Ex Parte DUSCHL

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 14, 2018

14844086 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/844,086 09/03/2015 ROBERT A. DUSCHL
112 7590 09/18/2018
Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
2500 Columbia A venue
Lancaster, PA 17603
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.
15005-00-US-Ol-ABP 1516
EXAMINER
KATCHEVES, BASILS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3638
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/18/2018 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):
AB P _patents@ arms trongceilings. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT A. DUSCHL
Appeal2017-008935
Application 14/844,086
Technology Center 3600
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE-
Robert A. Duschl ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision in the Final Office Action (dated June 20,
2016, hereinafter "Final Act.") rejecting claims 1--4, 7-14, 17, 18, 23, and
24. 2, 3 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Armstrong World Industries, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest in
Appellant's Appeal Brief (filed Nov. 21, 2016, hereinafter "Appeal Br.").
Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 19-22 are canceled. See Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.).
3 The Examiner indicates claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 would be allowable if
rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base
claim and any intervening claim. See Final Act. 5. Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16
are not part of the instant appeal.
Appeal2017-008935
Application 14/844,086
We REVERSE.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to a ceiling system including a plurality
of panels that mate using a tongue and groove arrangement and an alignment
clip. Spec. para. 2.
Claims 1, 12, and 23 are independent. Claim 12 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
12. A ceiling system comprising:
a plurality of ceiling panels, each of the ceiling panels
compnsmg:
an upper face;
a lower face opposite the upper face;
a first edge, a second edge, a third edge opposite
the first edge, and a fourth edge opposite the second
edge;
each of the first and second edges comprising a
tongue; and
each of the third and fourth edges comprising a
groove; and
a plurality of alignment clips, each of the alignment clips
comprising a cruciform rib element.
REJECTIONS
I. The Examiner rejects claims 1--4, 7-14, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Kuepfer et al. (US 8,567,557 B2,
issued Oct. 29, 2013, hereinafter "Kuepfer") and Kellner (US
2009/0313915 Al, published Dec. 24, 2009).
2
Appeal2017-008935
Application 14/844,086
II. The Examiner rejects claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kuepfer.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Each of independent claims 1 and 12 is drawn to "[a] ceiling system"
including, inter alia, "a plurality of ceiling panels." Appeal Br. 19, 22
(Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Kuepfer discloses, inter alia, "a plurality of
ceiling panels ... on a support (400)." Final Act. 3 (citing Kuepfer, Fig. 4).
Appellant argues that in contrast to the "ceiling system" of claims 1
and 12, both Kuepfer and Kellner "teach flooring systems comprising a
plurality of flooring tiles." Appeal Br. 10 (citing Kuepfer, col. 2, 11. 20-36;
Kellner, Abstract, para. 56). According to Appellant, interpreting the
flooring system of Kuepfer as the claimed "ceiling system" is
"fundamentally flawed because it mischaracterizes the essence of what
constitutes a ceiling system (or a flooring system)." Id. at 11.
In response, the Examiner explains that because "the flooring system
[ of Kuepfer] is located above a first floor," it is "construed as being part of a
ceiling system." Examiner's Answer 2 (dated Mar. 30, 2017, hereinafter
"Ans."). According to the Examiner, as a user walks upon the flooring in
Figure 4 of Kuepfer, "the user is also shown [as] walking upon the ceiling."
Id.
The Specification does not assign or suggest a particular definition to
the claim term "ceiling" and therefore, it is appropriate to consult a general
3
Appeal2017-008935
Application 14/844,086
dictionary definition of the word for guidance in determining the ordinary
and customary meaning of the claim term as viewed by a person of ordinary
skill in the art. See Comaper Corp. v. Antee, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed.
Cir. 2010). Here, an ordinary and customary meaning of the term "ceiling"
is "the overhead interior surface of a room." 4 Furthermore, an ordinary and
customary meaning of the term "floor" is "that part of a room, hallway, or
the like, that forms its lower enclosing surface and upon which one walks." 5
Such an interpretation is consistent with Appellant's Figure 11, which
illustrates "an interior room or space 197 defined between []floor 198 and
... ceiling support 199." Spec. para. 58 (emphasis added).
In contrast, Kuepfer's flooring system, which the Examiner interprets
as the claimed "ceiling system" is installed at the bottom of the top room,
and thus, constitutes a "floor," as understood by a person of ordinary skill in
the art. See Kuepfer, Fig. 4. Although we appreciate that Kuepfer's flooring
system in the top room of Figure 4 is located above the ceiling of the bottom
room, this does not make Kuepfer's flooring system a "ceiling system." As
noted above, a room and the space it encloses is defined by its floor and its
ceiling. However, Kuepfer's flooring and ceiling systems that the Examiner
relies upon in Figure 4, define two different rooms, namely, top and bottom
rooms, respectively. As such, we do not agree with the Examiner that
merely because the "flooring system" of Kuepfer' s top room is located
4 See https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ceiling (last visited September 6,
2018).
5 See https://www.dictionary.com/browse/floor (last visited September 6,
2018).
4
Appeal2017-008935
Application 14/844,086
above the "ceiling system" of the bottom room, the "flooring system" can
reasonably be "construe[d] ... as an overhead ceiling." Ans. 2.
Accordingly, the Examiner's claim interpretation, which relies on the
view that Kuepfer' s flooring system meets the limitations of"[ a] ceiling
system" having "a plurality of ceiling panels," is unreasonably broad in light
of Appellant's Specification, and the ordinary and customary meaning of the
terms "floor" and "ceiling," as understood by the person of ordinary skill in
the art. The Examiner's use of the Kellner disclosure does not remedy the
Examiner's deficient interpretation of Kuepfer. See Final Act. 3.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1--4, 7-14, 17, and 18 as
unpatentable over Kuepfer and Kellner.
Re} ection II
In contrast to independent claims 1 and 12, independent claim 23 is
drawn to "[a] ceiling panel." Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.).
Once again, the Examiner finds that Kuepfer discloses, inter alia, "a
plurality of ceiling panels ... on a support (400)." Final Act. 4 (citing
Kuepfer, Fig. 4). However, as discussed supra, in light of Appellant's
Specification, and the ordinary and customary meaning of the terms "floor"
and "ceiling," as understood by the person of ordinary skill in the art, we do
not agree with the Examiner's finding that Kuepfer' s "floor" panel
constitutes a "ceiling panel," as called for by independent claim 23. The
Examiner's modification of Kuepfer does not remedy the Examiner's
deficient interpretation of Kuepfer. See Final Act. 5.
5
Appeal2017-008935
Application 14/844,086
Accordingly, we also do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 23 and 24 as unpatentable over Kuepfer.
SUMMARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 7-14, 17, 18, 23, and
24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
6