Ex Parte Emde et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 2, 2013

12114240 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER EMDE and MARINA EMDE
____________________

Appeal 2011-012639
Application 12/114,240
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, JAMES A. TARTAL, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-012639
Application 12/114,240

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-6, 10-15, and 18-22.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The rejected claims are directed to a doorstop, a safety door
arrangement including the doorstop, and a method of holding a door with the
doorstop. Claims 1, 11, and 18 are the only independent claims.
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claims on appeal.
1. A safety door arrangement, comprising:
a door pivotally mounted to a door jamb by
a plurality of hinges to permit the door to open and
close;
the door being in an open position so that
the door and the door jamb define a gap
therebetween having a varying distance that is at a
minimum near the hinge;
a removable doorstop inserted into the gap
and lodged in place with a friction fit between the
door and the door jamb to prevent the door from
moving, the removable doorstop lodged in place
spaced distances from each of the plurality of
hinges and having an intermediate portion with an
upwardly facing top and a downwardly facing
bottom defining therebetween a thickness that does
not exceed the minimum distance of the gap;

1 Our decision will refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed May 2,
2008), Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed April 26, 2011), and Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.,” filed July 27, 2011), as well as the Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.,” mailed May 31, 2011).

Appeal 2011-012639
Application 12/114,240

3
a first end and a second end projecting in
opposite directions from the intermediate portion,
each of the first end and second end having a width
substantially greater than the minimum distance of
the gap, and each of the first end and second end
frictionally engaging both the door and the door
jamb; and
wherein the first end is in contact with only
the door and the door jamb to prevent the door
from closing; and the second end is in contact with
only the door and the door jamb to prevent the
door from opening.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
Claims 1-6, 10-15, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Coffey (US D455,644 S, iss. Apr. 16, 2002) in view
of Mintz (US 2007/0126248 A1, pub. Jun. 7, 2007), further in view of
Reimann (DE 36 03 774 A1, pub. Aug. 20, 1987); and
claims 1-6, 10-15, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Coffey in view of Mintz.
ANALYSIS
We first consider the rejection of each of the claims based only on
Coffey and Mintz, designated as a new ground of rejection in the Examiner’s
Answer. Inasmuch as we sustain the rejection for the reasons discussed
below, we do not reach the rejection in view of Reimann.
With respect to the rejection based on Coffey and Mintz, Appellants
first argue:
[T]he Examiner fails to note that Coffey also does
not disclose a doorstop inserted into the gap and
Appeal 2011-012639
Application 12/114,240

4
lodged in place with a friction fit between the door
and the door jamb to prevent the door from
moving both in a closed direction and an opened
direction, as required by the claim language “the
first end is in contact with only the door and the
door jamb to prevent the door from closing; and
the second end is in contact with only the door and
the door jamb to prevent the door from opening.”
(Reply Br. 4). We note, however, that the Examiner acknowledges that
“Coffey fails to disclose that the doorstop is placed in a place spaced from a
plurality of hinges and that the doorstop will be in friction fit between the
door and the door jamb” (Ans. 5). The Examiner states, however:
As to the doorstop placed spaced from hinges,
Mintz teaches that it is well known in the art to
provide a doorstop (16) that is lodged between the
door and the door jamb spaced from a hinge (55).
The hinge is capable of being the upper or the
lower hinge, so the doorstop is capable of being
placed spaced from a plurality of hinges.
It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to provide the doorstop described by
Coffey lodged between a door and a door jamb and
spaced from hinges, as taught by Mintz, in order to
maintain the door in a desired position.
(Id.). The Examiner also states that each of the openings in Coffey’s device
“has the same shape” as Appellants’ doorstop (Ans. 7), which Appellants do
not dispute in the Reply Brief. Thus, to the extent that Appellants’ doorstop
in insertable in a gap between a door and a door jamb such that “the first end
is in contact with only the door and the door jamb to prevent the door from
closing; and the second end is in contact with only the door and the door
jamb to prevent the door from opening,” as required by claim 1, so is
Appeal 2011-012639
Application 12/114,240

5
Coffey’s doorstop when inserted in such a gap as taught by Mintz. For these
reasons, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.
Appellants also argue that it would not be obvious to modify the
doorstop of Coffey, which Appellants argue “would rest on a hinge,” to
include the friction fit of Mintz so that the doorstop would be “lodged in
place with a friction fit between the door and the door jamb” (Reply Br. 4).
As discussed above, however, the Examiner states that the openings in
Coffey’s doorstop each have a shape similar to those in Appellants’
doorstop. Thus, such a configuration results in Coffey’s doorstop being
“insert[able] into the gap and lodged in place with a friction fit between the
door and the door jamb” as required by claim 1, in a manner similar to
Appellants’ doorstop. For these reasons, Appellants’ argument is not
persuasive.
Appellants further argue that Mintz does not disclose a friction fit, and
that Coffey and Mintz do not disclose that the first end of the doorstop is in
contact with only the door and the door jamb to prevent the door from
closing, while the second end is in contact with only the door and the door
jamb to prevent the door from opening (Reply Br. 4, 5). As discussed
above, however, the Examiner states that each of the openings in Coffey’s
doorstop have a similar shape to those in Appellants’ doorstop. This
configuration results in Coffey’s doorstop achieving a friction fit with the
door and door jamb and the ends contacting the door and door jamb to
prevent the door from opening and closing as required by claim 1, to the
same extent as Appellants’ doorstop. For these reasons, Appellants’
argument is not persuasive.
Appeal 2011-012639
Application 12/114,240

6
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Because
Appellants do not include additional arguments to claims 2-6, 10-15, and 18-
22 under a separate heading as required by 37 C.F.R. § 41.37, we treat the
claims as a group and thus also sustain the rejection of these claims.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 10-15, and 18-22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

mls