Ex Parte Chow

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 6, 2012

11436735 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 6, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
11/436,735 05/18/2006 William W. Chow 20005.43 8288
25220 7590 03/07/2012
Roeder & Broder LLP
5560 Chelsea Avenue
La Jolla, CA 92037
EXAMINER
ING, MATTHEW W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3637
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/07/2012 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 WILLIAM W. CHOW
____________

Appeal 2010-003682
Application 11/436,735
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003682
Application 11/436,735

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 13, 19, 22, and 24-38. Claims 1-12, 14-18, 20,
21, and 23 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Claim 13, reproduced below with emphasis added, illustrates the
claimed subject matter on appeal:
13. A massage table for supporting a person above a
surface during a massage, the massage table comprising:
a table top assembly including a first table top, a second
table top, and a hinge assembly that pivotably connects the
table top sections together; and
a leg assembly that is secured to and supports the table
top assembly above the surface, the leg assembly including
four spaced apart legs, wherein each of the legs includes (i)
a first leg section that is attached to the table top assembly,
(ii) a second leg section that is movable relative to the first
leg section to adjust the position of the table top assembly
relative to the surface, and (iii) a section attacher that
selectively attaches the first leg section to the second leg
section, the section attacher including a section stop having
a button that is secured to the second leg section, the button
extending into an aperture in the first leg section to
selectively inhibit relative movement between the first leg
section and the second leg section, and the section attacher
including a section clamp having a threaded stud that
selectively threads into an internally threaded surface
attached to one of the leg sections to selectively inhibit
relative movement between the first leg section and the
second leg section.

Appeal 2010-003682
Application 11/436,735

3
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 13, 19, 22, 24-35, and 38 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Romein (US 4,943,041; iss. July 24,
1990), Thomas (US 3,947,140; iss. Mar. 30, 1976) and Bales (US 3,855,946;
iss. Dec. 24, 1974).
2. The Examiner rejected claims 36 and 37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Romein, Thomas, and Bales, further in view
of Huse (US 5,746,152; iss. May 5, 1998).
ANALYSIS
Claims 13, 19, 22, 24-35 & 38 as obvious over Romein, Thomas, and Bales
The Examiner found that Romein discloses a section attacher that
selectively attaches a first leg section to a second leg section. Ans. 3, 6. The
Examiner also found that Romein’s section attacher has a section stop with a
button that selectively inhibits relative movement between first and second
leg sections, but lacks a section clamp with a threaded stud (independent
claims 13 and 19) and a section clamp that urges at least a portion of the leg
sections together to inhibit substantially all relative movement between the
first and second leg sections (independent claim 28) and selectively inhibit
relative movement between the first leg section and the second leg section
(independent claim 38). Ans. 3-4, 6.
The Examiner also found that Thomas discloses a section attacher that
includes a pair of securing means wherein each securing means comprises a
button 24. See Ans. 4, 10. The Examiner found that the section attachers of
Romein and Thomas are equivalent alternative structures that selectively
inhibit relative movement of the leg sections, and determined that it would
have been obvious to substitute the two-button section attacher of Thomas
Appeal 2010-003682
Application 11/436,735

4
for the single button section attacher of Romein to achieve predictable
results and provide additional strength to the connection of the first and
second legs. Ans. 4.
The Examiner further found that Bales discloses a section clamp with
a threaded stud BT that threads into an internally threaded surface NP that is
secured to the second leg section (LG21) to selectively inhibit relative
movement between first and second leg sections (LG20, LG21). Ans. 4; see
Bales, fig. 3. The Examiner also found that the securing means of Thomas
and Bales are equivalent alternative structures that selectively inhibit relative
movement between the leg sections, and determined that it would have been
obvious to substitute the threaded securing means of Bales for one of the two
detent buttons of the modified Romein device to achieve predictable results
and provide a structure substantially as claimed. Ans. 4-5, 9.
Appellant asserts that it would not have been obvious to substitute the
threaded securing means of Bales for one of the two button detents on the
modified Romein device because the securing means of Thomas and Bales
are not equivalent alternative structures and there is no reason to replace just
one of Thomas’s dual button securing means with a threaded member and an
internally threaded surface of Bales. App. Br. 17. Appellant also argues that
such a replacement would greatly complicate and slow down the process of
adjusting leg height of the massage table with no evidence that a stronger
connection is necessary. Reply Br. 12; App. Br. 22.
The Examiner has not established, by evidence or technical reasoning,
a sufficient factual basis to reasonably support the conclusion that a person
of ordinary skill in art would have had a reason to substitute a threaded bolt
and internally threaded surface for just one of the two detent buttons of the
Appeal 2010-003682
Application 11/436,735

5
modified Romein device. First, the Examiner has not explained why it
would have been obvious to selectively substitute a threaded bolt for a detent
button when a threaded bolt acts as a clamp and a detent button acts as a
stop. See App. Br. 17-18. Second, the Examiner has not explained why it
would have been obvious to selectively substitute a threaded bolt for just one
of the dual detent buttons when the Examiner found that the threaded bolt
was an equivalent alternative structure of the entire dual detent button of
Thomas. Ans. 4-5, 9. Even if a threaded bolt also is a structural equivalent
of a single detent button by virtue of the Examiner’s findings that Romein is
equivalent to Thomas, which is equivalent to Bales, the Examiner has not
adequately explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
substituted a threaded bolt for just one detent of a dual detent configuration
instead of simply substituting the threaded bolt of Bales for the single detent
of Romein. As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 13, 19, 28, or
38 or dependent claims 22, 24-27, and 29-37.
Claims 36 & 37 as obvious over Romein, Thomas, Bales, and Huse
Appellant argues that dependent claims 36 and 37 are allowable for
the reasons previously set forth for independent claims 13 and 19 from
which claims 36 and 37 depend, respectively. Reply Br. 14. We agree. As
such, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 36 and 37.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 13, 19, 22, and 24-38 is
REVERSED.

REVERSED
Appeal 2010-003682
Application 11/436,735

6

mls