Ex Parte Huber

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 24, 2013

11976755 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte EDGAR HUBER
____________

Appeal 2011-006765
Application 11/976,755
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, and
CARL M. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.

DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006765
Application 11/976,755

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 17-20, 22-28 and 30-36. Br. 2. Claims 1-14 have been
canceled. Id. at 1. Claims 15 and 16 have been allowed, and claims 21 and
29 have been objected to, but would be allowable if they did not depend
from rejected independent claims. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We reverse.
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claimed invention relates to “an ejection device for a movable
furniture part with a lever for transferring force to the movable furniture
part.” Subst. Spec. 1, ll. 3-4. Claims 17 and 25 are the independent claims.
Claim 17, which is illustrative of the claims on appeal, recites:
17. An ejection device for moving a movable furniture part,
said ejection device comprising:
a housing
an electrical actuator arranged in said housing; and
a lever for moving the movable furniture part, said lever
being pivotally mounted to said housing and being connected to
said electrical actuator so as to be movable via said electrical
actuator, said lever having a pivotally-mounted lever body with:
a base end mounted so as to allow said lever body to
pivot about a fulcrum point;
a free end opposite said base end; and
a curved section located between and spaced apart from
said base end and said free end, said curved section being
arranged to interact with and apply force to the movable
furniture part so as to move the movable furniture part, said
curved section being shaped such that a point of interaction
between said curved section and the movable furniture part
moves from a location adjacent to said fulcrum point towards
said free end while said lever moves the movable furniture
[part], so as to thereby achieve a uniform change in a length of
Appeal 2011-006765
Application 11/976,755

3

a moment arm between said fulcrum point and said point of
interaction.
Br. i, Claims App’x.
REJECTION
Claims 17-20, 22-28 and 30-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Appellant’s Prior Art Admission
(APAA) and Olson (US 1,334,712, iss. Mar. 23, 1920).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 17 requires, in relevant part, that the point of
interaction between the lever and the furniture part moves from a point
adjacent to the fulcrum point of the ejection lever toward the free end of the
lever, and that the change in the length of the moment arm between the
fulcrum point and the point of interaction be uniform. Independent claim 25,
which is directed to a furniture item comprising an ejection device, recites
similar language.
The Examiner relied on the combined teachings of APAA and Olson
in determining that the claimed invention would have been obvious. Ans. 3-
4. Specifically, the Examiner found that APAA teaches all the limitations of
claim 17 except for “the lever as having a curved section located between
and spaced apart from the base and free ends.” Ans. 4. In an attempt to
remedy the shortcoming of APAA, the Examiner relied on the ejection lever
taught by Olson for its depiction of “a curved section (middle curved section
of lever) located between and spaced apart from the base end and the free
end.” Id. Notably, the Examiner found that Olson’s lever “would inherently
function analogously as [the claimed] lever body” (Ans. 8), and thus,
concluded that a skilled artisan would have found it obvious “to modify or
substitute the lever of APAA with a lever as taught by Olson . . . because
Appeal 2011-006765
Application 11/976,755

4

this arrangement would enhance the versatility and/or performance of
APAA’s lever [and] would maintain a constant connection with the
[moveable furniture] part as the lever pivots through [its] angle of rotation”
(id. at 4).
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s determination that the suggested
combination of APAA and Olson would result in the ejection device called
for by claim 17. Br. 4-6. Appellant emphasizes that the lever of the claimed
invention achieves a uniform change in the length of the moment arm by
having a point of interaction that moves uniformly from a location adjacent
to the fulcrum point toward the free end of the lever. Id. at 3. In contrast,
according to Appellant, the point of interaction in both APAA and Olson
“jumps” from a “middle section” of the lever toward the end of the lever,
resulting in a “sudden lengthening of the moment arm” and a “sudden
increase in torque.” Id. at 5 (emphasis omitted). More specifically,
Appellant contends that the length of the moment arm in APAA remains
constant at the first (middle) roller until “the point of interaction jumps to the
second (distal) roller” (see id. at 5-6), while in Olson, the lever “in response
to the stress of the spring . . . is swung forward with a sharp stroke” so as to
“throw the drawer forward a sufficient distance” to open it (see Olson, p. 2,
ll. 70-79 (emphasis added)). Thus, because both APAA and Olson teach
sharp and sudden changes in the length of the moment arm, Appellant argues
that their combination would not result in a uniform change in the length of
the moment arm, as called for by claim 17.
We determine that a preponderance of the evidence weighs in favor of
Appellant. Neither APAA nor Olson discloses a lever in which the length of
the moment arm changes uniformly as the point of interaction moves from a
Appeal 2011-006765
Application 11/976,755

5

location adjacent the fulcrum point toward the free end of the lever. Even
assuming the Examiner’s proposed substitution of Olson’s spring-tensioned
curved lever for APAA’s electric-actuated roller lever, the Examiner fails to
explain why the modified device would then need the claimed “electrical
actuator” or how the spring-tensioned lever would be moved by the
electrical actuator in the manner claimed. Moreover, the lever of the
modified device, would strike the furniture part, not at a location “adjacent
to” the fulcrum point as claimed, but at a location in the middle of the lever,
separate and spaced apart from the fulcrum point. Also, the length of the
moment arm would change, not in a “uniform” manner as claimed, but
sharply and erratically as the spring-tensioned lever would be thrown
forward to strike the furniture part. As such, the record before us does not
support the Examiner’s finding that the curvature of Olson’s spring-
tensioned lever would inherently “maintain [] constant contact” with the
movable furniture part during the ejection process. See Ans. 8; see also id.
at 4. We are not persuaded by the Examiner’s unsupported reasoning that
the modified device would perform in the manner called for by claim 17.
Because the record before us does not support the Examiner’s findings
and conclusions, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 17
and 25, or their respective dependent claims 18-20, 22-24, 26-28 and 30-36.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 17-20, 22-28 and
30-36.
REVERSED

mls