Ex Parte Hu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2016

13190804 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/190,804 07/26/2011
29450 7590
BARLEY SNYDER
101 Lindenwood Drive
Suite 100
Malvern, PA 19355
08/24/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Lintao Hu
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.
21334-2021 (CS-1206US) 2871
EXAMINER
SCHMIEDEL, EDWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1757
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2016 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):
berwynipdocket@barley.com
hsalamone@barley.com
sanastasi@barley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LINT AO HU, XIAOQUN CHEN,
CHUNFU ZHOU and HENRY KO
Appeal2015-003543
Application 13/190,804
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM. Because we rely on facts and reasoning not explicitly
discussed by the Examiner, we designate our affirmance as including new
grounds of rejection.
Independent claims 1 and 18 read (emphasis added to highlight
disputed claim limitations):
1. An electric connection system for connecting
adjacent glass panels and frames in a solar curtain wall, said
Appeal2015-003543
Application 13/190,804
electric connection system comprising:
a first electric connector connected to an electrical
component positioned in each of the adjacent glass panels;
a second electric connector positioned in the frame and
mateable with the first electric connector; and
a third electric connector electrically connectable to
adjacent second electric connectors positioned in adjacent
frames.
18. A frame with an electric connection system
applied to glass panels, the frame comprising:
a frame body; and
a second electric connector positioned in the frame body
and mateable with first electric connectors positioned in
adjacent glass panels.
App. Br. 12 and 15 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
(a) claims 1-3, 7, 9-11, 18, 19, and 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Garvison (US 6,465,724 Bl, issued October 15,
2002),
(b) claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Garvison and Szabo (US 4,735,662, issued April 5, 1988), and
(c) claims 4--6, 12-17, and 20-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Garvison and Nieleck (US 2005/0161080 Al, published
July 28, 2005).
For Rejection (a), Appellants rely on the same arguments in
addressing independent claims 1, 9 and 18 and present separate arguments
addressing claims 3 and 11. See Appeal Brief, generally. Appellants do not
2
Appeal2015-003543
Application 13/190,804
present separate arguments for claims 2, 7, 10, 19, and 23. Id. In addressing
Rejections (b) and ( c ), Appellants rely on the arguments presented when
discussing the independent claims and do not address or further distinguish
the additionally cited secondary references based on the additional
limitations of the respectively rejected claims. Id. at 21. We select
independent claims 1 and 18 as representative of the claimed subject matter
before us on appeal. Claims argued separately will be addressed separately.
However, claims 2, 4--10, 12-17, and 19-23 stand or fall with the
independent claims.
ANALYSIS
Prior Art Rejections
We have reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for patentability.
However, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner's§§ 102 and 103 rejections of representative independent claims
1 and 18. Accordingly, we will sustain all of the Examiner's rejections for
essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer.
We add the following for emphasis.
Even assuming arguendo that Garvison's wires 164 and 166 are not
electric connectors, the reference remains anticipatory of the subject matter
of independent claims 1 and 18.
Independent claim 18 is directed to a frame with an electric
connection system comprising an electric connector positioned in the frame
body that can mate with electric connectors positioned in adjacent glass
panels. Claim 18 encompasses a frame having an electric connector as
described in Garvison. Specifically, Garvison describes a frame (defined by
3
Appeal2015-003543
Application 13/190,804
elements 128, 170 and 172) with an electric connection system (either plug
connector 204, 206) applied to glass panels that anticipates the subject
matterofclaim 18. GarvisonFigures 1, 3, 11-16; col. 4, 1. 62---col. 5, 1. 10,
col. 5, 11. 52-58. Garvison's Figures 11-16 illustrate a number of
embodiments of glass panels having at least one electric plug connector.
See, for example, Garvison Figure 12 (electric connectors 284, 292 and 300).
Appellants' argument with respect to claim 18 that Garvison' s wires
166 are wires and not connectors has been considered but is deemed
unavailing because Garrison's plug connector meets the claimed electric
connector. App. Br. 20. Appellants' argument does not adequately
distinguish the claimed connectors from Garvison's electric plug connectors
204, 206.
Independent claim 1 is directed to an electronic connection system for
connecting adjacent glass panels and frames comprising three electric
connectors that cooperated to provide an electrical path between adjacent
glass panels and frames where two of the panels to be connected have the
same type of connector. Thus, the claimed electronic system requires
interaction of a plurality of electric connectors from a plurality of adjacent
glass panels.
Garvison describes at least three adjacent glass panels, for example
glass panels 110-112 of Figure 1, connected by a series of electric plug
connectors forming an electric connection system across all three panels
where the connectors of the central glass panel provide the electrical path
between the two bordering glass panels. Garvison Figure 1, 3, 11-16.
Garvison's embodiments illustrated in Figures 11-16 show numerous ways
to electrically connect adjacent glass panels in parallel and in series, as
4
Appeal2015-003543
Application 13/190,804
desired. Id. at col. 8 1. 5---col. 9, 1. 28. Thus, Garvison envisages the subject
matter of independent claim 1 where a third electric connector (the electric
connectors of the central panel) is electrically connectable to adjacent
second electric connectors positioned in adjacent frames (bordering panels
having the same type of connectors). That is, Garvison's Figures 11-16
describe connecting adjacent panels (bordering panels) having the same
connector (claimed second connectors) with other connectors of a central
glass panel (claimed third connector) to provide the desired parallel or series
electrical path. Id.
Appellants' argument with respect to claim 1 that Garvison' s wires
166 are wires and not connectors and that Garvison's plug connector 206 is
not capable of connecting with two second electric connectors positioned in
adjacent frames is unpersuasive. App. Br. 12-19. Appellants' arguments do
not adequately distinguish the claimed electric connecting system from
Garvison's electric connecting system as discussed above.
Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 3 and 11 are also
unpersuasive because they do not adequately distinguish the claimed
connectors from Garvison's electric plug connectors 204, 206. App. Br. 19-
20.
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the Examiner's prior art
rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 9-11, 18, 19, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
(Rejection (a)) and of claims 4---6, 8, 12-17, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) (Rejections (b) and (c)). Because we recognize our decision is
based on further reasons that differ from the reason advanced by the
Examiner, we denominate the affirmed rejection as a NEW GROUND OF
REJECTION pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
5
Appeal2015-003543
Application 13/190,804
ORDER
The Examiner's prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (b) and
10 3 (a) are affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review."
Section 41.50(b) also provides:
When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the appellant,
within two months from the date of the decision, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new ground
of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected
claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to
the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered
by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be
remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection is
binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new
Evidence not previously of Record is made which, in the opinion
of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection
designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the
claims, appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this
subpart.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The
request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection
and state with particularity the points believed to have been
misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of
rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing
is sought.
6
Appeal2015-003543
Application 13/190,804
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure§ 1214.01.
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).
AFFIRMED
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION (37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b))
7