Ex Parte Lagree et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 19, 2018

13905424 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/905,424 05/30/2013 JAMES L. LAGREE
101730 7590 04/23/2018
ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
EATON CORPORATION
600 GRANT STREET
44THFLOOR
PITTSBURGH, PA 15219
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12-LCS-675 6868
EXAMINER
DOYLE, RYAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3637
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/23/2018 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):
ipmail@eckertseamans.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES L. LAGREE, BRUCE R. TERHORST,
and JON HYMEL
Appeal2017-008360 1
Application 13/905,4242
Technology Center 3600
Before: ANTON W. PETTING, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
2--4, 11, 13, and 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed July 11, 2016), the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Sept. 21, 2016), and the Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed Feb. 11, 2016).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Eaton Corporation.
Br. 1.
Appeal2017-008360
Application 13/905,424
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, the Specification "relates generally to
electrical switching equipment and, more particularly, to a support apparatus
usable to support a cover portion of an electrical enclosure in proximity with
a cabinet portion of the electrical enclosure." Spec. 1, 11. 5-8.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 11 is the only independent claim on appeal and recites:
11. An electrical enclosure apparatus comprising:
an electrical enclosure comprising a cabinet portion and a
cover portion;
the cabinet portion having a base panel, a number of walls
extending from a periphery of the base panel, and a number of
upturned lips, at least a first upturned lip of the number of
upturned lips extending from at least a first wall of the number
of walls and being disposed opposite the base panel;
a support apparatus comprising:
a shank,
a first retention element situated on the shank and
being receivable on the at least first upturned lip, and
a second retention element disposed on the shank,
an edge of the cover portion being receivable on the
second retention element to provide vertical support to the
cover portion;
wherein the cover portion comprises a number of
fasteners, wherein an upturned lip of the number of upturned lips
has a number of first holes formed therein, and wherein the cover
portion has a number of second holes formed therein, at least
some of the number of first holes and at least some of the number
of second holes being vertically aligned when the first retention
element is disposed on the at least first upturned lip and when the
second retention element receives the edge of the cover portion;
and
2
Appeal2017-008360
Application 13/905,424
wherein the edge of the cover portion received in the
second retention element is slidably received in the second
retention element, the cover portion being slidable on the second
retention element along the longitudinal extent of the edge to
horizontally align at least some of the number of first holes with
at least some of the number of second holes to enable at least
some of the number of fasteners to be received therein.
Br. 10-11.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 2, 3, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sorensen3 in view of0lsen4 and Pipis. 5
2. The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sorensen in view of Olsen, Pi pis, and Klein. 6
DISCUSSION
With respect to claim 11, the Examiner finds that Sorensen discloses
an electrical enclosure with a cabinet portion and a cover portion as claimed,
and the Examiner acknowledges that Sorensen does not disclose a support
apparatus as claimed. Final Act. 3 (citing Sorensen Fig. 8). With respect to
the support apparatus, the Examiner finds that Olsen teaches a support
apparatus with the structure claimed. Id. (citing Olsen Figs. 12, 13). The
Examiner also finds that "Pipis teaches that electrical enclosures having
boxes and trim panels and particularly tabs for supporting and aligning the
enclosure trim panel with the enclosure box are known in the art." Id. at 4.
The Examiner concludes:
3 Sorensen, US 6,291,986 Bl, iss. Sept. 18, 2001.
4 Olsen, US 2,921,464, iss. Jan. 19, 1960.
5 Pipis et al., US 5,072,848, iss. Dec. 17, 1991 (hereinafter "Pipis").
6 Klein, US 4,101,108, iss. July 18, 1978.
3
Appeal2017-008360
Application 13/905,424
In view of Olsen's teachings, it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to modify the enclosure of Sorensen to
provide the support apparatus 51 of Olsen to support the weight
of the trim panel during installation of trim panel fasteners into
holes formed in the box and trim panel, respectively (see
Abstract, II. 6-8 of Pipis ).
