Ex Parte Knapper et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 4, 2012

11245603 (B.P.A.I. May. 4, 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.
11/245,603 10/07/2005 Alan W. Knapper 02315-P0040A 6068
24126 7590 05/04/2012
ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC
986 BEDFORD STREET
STAMFORD, CT 06905-5619
EXAMINER
KASHNIKOW, ERIK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1782
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/04/2012 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 ALAN W. KNAPPER,
DANIEL E. KORANDA,
and MICHAEL L. GRINNALL
__________

Appeal 2011-006447
Application 11/245,603
Technology Center 1700
___________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006447
Application 11/245,603

2

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 38-41, 46, 47, and 49-54 which are all of the
pending claims.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a blow molded receptacle.
Claims 38 and 49, reproduced below, are illustrative.
38. A blow molded receptacle, comprising:
a double wall, blow molded body, said body having first and
second sides at least partially enclosing a cavity therebetween; and
a lid portion integrally formed with said body;
wherein said second side includes an unraised portion and a
raised portion extending transversely from said unraised portion, said
raised portion having an outer wall and a sidewall perpendicular to
said first side and said outer wall, such that said cavity is wider
between said outer wall and said first side than between said unraised
portion and said first side;
wherein said sidewall has a hole therethrough; and
wherein said lid portion has first and second hinged sections,
and wherein, when said lid portion is moved from an open position to
a closed position, said second hinged section pivots away from a
common plane with said first hinged section to contact said sidewall,
such that said lid portion covers said sidewall and hole when in a
closed position.
49. A blow molded receptacle, comprising:
a double wall, blow molded body, said body having first and
second sides at least partially enclosing a cavity therebetween; and
a lid portion integrally formed with said body;

1 Claims 25-30 and 36 were cancelled in an amendment dated April 1, 2010.
Appeal 2011-006447
Application 11/245,603

3

wherein said second side includes an unraised portion and a
raised portion extending transversely from said unraised portion, said
raised portion having an outer wall and a sidewall, such that said
cavity is wider between said outer wall and said first side than
between said unraised portion and said first side;
wherein said sidewall has a hole therethrough; and
wherein said lid portion has first and second hinged sections
that, when moved from an open position to a closed position, fold
toward the raised portion of said second side such that said second
hinged section extends down to and joins with said sidewall without
covering the raised portion of said second side.
App. Br., Claims Appendix.2
The following rejections are before us on appeal:
(1) the rejection of claims 38-40, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 53, and 54 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Schurman3 and Biebel4;
and
(2) the rejection of claims 41 and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Schurman, Biebel, and Schrader.5
B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Schurman discloses a receptacle comprising a lid
having first and second hinged sections and finds that the second hinged section is
latch (66). Ans. 5.6 The Appellants argue that a lid and a latch for the lid is not a
reasonable interpretation of a lid having first and second hinged sections as recited

2 Appeal Brief dated September 7, 2010.
3 US 3,902,628 issued September 2, 1975.
4 US 5,429,240 issued July 4, 1995.
5 US 2006/0006587 A1 published January 12, 2006.
6 Examiner’s Answer dated October 27, 2010.
Appeal 2011-006447
Application 11/245,603

4

in claim 38. App. Br. 6. Moreover, even if the latch (66) were considered to be
part of the lid, the Appellants argue that Schurman fails to disclose that the latch
(i.e., the second hinged portion) contacts the sidewall, such that the lid portion
covers the sidewall when in a closed position as recited in claim 38. App. Br. 7.
The Appellants’ argument is persuasive of reversible error. The Examiner
finds that reference number 43 in Schurman corresponds to the claimed sidewall.
Ans. 9. However, the Examiner has failed to show that the latch (66) contacts the
sidewall (43), such that the lid portion covers the sidewall (43) when in a closed
position. See Schurman, col. 3, ll. 15-26 (cover ledge (41) abuts ledge (45) when
the cover is closed); see also Schurman, col. 5, ll. 35-41.
Alternatively, the Examiner relies on Biebel to show a lid having first and
second hinged sections and concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Schurman with the lid of
Biebel.7 Ans. 6, 7, 9.
However, the Appellants argue:
Claim 38 explicitly recites that, when moved from an open to closed
position, the second hinged section pivots away from a common plane
with the first hinged section to contact the sidewall. In Biebel, the
second hinged section does the opposite, as the second hinged section
moves toward a common plane with the first hinged section when
moved from an open position to a closed position.

7 In the Final Office Action dated January 6, 2010, at 5-6, the Examiner relies on
this combination of Schurman and Biebel to reject claim 49. However, the
Examiner also relies on this combination of Schurman and Biebel for the first time
in the Examiner’s Answer to reject claim 38. See Ans. 9.
Appeal 2011-006447
Application 11/245,603

5

Reply Br. 4.8 The Appellants’ argument is supported by the record. See Biebel
Figs. 1, 2.
As for claim 49, the Appellants argue that neither Schurman nor Biebel
discloses a lid that “extends down to and joins with said sidewall without covering
the raised portion of said second side.” App. Br. 9-10.
This argument is also persuasive of reversible error. The Examiner finds
that “the area pointed to by figure number 43 and the portion of the side that
extends down from there, until it meets up with the section pointed to by reference
number 28” in Schurman corresponds to the “raised portion of said second side”
recited in claim 49. Ans. 9. Thus, the raised portion of the second side in
Schurman is located inside the receptacle. See Schurman Fig. 5. The teachings of
Schurman and Biebel clearly teach that this raised portion would be covered when
the lid portion is in a closed position (i.e., when the lid portion “extends down to
and joins with said sidewall”) as recited in claim 49.
The Examiner does not rely on Schrader to cure the deficiencies discussed
above. Thus, for the reasons set forth above, the § 103(a) rejections of claims 38-
41, 46, 47, and 49-54 are reversed.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

8 Reply Brief dated December 27, 2010.
Appeal 2011-006447
Application 11/245,603

6

sld