Ex Parte Gizycki

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 24, 2012

11831945 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ZBIGNIEW GIZYCKI
____________

Appeal 2010-004827
Application 11/831,945
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DAVID M. KOHUT,
and TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 5-10. Claims 1-4 and 11-30 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2010-004827
Application 11/831,945

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to a computer rack system for housing
several computers having many plugs to accommodate the computers’
power cords (see Spec. ¶¶ [001] and [003] – [007]).
Claim 5, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
5. A rack, comprising:
a plurality of bars; and
a plurality of rails transverse to the bars;
said bars and rails attached to one another to define a frame that
defines a plurality of slots, each slot configured to receive and
mechanically support at least one electrical device;
wherein
at least one of said rails is a power rail comprising at least a
first conductor with a surface which is at least partially un-insulated
and exposed, the first conductor coupled to a power terminal of the
electrical device to be received in the respective slot;
at least one of said bars is a power distribution bar comprising a
second conductor extending longitudinally of said bar and electrically
contacting said first conductor.

The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Aksamit (US 2008/0144293 A1) and further added Hartel
(US 2006/0044766 A1) to reject claims 7 and 8, Hansen (US 7,043,647 B2)
to reject claim 6, and Ewing (US 7,196,900 B2) to reject claim 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (See Ans. 3-6).
Appellant’s Contentions
With respect to the anticipation rejection of claims 5, 7, and 9 over
Aksamit, Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims
because the circuit board 104 is “separate and apart from the structural
Appeal 2010-004827
Application 11/831,945

3
vertical members 154-160” (App. Br. 10-11). Appellant specifically points
out that the circuit board 104 cannot be relied on to meet the claimed
“plurality of bars” because the circuit board 104 and the vertical bars 154-
160 are not duplicate devices (App. Br. 11). Appellant further argues that
the circuit board 104 does not “mechanically support at least one electrical
device” in the slot defined by bars and rails, as recited in claim 5 (App. Br.
12). Additionally, Appellant contends that the anticipation rejection of
claim 7 is in error because, in rejecting claims 7 and 8 as obvious over
Aksamit and Hartel, the Examiner indicated the absence of the hollow
interior feature in Aksamit (App. Br. 13). Appellant further argues the
patentability of the remaining claims based on the same reasons stated above
with respect to claim 5 (App. Br. 13), allowing those claims to fall with
independent claim 5.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 5 and 7 as being anticipated
by Aksamit because the disclosed circuit board 104 is not one of the
“plurality of bars” defining “a frame that defines a plurality of slots, each
slot configured to receive and mechanically support at least one electrical
device?”

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions.
Appeal 2010-004827
Application 11/831,945

4
As stated by the Examiner (Ans. 7), claim 5 does not recite “duplicate
bars” but instead requires “a plurality of bars” wherein “at least one of said
bars is a power distribution.” In that regard, contrary to Appellant’s
argument (App. Br. 11), we find the Examiner’s position with respect to
including the vertically mounted circuit board 104, which is not required to
be a duplicate of the other bars 154, 156, 158, and 160, as one of the
“plurality of bars” to be reasonable
We further find that the Examiner, giving the claim its broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), properly characterized the circuit board
104 as one of the “plurality of bars” which are attached to rails to define a
frame having a plurality of slots (Ans. 7-8). We also concur with the
Examiner’s statement (id.) that the circuit board 104 is a part of the bars and
rails which are connected together to define a frame that supports the
electrical devices. In fact, claim 5 does not precisely require each one of the
bars or rails individually provide mechanical support for the device and
instead, recites defining a plurality of slots by the frame formed of the bars
and rails wherein each slot receives and mechanically supports a device.
That is, contrary to Appellant’s contentions (Reply Br. 2-3), even if the
circuit board 104 may not provide as much mechanical support as the bars
154, 156, 158, and 160 provide, it is a part of the frame defining slots that
receive and mechanically support electrical devices.
Lastly, we agree with Appellant that based on the Examiner’s
statement regarding the absence of the hollow interior limitation in Aksamit
(see Ans. 5), claim 7 is not anticipated by Aksamit. However, Appellant has
not challenged with sufficient particularity the patentability of claims 6-10,
Appeal 2010-004827
Application 11/831,945

5
which were rejected as obvious over Aksamit in combination with Hartel,
Hansen, or Ewing, and has merely relied on the same reasons stated with
respect to claim 5.

CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us, we conclude that, because Aksamit’s circuit
board 104 is one of the “plurality of bars” defining “a frame that defines a
plurality of slots, each slot configured to receive and mechanically support at
least one electrical device,” the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 5
and 9 as being anticipated by Aksamit. However, we reach the opposite
conclusion with respect to the anticipation rejection of claim 7. For the
same reasons stated above for claim 5, we also sustain the rejections of
claims 6-8 and 10 as obvious over Aksamit in combination with Hartel,
Hansen, or Ewing.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 5-10 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

msc