Id. at 3. Finally, in response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner finds:
Olsen teaches that the edge of the panel is slid into the spacing
of the legs of the marginal clip device. Pipis, et al. supports
sliding horizontal while weight is carried vertically "Relative
horizontal alignment of the fastener holes 24 and 16 is
accomplished by final, precise alignment of the fastener holes ..
. . Final, precise horizontal alignment of holes 24 and 16 is
simplified because the weight of the trim cover 20 is now
supported by support tab 22 engagement with flange edge 18"
(col. 4, II. 12-15, 17-20). Sorensen, as modified teaches the
cover portion being slidable on the second retention element
along the longitudinal extent of the edge to horizontally align at
least some of the number of first holes with at least some of the
number of second holes to enable at least some of the number of
fasteners to be received therein.
Ans. 8-9.
As discussed below, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection of claim 11 by Appellants' arguments.
Appellants first argue that Olsen is non-analogous art because it is not
in Appellants' field of endeavor and is not reasonably pertinent to the
problem with which Appellants were concerned. Br. 4. Appellants assert
that "Olsen is in the field of endeavor related to the fabrication of wall and
ceiling constructions in buildings" while Appellants' field of endeavor is
electrical switching equipment. Id. Appellants also contend that Olsen is
not pertinent to the problems addressed here because Olsen "is directed
toward assembly procedures and hardware therefor that use blind hooking
4
Appeal2017-008360
Application 13/905,424
methodologies without requiring the insertion of parts through holes in
support members and while eliminating the need for auxiliary fastening
devices" and "the instant application is directed toward providing vertical
support for a cover portion in order to vertically align a number of second
holes in the cover portion with a number of first holes formed in a cabinet
portion to enable the insertion of fasteners therein." Id. at 5. Thus,
Appellants contend that "Olsen is directed toward an opposite scenario ...
compared with the problem facing the inventor in the instant application."
Id. Further, Appellants contend that Olsen is not concerned with aligning
first holes formed in one structure with second holes formed in another
structure for the purpose of securing fasteners in the holes. Id. at 6.
We disagree. Olsen discloses the use of marginal clip devices that
secure a bottom wall panel to a floor channel in a suspended position above
the floor, and Olsen discloses that after the bottom wall panel is supported
by this clip "[t]he top edges of the panel unites may then be secured to the
stud channels by intermediate clip devices." Olsen col. 7, 11. 48---60; Fig. 12.
Based on this disclosure, we agree with the Examiner that "Olsen teaches
utilizing marginal clip devices to provide support to the bottom edge of the
panel [and] then secur[ing] the panel by intermediate clip devices during
installation" and because "the marginal clip devices are relied upon to
support the panel until other intermediate clip devices are installed, Olsen is
pertinent to the same problem" with which Appellants were concerned, i.e.,
supporting a panel portion for alignment prior to final fixation. Ans. 8; see
also Spec. 2, 11. 26-29 (disclosing that the Specification seeks to "provide an
improved support apparatus ... to provide support to the cover portion and
5
Appeal2017-008360
Application 13/905,424
to thereby facilitate installation of the cover portion onto the cabinet
portion.").
Appellants also argue that the Examiner has not identified how the
cited references make obvious the claim requirement that the cover portion
is slidably received in a second retention element. Br. 7. We are not
persuaded based on the unrebutted clarification of the rejection provided by
the Examiner in the Answer. See Ans. 8-9. In particular, we agree with the
Examiner that Pipis disclosure regarding horizontal alignment of the fastener
holes at least suggests that the cover would be slidable in relation to the
support apparatus so that the holes may be properly aligned. See Pipis
col. 4, 11. 12-20.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of reversible error with
respect to the rejection of claim 11. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 11. We also sustain the rejection on these grounds of dependent
claims 2, 3, and 13, for which Appellants do not provide separate arguments.
See Br. 7-8. For the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 4 and
14 as obvious over Sorensen, Olsen, Pipis, and Klein.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 2--4, 11, 13, and 14.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6