Ex Parte Kulkarni et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 20, 2014

12233019 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte ANAND A. KULKARNI, PIN-CHE RONALD TSAI,
and MARTHA PETERSON
________________

Appeal 2012-007671
Application 12/233,019
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JILL D. HILL, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Anand A. Kulkarni, Pin-Che Ronald Tsai, and Martha Peterson
(Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1, 3, 5–9, 16–18, 21, and 22.1 Claim 4 has been cancelled.
See Amendment and Response filed July 20, 2011; Appeal Br. 11, Claims
App. Claims 2, 10–15, 19, and 20 have been withdrawn. See Amendment

1 We note that claim 4 is incorrectly stated as subject to the Appeal. See
Appeal Br. 3; Ans. 4.
Appeal 2012-007671
Application 12/233,019

2

and Response filed Oct. 11, 2010. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A floor tile comprising:
a body having a top side, a bottom side, and multiple
lateral sides; and
an integrated flow control element comprising:
an attachment member configured to directly connect at
the bottom side of the body, the attachment member being
substantially linear and parallel to the bottom side; and
an airflow diverter directly connected and extending
down from the attachment member, the airflow diverter being
orientable perpendicular to the bottom side, and being resilient
and flexible,
wherein the airflow diverter is configured to control the
flow of air below the floor tile.

THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 3, 5–9, 16–18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Dawson (US 2009/0305625 A1; pub. Dec. 10,
2009) and Hoeft (US 2009/0129016 A1; pub. May 21, 2009).

ANALYSIS
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Dawson
discloses “an integrated flow control element comprising an attachment
member (80, 85) configured to directly connect at the bottom side of the
Appeal 2012-007671
Application 12/233,019

3

body . . . and an airflow diverter (45) directly connected and extending down
from the attachment member (80, 85).” Ans. 4–5; Final Act. 2 (emphasis
added). The Examiner determines that Dawson does not disclose that the
airflow diverter is resilient and flexible, and relies upon Hoeft for disclosing
“an airflow diverter . . . comprising a bristle brush including a multiplicity of
closely packed bristles . . . , [wherein] the bristles are resilient and flexible
since they are conformable to different heights.” Id. at 5 (citing Hoeft ¶ 30;
Fig. 6). The Examiner reasons, inter alia, that “[i]t would also be obvious to
make the body of the airflow diverter the bristle brush to increase the
resilience and flexibility of the flow control element if one desired.” Id.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Dawson
discloses “an attachment member configured to directly connect at the
bottom side of the body.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellants contend that
[t]he Examiner cites to gear 115 and partition 45 of the Dawson
Publication as the presently recited flow control element.
However, in contrast to the presently recited limitations, neither
gear 115 nor partition 45 is configured to directly connect at the
bottom side of the tile body. Instead, partition 45 is connected
to gear 115, gear 115 is connected to pinion gear 85, pinion
gear 85 is connected to electric servo motor 80, and electric
servo motor 80 is connected at the bottom side of the structural
element 10. Thus, contrary to the presently recited limitations,
gear 115 and partition 45 are indirectly connected to structural
element 10. The Hoeft Publication does not cure these
deficiencies. As such, the cited references do not teach or
suggest an attachment member configured to directly connect at
the bottom side of the body.

Id. at 7 (emphasis added).
Appellants represent that the Examiner “cites to Dawson’s gear 115
and partition 45” (emphasis added) as the flow control element, however, the
Appeal 2012-007671
Application 12/233,019

4

record demonstrates that the Examiner finds Dawson’s attachment member
80, 85 and airflow diverter (or partition) 45 comprise the flow control
element. See Ans. 4–5, Final Act. 2.2 Thus, Appellants do not present any
arguments addressing the Examiner’s rejection. For example, Appellants do
not argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Dawson’s elements 80, 85
comprise an attachment member, as claimed, or in finding that Dawson’s
elements 80, 85 are directly connected at the bottom side of the body of the
floor tile. To the contrary, Appellants acknowledge that at least electric
servo motor 80 is connected at the bottom side of the structural element 10.
See Appeal Br. 7.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner erred in reasoning that it
“would be obvious to make substantially the whole body of the flow control
element the bristle brush to increase the resilience and flexibility of the flow
control element.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellants contend that because Dawson
discloses raising airflow diverter 45 into a suspended and cantilevered
position, airflow diverter “45 is necessarily a rigid member, not flexible as
recited in claim 1.” Id. However, Appellants do not provide any support for
the assertion that Hoeft’s brushes or brush-like structures 403, while resilient
and flexible, are not also rigid enough to be pivoted between upward and
downward directions to direct airflow. Notably, the claimed air flow
diverter is described in the Specification as “a bristle brush comprising a
multiplicity of closely-packed bristles 110 composed of a flexible and/or

2 In the Reply Brief, Appellants acknowledge that “the Examiner equates . . .
electric servo motor 80, and pinion gear 85 of Dawson to the present
‘attachment member[,]’” however, Appellants do not present any arguments
as to any errors in the Examiner’s finding with respect to these elements.
Reply Br. 2.
Appeal 2012-007671
Application 12/233,019

5

resilient material” wherein “bristles 110 [are] transitioned from an
orientation in which they are generally perpendicular to the tile 100 . . . to a
position in which they are generally parallel to the tile.” Spec. 3, 4.3
Finally, Appellants submit that Dawson discloses a partition
extending fully between the duct walls to create a rectangular duct and Hoeft
discloses brushes along a top edge of an air flow arrester to provide a
tolerance for electronics racks of different heights, and that “the marked
differences between the element connections and the functionality of the
features recited in claim 1 are revealed by a comparison of FIG. 1 of the
Present Specification and Figures 6 of Dawson and Hoeft.” Reply Br. 3.
Appellants conclude that “[a]ccordingly, Dawson in view of Hoeft does not
teach or reasonably make obvious all of the features of claim 1.” Id.
However, such conclusory statement does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s findings or rationale.
Therefore, on this record, we find the Examiner’s articulated
reasoning has sufficient rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obvious, in the manner described in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1. Appellants submit that independent claims
16 and 22 are patentable for at least the reasons discussed above with respect
to independent claim 1, and that dependent claims 3, 5–9, 17–18, and 21
further define patentably distinct independent claims 1 and 16. Appeal Br.
9. Because we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we also sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 5–9, 16–18, 21, and 22.

3 The Specification contains no page numbers.
Appeal 2012-007671
Application 12/233,019

6

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 5–9, 16–18, 21, and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dawson and Hoeft is
affirmed.
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

Klh