14015870 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2017)

Ex Parte Jaramillo

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 28, 2017

14015870 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 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. 14/015,870 08/30/2013 Harold Bernard Jaramillo P2013-04-07 (290110.583) 1573 70336 7590 08/01/2017 Seed IP Law Group LLP/EchoStar (290110) 701 FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 5400 SEATTLE, WA 98104 EXAMINER KENNY, DANIEL J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3633 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/01/2017 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): Patentlnfo @ SeedIP. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HAROLD BERNARD JARAMILLO1 Appeal 2017-001750 Application 14/015,870 Technology Center 3600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 This paper is captioned by inventor name according to our pre-AIA convention. The Applicant/Appellant and real party in interest is EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. (See App. Br. 2.) Appeal 2017-001750 Application 14/015,870 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 2—8, 12—15, and 19—22, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE INVENTION The application is directed to “a television wall mount. . . that may be installed at a position in a television wall nook.” (Abstract.) Claim 2, reproduced below, exemplifies the subject matter on appeal: 2. A television monitor wall mount comprising: a first mounting plate configured to be attached to a first planar surface of a television wall nook; a second mounting plate configured to be attached to a second planar surf ace of the television wall nook; at least one television monitor wall mount crossbeam configured to have the television monitor attached thereto, the television monitor wall mount crossbeam attached to the first mounting plate with a pivotal joint at a first end of the television monitor wall mount crossbeam and attached to the second mounting plate with a pivotal joint at a second end of the television monitor wall mount crossbeam; and at least one joint in the television monitor wall mount crossbeam that enables at least one arm of the television monitor wall mount crossbeam to pivot at the at least one joint in order for a distance between the first end and the second end of the television monitor wall mount crossbeam to lengthen and shorten to correspond to different dimensions of television wall nooks. 2 Appeal 2017-001750 Application 14/015,870 THE REJECTION Claims 2—8, 12—15, and 19—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kim (US 7,918,428 B2; issued Apr. 5, 2011). (See Final Act. 2-4.) Appellant’s claims are directed to a television monitor wall mount with (a) “a first mounting plate configured to be attached to a first planar surface” of a wall nook; (b) “a second mounting plate configured to be attached to a second planar surface” of the nook; and (c) “at least one television monitor wall mount crossbeam configured to have the television monitor attached thereto,” and attached at either end to the mounting plates with pivotal joints, where (d) the crossbeam has at least one pivot joint allowing the distance between its ends to be varied. (See App. Br. 20.) The claimed embodiment is illustrated, for example, in Figure 6, reproduced below, where the display attaches in the center at mounting bracket 215 and mounting plates 203 and 205 attach to planar wall surfaces. ANALYSIS 203 FIG. 6 Appellant’s Figure 6 is a front elevation view of a television wall mount. (Spec, f 12.) 3 Appeal 2017-001750 Application 14/015,870 The Examiner found the claims anticipated by Kim, and, in particular by the structure shown, for example, in Kim’s Figures 1 and 8, reproduced below. [Figure 1] SO,. [Figure 8j [: Ai !/ 320 \ i a" >: t J >i $ // 4 A /' 310' / 1 1 1! 10- A, o Np 50- m » "3——-4S o * A 4k ! rA&d i^ Af\ SJ • l\\“1. a. i A. «4t 4- ’ i K \ i b AJsA I \a t "A -•.I ■ i. AHbill A >4, Kim’s Figures 1 and 8 are perspective views illustrating a supporting apparatus of a display device. (Kim 1:44—45 and 61 63.) Although the devices of Appellant’s Figure 6 and Kim’s Figures 1 and 8 bear a superficial resemblance, they differ in that the central portion of Kim’s structure, namely the “fixing unit 10” and “install brackets 11,” are intended “to be fixed to a wall,” not to a display, and the left and right “connecting parts 50” are intended to attach to a display, not a wall. (See Kim 2:11—26 and 42-48.) The Examiner maps the claimed first and second mounting plates to Kim’s first and second arc members 410 and 420, which connect the sliding 4 Appeal 2017-001750 Application 14/015,870 units 30 to the connecting parts 50. (See Final Act. 2.) The Examiner maps the claimed crossbeam to the first and second sliding members 310 and 320, which make up the sliding units 30, as well as the central height adjustment unit 20. (See id. at 3.) Appellant argues “the mounting ‘arc members’ 410 and 420 of Kim are attached to the device connecting part 50 which attaches to the display panel 500 . . . not a planar surface of a television wall nook.” (App. Br. 14.) Appellant further argues “the ‘fixing unit 10’ of the crossbeam of Kim is configured to be attached the wall, not the television.” {Id.) The Examiner responds that “Kim is capable of the claimed intended use by attaching the arc members 410/420 or connecting part 50 to an appropriately proportioned television nook wall.” (Ans. 2.) The Examiner elaborates that “[fjirst, arc members 410/420 can attach directly to both of the two vertical nook surfaces when the device connecting part 50 is removed from arc members 410/420,” and “[sjecond, indirectly the arc members 410/420 can attach (via friction fit between the left and right device connecting part 50 outer walls against the left and right vertical or top and bottom horizontal planar surface).” (Id. at 3.) To support the latter point, the Examiner finds that “the outside faces of the device connecting part 50 are tight against the opposing vertical nook surfaces when the limiting setting guide 317 locks the first and second sliding members 310, 330 (Fig. 2) together” and the device “is installed in a complimentarily dimensioned nook (such a nook being one in which the distance between the opposing nook walls allows for a relatively snug fit of the Kim device in the nook).” (Id. at 3—4.) 5 Appeal 2017-001750 Application 14/015,870 We are persuaded of error with respect to the claimed “mounting plates.” As noted above, Kim’s first and second arc members 410 and 420 attach to the connecting parts 50, not a wall. While it might be physically possible to detach the connecting bars and fasten the arc members directly to a wall, the reference does not describe such an arrangement. Instead, the wall connection is at the center. Nor does the reference describe a “friction fit,” as the limiting setting guide 317 is simply a stop (see Kim 3:63—67) and, therefore, does not provide a biasing force to hold the apparatus (and an attached monitor) in place. Kim also does not describe wedging the apparatus into a slightly undersized nook. We further observe that Kim’s arrangement includes pivoting connections at both ends of both sliding units 30, which would seemingly prevent a stable friction fit, unless the central part of the device was also fixed (for example to a third wall), which is not the case in the Examiner’s analysis because that part is supporting the display. And, if the part that holds the display was also fixed directly to a wall, there would be no need for the sliding units and sidewall connections. Because Kim does not “disclose[] within the four comers of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed” and, therefore, “cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” Net Money IN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). For these reasons, we do not sustain the Section 102 rejection of claims 2—8, 12—15, and 19—22. Because this issue is fully dispositive, we do not reach Appellant’s other arguments. 6 Appeal 2017-001750 Application 14/015,870 DECISION The rejections of claims 2—8, 12—15, and 19—22 are reversed. REVERSED 7