Ex Parte Kim et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 21, 2012

10869632 (B.P.A.I. May. 21, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/869,632 06/15/2004 Brian Joosung Kim 50T5628.02 6779
36738 7590 05/21/2012
ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES
750 B STREET
SUITE 3120
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
EXAMINER
TORRENTE, RICHARD T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/21/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BRIAN JOOSUNG KIM and JARED LEE ZAMALOFF
____________

Appeal 2009-015155
Application 10/869,632
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JOHN A. EVANS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-8, 11-16, 18, and 19, which are all the claims remaining
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2009-015155
Application 10/869,632

2
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a noise dampening degaussing coil
holder. Title.

Representative Claim
1. A system, comprising:

at least one cathode ray tube (CRT);

at least one degaussing coil juxtaposed with the CRT,
and

at least one resilient cyclindrical degaussing coil holder
closely surrounding the degaussing coil to dampen noise
transmission from the coil to structure adjacent the coil.

Prior Art
Hilgers US 3,368,177 Feb. 6, 1968
Koo US 6,625,012 B1 Sep. 23, 2003

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-8, 11-16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Koo and Hilgers.

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1.

Appeal 2009-015155
Application 10/869,632

3
PRINCIPAL ISSUE
Does the combination of Koo and Hilgers teach “at least one resilient
cyclindrical degaussing coil holder closely surrounding the degaussing coil
to dampen noise transmission from the coil to structure adjacent the coil” as
recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Section 103 rejection of claims 1-7
Appellants contend that the combination of Koo and Hilgers does not
teach “at least one resilient cyclindrical degaussing coil holder closely
surrounding the degaussing coil to dampen noise transmission from the coil
to structure adjacent the coil” as recited in claim 1. In particular, Appellants
contend that Hilgers teaches a body that is principally rigid with only the
web portions 13 being resilient. App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 1. The Examiner
finds that Hilgers teaches a cylindrical body that is constructed of
substantially rigid plastic material having resilient properties. In particular,
the Examiner finds that all portions of the cylindrical body of Hilgers are
constructed of the same plastic material having resilient properties. See Ans.
7-8.
We agree with the Examiner. Appellants have not provided evidence
or persuasive argument to show that the cylindrical body of Hilgers, made
from material having resilient properties, is not resilient. It is well settled
that mere lawyer’s arguments and conclusory statements, which are
unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d
699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Attorney argument is not evidence. In re
Appeal 2009-015155
Application 10/869,632

4
Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Nor can it take the place of
evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782
(CCPA 1977).
Appellants also contend that Hilgers teaches away from a holder that
dampens noise. App. Br. 4. According to Appellants, each of the thicker
portions of Hilgers would establish an excellent noise transmitter. Reply Br.
1. We agree with the Examiner that the entire body of Hilgers is a resilient
cylindrical coil holder. Appellants have not provided evidence or persuasive
argument to show that the resilient cylindrical holder of Hilgers, including
the thicker resilient portions, will not dampen noise transmission.
Appellants contend that modifying Koo to include the teachings of
Hilgers will frustrate the intended purpose of Koo, which is dampening
noise. Reply Br. 2. Appellants’ contention is based on the premise that the
body of Hilgers, which has resilient properties, will not dampen noise.
Appellants have not provided evidence or persuasive argument to show that
the resilient body of Hilgers will not dampen noise.
Appellants contend that the combination of Koo and Hilgers does not
teach that the box-like holder of Koo needs to be replaced by the tubular
body of Hilgers. App. Br. 6. The Examiner finds that changing the coil
holder of Koo with the coil holder of Hilgers does not affect the performance
of the degaussing coil holder. The Examiner also finds that substituting one
coil holder for another yields the predictable result of dampening noise.
Ans. 8-9. Appellants have not provided evidence or persuasive argument to
rebut the Examiner’s findings.
Appeal 2009-015155
Application 10/869,632

5
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants
have not provided arguments for separate patentability of claims 2-7, which
thus fall with claim 1.

Section 103 rejection of claims 8-19
Appellants contend that the combination of Koo and Hilgers does not
teach “the coil holder is made of a unitary structure that is generally
cylindrical and entirely resilient throughout the holder” as recited in claim 8.
Reply Br. 2. Appellants rely on arguments for the patentability of claim 8
similar to those presented for claim 1 which we find unpersuasive.
We sustain the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants
have not provided arguments for separate patentability of claims 9-19, which
thus fall with claim 8.

CONCLUSION
The combination of Koo and Hilgers teaches “at least one resilient
cyclindrical degaussing coil holder closely surrounding the degaussing coil
to dampen noise transmission from the coil to structure adjacent the coil” as
recited in claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-8, 11-16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Koo and Hilgers is affirmed.

Appeal 2009-015155
Application 10/869,632

6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

rwk