11080710 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2013)

Ex Parte Cheng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 25, 2013

11080710 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte HUNG YU CHENG, HO PING CHENG and CHUN YUEN TO ____________________ Appeal 2011-001350 Application 11/080,710 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: JOHN C. KERINS, NEIL T. POWELL, and BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges. POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-001350 Application 11/080,710 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed subject matter. 1. A ring binder mechanism for retaining loose-leaf pages, the mechanism comprising: a housing; hinge plates supported by the housing for pivoting motion about a pivot axis relative to the housing; rings for holding loose-leaf pages, each ring including first and second ring members, the first ring member being mounted on a first hinge plate and moveable with the pivoting motion of the first hinge plate relative to the second ring member so that in a closed position a free end of the first ring member joins with a free end of the second ring member and in an open position the free end of the first ring member separates from the free end of the second ring member, each ring member including a longitudinal centerline; the free end of the first ring member having an interlocking configuration having a first shape and the free end of the second ring member having an interlocking configuration having a second shape adapted to interengage with the interlocking configuration of the first ring member to block movement of the first and second ring members relative to each other in all directions transverse to the longitudinal centerlines of the ring members Appeal 2011-001350 Application 11/080,710 3 when the ring members are in their closed position; and a control structure supported by the housing and movable relative to the housing, the control structure resisting separation of the free ends of the ring members when the ring members are in their closed position. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Mullin 5,393,156 Feb. 28, 1995 Whaley 6,155,737 Dec. 5, 2000 Snyder 6,276,862 Aug. 21, 2001 REJECTIONS Appellants seek our review of the following rejections. 1. Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Snyder and Mullin. 2. Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Snyder, Mullin, and Whaley. ANALYSIS Claims 1-16 The rejection of claim 1 rests on a finding that Mullin discloses ring segments 18 and 20 with free ends that meet the claim limitations: the free end of the first ring member having an interlocking configuration having a first shape and the free end of the second ring member having an interlocking configuration having a second shape adapted to interengage with the interlocking Appeal 2011-001350 Application 11/080,710 4 configuration of the first ring member to block movement of the first and second ring members relative to each other in all directions transverse to the longitudinal centerlines of the ring members when the ring members are in their closed position. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that Figures 1 and 2 of Mullin show its ring segments so configured. Id. at 4 and 16. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Figure 1 shows each ring segment 18, 20 having peaks and valleys on its end, with the peaks and valleys of paired ring segments 18, 20 rotated relative to one another to allow them to interengage when the ring segments are closed. Id. at 4, 10-11, and 14-15. Appellants traverse these findings. Appellants note that Mullin indicates its Figures 1, 5, and 6 show the same embodiment. App. Br. 6 (citing Mullin, col. 6, ll. 14-19). In combination with this, Appellants argue that Figures 5 and 6 of Mullin show the ring segments 18, 20 more clearly than Figures 1 and 2, and that Figures 5 and 6 show a configuration that would not meet the claim language. App. Br. 6-7. Based on this argument and other observations drawn directly from Mullin’s Figures 1 and 2, Appellants contend that a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the content of Figures 1 and 2 differently than the Examiner suggests. Id. at 7-10. Appellants further argue that Mullin contains no written support for the Examiner’s findings. Id. at 6. The Examiner responds that Mullin does contain written disclosure supporting the disputed findings, as Mullin discloses at column 8, lines 17- 27 that the ends of its ring segments 18, 20 “have matching bifurcated projections 56 and 58 which engage when the ring segments 18 and 20 are closed” and which “guide and hold the ring segments into a secure closed Appeal 2011-001350 Application 11/080,710 5 configuration reducing the tendency of the segments 18 and 20 to come open due to inadvertent lateral forces.” Ans. 11-12. The Examiner also maintains that Figures 1 and 2 clearly show details that would meet the disputed claim limitations. Id. at 10-16. Regarding Appellants’ observations related to Mullin’s Figures 5 and 6, the “Examiner is unable to understand why Appellants refuse to acknowledge the importance of any drawing other than figs. 5-6, especially in light of the fact that see col. 8, lines 17-27 explicitly provides that fig. 3 is relevant to said feature.” Id. at 13. The Examiner does not further discuss Figures 5 and 6, or point out any specific details within Figure 3 that support the disputed finding. See Id. The portions of Mullin pointed to by Appellants appear to generate ambiguity regarding whether Mullin discloses ring members with the claimed configuration. Without further explanation of how Mullin discloses the claimed ring-member configurations despite the apparent ambiguities identified by Appellants, we cannot determine that the preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s position. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1 or of claims 2-16 depending therefrom. Claims 17 and 18 The rejection of claims 17 and 18 does not include findings that cure the foregoing deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1. See Ans. 8-9. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 17 and 18. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision regarding claims 1-18. Appeal 2011-001350 Application 11/080,710 6 REVERSED mls