Ex Parte BOLLENBACH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 30, 2019

13708633 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/708,633 12/07/2012 Markus BOLLENBACH
127226 7590 05/02/2019
BIRCH, STEW ART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
8110 Gatehouse Road
Suite 100 East
Falls Church, VA 22042-1248
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.
2360-0617PUS 1 1004
EXAMINER
KENNEDY, JOSHUA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2019 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):
mailroom@bskb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARKUS BOLLENBACH
Appeal 2018-002780
Application 13/708,633
Technology Center 3600
Before RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, PAUL J. KORNICZKY, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 16, 17, 19, 21, 27, and 28. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 DET INTERNATIONAL HOLDING LIMITED is the Applicant and is
identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-002780
Application 13/708,633
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's "invention relates to a locking device for locking a plug-
in unit in a holder." Spec. 1:5---6. Claim 16, reproduced below with italics
added to highlight the pertinent issues in this appeal, is representative of the
claimed subject matter.
16. Locking device comprising a unit and a holder configured
to allow a plurality of units to be plugged in,
said unit having a first locking element, which has a first
latching element and an operating lug for moving and/or
operating the locking device,
said holder having a second locking element, which has a
second latching element,
wherein
the first locking element is mounted in a movable manner
and may be subjected to a force for the purpose of locking the
two latching elements,
said first latching element comprises a latching nose at a
first end, a stop edge, a first insertion slope arranged between
said latching nose and said stop edge and a second insertion slope
located between said stop edge and a second end of said first
latching element,
the locking device further comprises
a first stop and a second stop,
said first stop being arranged on said unit and said second
stop being arranged on said holder,
wherein the first latching element is configured such that
said stop edge rests on said second stop and said first locking
element is spaced apart from said first stop when said first
latching element is locked with said second latching element,
such that the first latching element is prevented from projecting
beyond the second latching element into an adjacent unit,
wherein said first locking element is fastened to an inner
side of a housing of said unit by a rotary fastening means,
wherein said first locking element is pushed onto the first
stop by means of a spring element when said unit is disengaged
from said holder, and
2
Appeal2018-002780
Application 13/708,633
wherein when the operating lug is moved in an actuating
direction, which is counter to a stressing direction of the spring
element, the first locking element is deflected thereby raising the
latching nose.
REJECTION
Claims 16, 17, 19, 21, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Isaki (US 5,216,904, issued June 8, 1993) and
Hsu (US 7,079,402 B2, issued July 18, 2006).
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues claims 16, 17, 19, 21, 27, and 28 as a group. Appeal
Br. 2--4. We select claim 16 as representative of the group and claims 17,
19, 21, 27, and 28 stand or fall with claim 16. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Isaki discloses most of the limitations of
claim 16 except for "the first latching element is prevented from projecting
beyond the second latching element into an adjacent unit" but finds that Hsu
teaches a locking device with a latching nose that "does not extend beyond
the latching element of the holder." Non-Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner
specifically finds that when !saki's "handle (20) is moved (i.e. actuated) in
the direction 'f as shown in Figure 4, the lug (20i) and the latching nose
move upwardly." Id. at 4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art "to modify the latching nose of
Isaki to reduce the extent of the latching nose ... as taught by Hsu to
prevent interference or any potential inadvertent disengagement of the
latching element upon installation and during use." Id. at 5.
3
Appeal2018-002780
Application 13/708,633
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection is erroneous for two
reasons. Appellant's first contention is that !saki's "lock lever 34 fails to
include an operating lug which when actuated in a direction counter to a
stressing direction of the spring element, raises the latching nose of the
projection 34a as claimed." Appeal Br. 3. According to Appellant, Isaki
"discloses a handle 20 which when actuated in a direction which appears the
same as the stressing direction of the spring 32 causes the projection nose 34
d/e to lower." Id. Appellant supports this contention by asserting that the
"actuating direction" recited in claim 1 should be construed as "the direction
to disengage the lock so that the device may be pulled out." Id. at 4. In
support of this construction, Appellant directs us to the Specification at
page 9, lines 9--25. Id. Appellant further contends, based on this
construction, that
the direction 'f shown in Fig. 4 of Isaki is the direction in which the
handle 20 is rotated to lock the device, not disengage it ... when the
handle 20 in Isaki is rotated in a direction counter to 'f' ... the lock
lever 34 (latching nose) is lowered by the projection 20i.
Id.; see also Reply Br. 2 (annotated Fig. 4 of Isaki).
The Examiner responds that "one of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that the engagement or disengagement of the lock would be
considered actuation steps." Ans. 6. In support of this construction, the
Examiner relies on a definition of "actuate" as "to put into mechanical action
or motion." Id. at 5 ( citing www.merriam-webster.com). Under the
Examiner's construction, "movement of [!saki's] handle (20) in either
direction ( clockwise or counter clockwise) causes actuation to occur in two
different directions as the pieces of the assembly are put into mechanical
action as result of the movement of the handle." Id. at 5---6.
4
Appeal2018-002780
Application 13/708,633
With respect to Appellant's contention concerning whether !saki's
operating lug is actuated in a direction counter to a stressing direction of the
spring element, the Examiner submits that claim 16 does not "require[] the
actuating and stressing directions to be linear" and when Isaki' s handle "is
moved by an operator in either a clockwise direction or a counter clockwise
direction, it causes the spring element to move in the opposing direction (i.e.
counter clockwise or clockwise respectively)." Id. at 3. According to the
Examiner, "these directions are 'counter' to each other [and] Isaki meets the
limitations of the claims." Id. at 4.
