Ex Parte Feldpausch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

14543214 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2017)

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.
14/543,214 11/17/2014 Michael J. Feldpausch STE001 P1286A 6785
112530 7590 10/02/2017
Prioe HenevelH T T P/S»teeloas;e Tnr
EXAMINER
695 Kenmoor S.E. LAUX, JESSICA L
PO Box 2567
Grand Rapids, MI 49501 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3635
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2017 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):
ptomail @priceheneveld.com
patents@steelcase.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL J. FELDPAUSCH, MARVIN C. KNAUF,
BRADLEY D. YOUNGS, MARK T. SLAGER,
KURT R. HEIDMANN, JOHN R. HAMILTON,
RYAN GEISTER, and DANIEL PHILLIPS
Appeal 2017-004777
Application 14/543,214
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-004777
Application 14/543,214
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 9-16, 18—23, and 25—29. Claims 1—8 and 24 are withdrawn from
consideration. Claim 17 is indicated to be allowable. We have jurisdiction
over the rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a partition assembly. Spec., Title. Claim 9,
reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
9. A partition system for subdividing a floor plan area,
comprising:
at least a pair of beam assemblies, each comprising:
a horizontally extending beam member defining an
uppermost edge of the beam assembly and including a first end,
a second end and a pair of upwardly opening channels extending
longitudinally between the first end and the second end, wherein
the channels are open at least one of the first end and the second
end, and wherein the channels are configured to cooperate with
one another to support a work tool from the beam member;
at least one horizontally extending lower frame member
located below the beam member; and
a plurality of vertical frame members extending between
and coupled with the beam member and the at least one lower
frame member;
wherein the pair of beam assemblies are coupled in an end-
to-end relationship such that the pair of channels of the beam
members are uninterrupted between the pair of beam assemblies
allowing the work tool to be repositioned between the at least a
pair of beam assemblies while the work tool remains supported
from the channels.
2
Appeal 2017-004777
Application 14/543,214
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Seiber US 5,740,650 Apr. 21, 1998
Remelts US 2003/0051415 A1 Mar. 20,2003
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 9-16, 18—23, and 25—29 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Seiber in view of Remelts. Final
Act. 2—8.
APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
1. Seiber’s top frame 171 is part of a base partition panel 151 above
which at least one stacker panel is located and, accordingly, fails to
define an uppermost edge of a beam assembly as required by claim 9.
App. Br. 5-7.
2. The Examiner is improperly picking and choosing elements from
Seiber “only so much of it as will support a given position, to the
exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such
reference fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.” App.
Br. 6-7 citing In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241 (CCPA 1965).
3. Seiber’s top frame members 171 and 290 are covered by other
components and, therefore, do not teach or suggest the upwardly
opening channel required by claim 9. App. Br. 7—8.
4. There is insufficient evidence Seiber’s channel is configured to
support a work tool as required by claim 9. App. Br. 8.
3
Appeal 2017-004777
Application 14/543,214
5. The Examiner’s interpretation of work tools as including and being
taught by a partition panel is overly broad in light of the examples of
work tools disclosed in the Specification. App. Br. 9.
6. Because Seiber fails to disclose a work tool supported from a channel
and the monorails of Remelf s workspace panels “would necessarily
be spaced from one another,” the prior art fails to teach or suggest a
“pair [of] channels of the beam members are uninterrupted between
the pair of beam assemblies allowing a work tool to be repositioned
between the at least pair of beam assemblies while the work tool
remains supported from the channels” as required by claim 9. App.
Br. 10.
ANALYSIS
Appellants’ contentions are unpersuasive of Examiner error. We
instead adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—10) and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—5) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
In connection with contention 1 Appellants argue, because Seiber’s
“panels are configured to allow ‘the stacking partition panel 152 to be
selectively positioned on top frame member 171 . the top frame
member 171 of the base panel space frame 160 is not an uppermost edge of a
beam assembly.” App. Br. 5. Appellants further argue Seiber’s alternative
configurations likewise include structures (i.e., transom-supporting brackets
and a top cap) attached to the upper portion of the top frame member such
4
Appeal 2017-004777
Application 14/543,214
that it does not “define an uppermost edge of a beam assembly as defined in
independent claim 9.” App. Br. 6. The Examiner responds, explaining
The claim does not require that the beam member is the
uppermost edge of the entire partition system, rather that is the
uppermost edge of the beam assembly; nor the does the claim
preclude an element from being attached to the top of the beam
member, rather the claim (and appellant’s disclosure) teach that
an element such a work tool is attached to the beam member, thus
being above the beam member.
Ans. 2—3. The Examiner finds the additional structures, including the
brackets and cap, are considered to be work tools that are not part of the
beam assembly and are not structurally necessary to the panel. Ans. 3.
