Ex Parte Bushey et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 12, 2012

11034509 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RICHARD D. BUSHEY and BRET L. BUSHEY
____________

Appeal 2010-007431
Application 11/034,509
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and
WILLIAM V. SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Richard D. Bushey and Bret L. Bushey (Appellants) seek our review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 7-
10, 14, 16, 17, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Borgen (US 6,155,530; iss. Dec. 5, 2000) and Born (US 3,326,508; iss. Jun.
20, 1967). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
Appeal 2010-007431
Application 11/034,409

2
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “a slip over furniture glide
that accommodates a foot threaded into a leg of a piece of furniture.”
Spec. 1, ll. 11-12. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is
representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A furniture glide receivable on a foot of a piece of
furniture, comprising:
a retention boot defining a cavity for receiving the foot
therein, the retention boot having:
an upper wall having a central opening
therethrough and a lower surface, the central opening
having a diameter and communicating with the cavity for
allowing the foot of the piece of furniture to be inserted
into the cavity;
a closed bottom wall having a diameter greater
than the diameter of the central opening in the upper wall
and an outer periphery, the bottom wall including a
generally flat upper surface vertically spaced from and
directed towards the lower surface of the upper wall so as
to define the cavity therebetween and a lower surface;
and
a sidewall projecting from the outer periphery of
the bottom wall to the upper wall, the sidewall having a
generally concave cross section and a concave inner
surface partially defining the cavity; and
a slider element bonded to the lower surface of the
bottom wall of the retention boot; the slider element including:
a pliable disk having an upper surface bonded to
the lower surface of the bottom wall of the retention boot
and a lower surface; and
a floor engaging pad, the pad having an upper
surface bonded to the lower surface of the disk and a
lower surface engageable with a supporting surface;
Appeal 2010-007431
Application 11/034,409

3
wherein:
the retention boot is fabricated from a pliable material
such that the foot of the piece of furniture having a diameter
greater than the diameter of the central opening may be
inserted to and removed from the cavity through the central
opening in the upper wall.
Independent claims 10 and 17 are also directed to a furniture glide and
call for the retention boot to be fabricated from a pliable material in the same
manner as claim 1.
ISSUE
The issue presented by this appeal is whether the Examiner’s finding
that Borgen discloses the claimed retention boot fabricated from a pliable
material is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner determined that Borgen discloses a furniture glide
having a retention boot fabricated from a pliable material. Ans. 4, 7, 9
(citing Borgen, col. 7, ll. 51-55). Borgen discloses that “[h]ousing 2 may for
practical purposes be fabricated of plastic, e.g., ABS plastic.” Col. 7, ll. 39-
40. Borgen further discloses that various types of materials suitable for the
purpose of the mounting feet could be used and that “[c]ertain types of
plastic could be appropriate as the housing around the bolt.” Col. 7, ll. 51-
55. The Examiner found that “plastic is pliable” and the functional language
that “the foot of the piece of furniture having a diameter greater than the
diameter of the central opening may be inserted to and removed from the
cavity through the central opening in the upper wall” does not differentiate
the claimed apparatus from Borgen’s mounting foot. Ans. 4-5, 7, 9, 12.
Appeal 2010-007431
Application 11/034,409

4
We disagree with the Examiner’s conclusion that because plastic is
pliable the structure of Borgen’s housing 2 is the same as the claimed
retention boot. While many plastics may have some degree of pliability, the
claim calls for a retention boot fabricated from a material that has sufficient
pliability to enable a foot having a diameter greater than the diameter of the
central opening to be inserted and removed through the opening. Some
plastics are hard and rigid, and not all plastics have adequate pliability to
allow such a maneuver. Borgen is silent as to how the bolt 1 is placed
within the cavity in the mounting boot. Ans. 12. As such, we cannot find by
a preponderance of the evidence that Borgen’s housing 2 is fabricated from a
material having the claimed degree of pliability.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s finding that Borgen discloses the claimed retention
boot fabricated from a pliable material is not supported by a preponderance
of the evidence.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4, 7-
10, 14, 16, 17, and 20-22.
REVERSED

nlk