding drum, as the basis for his selection of
his spring, or multiple springs, in order to ensure effective
counterbalancing of the curtain. See column 10, lines 12-35. See
also column 8, lines 33-41.
Non-Final Act. 2. The Examiner relies on Webb only to show that it was
"known in the art that the length, coil diameter and wire diameter of a spring
determine the strength of the spring." Id. (citing Webb ,r 34).
3 The rejection of claims 14 and 15 has been withdrawn. See Ans. 3.
4 Hirao et al., US 5,460,216, iss. Oct. 24, 1995.
5 Webb, US 2004/0226669 Al, pub. Nov. 18, 2004.
3
Appeal2017-008334
Application 14/309,499
Regarding the method step referenced above, the Examiner states only
that "Hirao et al[.] further teaches plural springs in order to match the torque
curve, thereby maintaining balance." Id. Yet, the Examiner does not
explain how Hirao teaches matching a torque curve. In the Answer, the
Examiner acknowledges that "Hirao uses multiple springs and that they do
not match the torque curve." Ans. 4. But the Examiner insists that "this
does nothing to dilute the relied upon teaching by, and structure of Hirao[,
and i]f anything, it strengthens the Hirao teaching by recognizing the desire
to follow a torque curve as closely as possible when selecting a spring." Id.
The Examiner further asserts that "Hirao is clearly trying to match the torque
curve" and Hirao teaches "that the desire is to balance the system at all
positions." Id. at 5 (citing Hirao col. 10, 1. 36-col. 11, 1. 25).
We see several problems with the Examiner's analysis. First, the
Examiner acknowledges that the Hirao does not teach matching the torque
curve, and yet, the claim requires exactly that. Second, the Examiner does
not provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to match the torque curve based on the art of record. At best, one
of ordinary skill in the art could conclude that Hirao' s approach, which does
not match the torque curve, is sufficient and one would select the spring
parameters to approximate the torque curve as in Hirao. Third, the
Examiner has not provided any explanation regarding why it would have
been obvious to determine the torque curve, select a first spring, and then
determine the spring' s length in the manner required by claim 1.
For these reasons, we find reversible error in the rejection of claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
4
Appeal2017-008334
Application 14/309,499
Claim 13
We are also persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 13 based on
Appellants' arguments. Claim 13 requires, in relevant part, "determining a
length of each of the number of springs, the combined length of the number
of springs configured to provide the roller blind with a constant operating
force in lifting and lowering the sheet." Appeal Br. 26. The Examiner's
rejection lists all claims together without any separate explanation regarding
any claims. See Non-Final Act. 2. We see nothing in the rejection
discussing this step of claim 13. In the Answer, the Examiner indicates that
Hirao teaches "the desire to balance the closure and spring at all times" and
"the desire to balance the system at all positions." Ans. 5 (citing Hirao
col. 10, 1. 36-col. 11, 1. 25; Fig. 13). However, we see no indication in the
cited portions of Hirao that Hirao desires providing a constant operating
force as required by the claim. Rather, as discussed above, Hirao discloses
only approximating the torque curve, and the Examiner does not provide a
reason why it would have been obvious to modify Hirao's method to provide
springs that give a constant operating force as claimed.
Claims 2---8, 10---12, and 16--19
Each of the remaining claims on appeal either depend from, or
incorporate, the independent claims discussed above. With respect to the
rejection of these claims, the Examiner does not rely on the art of record in a
manner that would cure the deficiencies in the independent claims discussed
above. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-8, 10-
12, and 16-19, for the reasons discussed above.
5
Appeal2017-008334
Application 14/309,499
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-8, 10-13, and 16-19.
REVERSED
6