We begin by construing the claim term "actuating direction." We
give claim terms their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Suitco Swface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259--60 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In
re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054--55 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Although the claims
are interpreted in light of the Specification, limitations from the
Specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
We begin our analysis with the claim language. In re Power
Integrations, Inc., 884 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("Claim
construction must begin with the words of the claims themselves."). Claim
16 recites "when the operating lug is moved in an actuating direction, which
is counter to a stressing direction of the spring element." From the claim
language, we discern that the "actuating direction" is counter to or opposite
to a direction which would place the spring element under "stress." We
determine that the claim language itself does not support Appellant's
construction that the "actuating direction" is associated with disengaging
5
Appeal2018-002780
Application 13/708,633
"the lock so the device may be pulled out" rather than movement of the
operating lug.
We now tum to the Specification. Appellant's Figure 4 shows spring
element 15 which is disclosed as bracing locking element 3 against housing
6. Spec. 9:13-15, Fig. 4. Figure 4 is described as showing "[t]he starting
position of the locking device." Id. at 9:18-19. The Specification further
discloses that "the spring element 15 pushes the locking element 3 onto the
first stop 18 of the unit housing 6." Id. at 9:19-21. In order "to move the
locking element 3 away from the first stop 18, then the operating lug 8
would have to be actuated counter to the stressing direction S" and "spring
element 15 would be compressed in this case." Id. at 9:21-25, Fig. 4. One
of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this description of the
movement of operating lug 8 is equally applicable to either locking or
unlocking the device. Based on the foregoing, we determine that one of
ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand "actuating direction" as
the operating lug moving in a direction which would compress the recited
spring element.
Based on our construction of the term "actuating direction,"
Appellant's argument that the direction "f shown in !saki's Figure 4 does
not correspond to the recited "actuating direction" because !saki's handle 20
engages the lock rather than disengages the lock is based on an unsupported
construction of the term "actuating direction" and, thus, is not persuasive.
Rather, the dispositive issue is whether movement of !saki's handle 20 in the
direction 'f compresses spring 32 and raises the latching nose. We note that
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's finding that when Isaki' s handle
is moved in the direction 'f', the latching nose is raised as required by claim
6
Appeal2018-002780
Application 13/708,633
16. Final Act. 4; Appeal Br. 3. Therefore, we must determine whether
!saki's spring 32 is compressed when handle 20 is moved in the direction 'f'.
The Examiner asserts that the direction of movement of the handle
and spring are "counter to each other" and, based on this, finds that the
limitation of moving the operating lug in an actuating direction which is
counter to the stressing direction of the spring element is satisfied by Isaki.
See Ans. 3--4. In the Reply Brief, Appellant directs us to column 4, lines
65---66 oflsaki concerning the direction of movement oflsaki's lock lever 34
when !saki's handle 20 is moved in direction 'f.' Reply Br. 2. Isaki
discloses that "[b ]y spring 32a, the lock lever 34 is urged in the
counterclockwise direction." Isaki, 4:65-66 (emphasis added). Based on
this disclosure in Isaki, the Examiner is correct that the movement of the
spring and handle are counter to each other. If lock lever 34 were to move
clockwise, it would be moving upward or further away from the center point
of spring 32a resulting in increased tension or stress in the spring. See id.
Fig. 4. Likewise, if lock lever 34 moves counterclockwise, it would be
moving downward or closer to the center point of spring 32a resulting in
compression of the spring. Therefore, when handle 20 of Isaki moves in the
direction 'f which is a clockwise movement, it is moving counter to the
stressing direction of spring element 32a which is the counterclockwise
direction as required by claim 16. Further, as noted above, Appellant does
not dispute that Isaki' s latch nose will be raised when handle 20 is moved in
the direction of 'f' in !saki's Figure 4. Therefore, Appellant's first
contention does not apprise us of Examiner error.
Appellant's second contention is that claim 16 requires "the latching
element and the operation lug are arranged on the same part, namely the
7
Appeal2018-002780
Application 13/708,633
locking element." Appeal Br. 3. According to Appellant, the Examiner
erred in finding that Isaki discloses the claimed locking element because
!saki's "handle 20 and the lock lever 34 are two separate parts." Id. With
respect to the second contention, the Examiner asserts that claim 16 does
"not require the locking elements to be a unitary structure or a single piece."
Ans. 5. Although the Examiner concedes that the Specification discloses
that the latching element and operating lug "are arranged on the same part,"
the Examiner asserts that the Specification "provides no evidence to indicate
that these limitations must be imported into the claims to give meaning to
the disputed terms." Id. We agree with the Examiner that the plain
language of claim 16 does not require that the locking element which
comprises the latching element and operating lug be a single piece. Rather,
Appellant requests that we improperly read a limitation from the
embodiment disclosed in Appellant's Specification into claim 16.
Appellant's second contention which is based on an unsupported claim
construction is, thus, not persuasive.
We have considered all of Appellant's arguments and determine that
Appellant fails to persuasively apprise us of error in the Examiner's factual
findings or rationale quoted above, which we determine to be reasonable and
supported by a rational underpinning. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of
claim 16. Claims 17, 19, 21, 27, and 28 fall with claim 16.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 16, 17, 19, 21, 27, and 28 is
affirmed.
8
Appeal2018-002780
Application 13/708,633
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9