As explained by the Examiner, claim 9 does not recite structural
limitations requiring a panel system with exposed channels along an upper
edge or surface. Instead, claim 9 recites a pair of beam assemblies without
precluding attachment of some other structure. To the contrary, claim 9
requires such an attachment of an upper structure be accommodated so as
“to support a work tool from the beam member.” Claim 9. For example,
Figure 32A depicts stanchion assemblies 320 rising out of the top of beam
member 26. Spec. 1 89. Similarly, Figure 39 depicts “a plurality of tethered
storage units supporting a privacy screen therefrom.” Spec. 1 60. Thus
Appellants’ disclosure contemplates structures attaching to the beam
member thereby raising an uppermost edge of a panel assembly although not
thereby altering what is considered to be an uppermost edge of the beam
assembly itself. Accordingly, Appellants’ contention 1 is not persuasive of
Examiner error.
We are also not persuaded of error by Appellants’ contention 2. In
particular, we find no error in the Examiner’s mapping of the claimed
5
Appeal 2017-004777
Application 14/543,214
elements of claim 9 to the structures of Seiber and Remelts. Instead, the
Court’s decision inKSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415—16
(2007) provides guidance when addressing a concern about picking and
choosing, stating:
For over a half century, the Court has held that a “patent for a
combination which only unites old elements with no change in
their respective functions ... obviously withdraws what already is
known into the field of its monopoly and diminishes the
resources available to skillful men.” Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea
Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152-153
(1950). This is a principal reason for declining to allow patents
for what is obvious. The combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.
Thus, we find Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.
In response to contention 3 arguing, because “Seiber’s top frame
members 171 and 290 are covered by other components [they] do not teach
or suggest the upwardly opening channel required by claim 9” (App. Br. 7—
8), the Examiner explains “[t]hose elements are not considered to be part of
the beam assembly, rather they are accessory elements for attachments to the
beam assembly, just as appellant’s work tool is.” Ans. 3. We agree with the
Examiner for essentially the same reasons as discussed supra in connection
with Appellants’ contention 1. Accordingly, Appellants’ contention 3 is
likewise unpersuasive of Examiner error.
In connection with contention 4 Appellants argue “the existence of
[Seiber’s] channel is in no way evidence that the channel is configured to
support a work tool from a beam member.” App. Br. 8. The Examiner
responds, finding “Appellant notes several times that accessory
attachments/work tools such as a top cap, transom or ‘other components’ are
6
Appeal 2017-004777
Application 14/543,214
attached to the channel. Thus as seen in the figures and disclosure and noted
by [AJppellant, the channel is configured to support a work tool as claimed.”
Ans. 4.
We agree with the Examiner. Appellants’ Specification does not
provide a definition of a “work tool”, only setting forth examples including
tables, lower and elevated storage units, privacy screens, “and the like.”
Spec. 1 67. Furthermore, as found by the Examiner, Seiber’s “other
components” that are attached to Seiber’s upwardly opening channel “are
functionally equivalent to the claimed work tool of Appellants[’] invention.”
Ans. 3. Therefore the combination of Seiber’s channel supporting other
components (i.e., a work tool) and Remelts’s dual channels teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation of the channels being configured to
cooperate with one another to support a work tool from the beam member as
recited by claim 9.
In connection with contention 5 Appellants provide insufficient
evidence the Examiner’s interpretation of work tools is overly broad.
During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Am. Acad, of Sci.
Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “Construing claims broadly
during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant. . . because the applicant
has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim
coverage.” Id. As explained supra, Appellants’ Specification does not
provide a definition of a work tool, giving only non-limiting examples. We
agree with the Examiner in finding, for purposes of the support limitation of
claim 9, Seiber’s “other components” are functionally equivalent to the
7
Appeal 2017-004777
Application 14/543,214
recited work tools. Ans. 3. Accordingly, contention 5 is unpersuasive of
Examiner error.
In contention with contention 6 Appellants argue Seiber does not
teach or suggest the disputed limitation requiring the channels be
uninterrupted between pairs of beam assemblies because “there is nothing of
record to suggest that Seiber et al. discloses a work tool supporting channel,
or a channel configured to support a work tool therefrom.” App. Br. 10.
This argument is unpersuasive because, for the reasons discussed supra, we
disagree Seiber is deficient as alleged, i.e., we disagree Seiber fails to teach
or suggest a work tool supporting channel. We are also not persuaded by
Appellants’ argument “positioning the workspace panels as disclosed by
Remelts et al. ’415 in an end-to-end relationship would not result in a pair of
channels that are uninterrupted between a pair of beam assemblies as the
monorails would necessarily be spaced from one another.” Id. In particular
Appellants fail to provide sufficient persuasive evidence that horizontally
extending beam members could not be positioned end-to-end to form an
uninterrupted channel or that one skilled in the art would not have
recognized that such an uninterrupted channel would result. Accordingly,
contention 6 is unpersuasive.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of independent claim 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and, for the same reasons, rejection of dependent claims
2—16, 18—23, and 25—29 which were not separately argued.
8
Appeal 2017-004777
Application 14/543,214
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9—16, 18—23, and
25-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
9