Ex Parte Lin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 10, 2013

11670493 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2013)

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.
11/670,493 02/02/2007 Ker-Min Lin USPPC2-0607D
(70090.ORI)
7249
69638 7590 06/10/2013
KAMRATH IP Lawfirm, P.A.
4825 OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
SUITE 245
GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422
EXAMINER
JOHNSON, BLAIR M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3634
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/10/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KER-MIN LIN
____________________

Appeal 2011-005559
Application 11/670,493
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JAMES P. CALVE, NEIL T. POWELL, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-005559
Application 11/670,493

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim and is reproduced below:
1. A reeling device for curtain cords, comprising:
two plates;
multiple guiding wheels rotatably mounted between the
two plates, wherein each guiding wheel has a disk with a
toothed periphery and a reel formed on one side of the disk to
selectively receive a cord, with the reel rotatable with the disk
at an equal speed and direction; and
a S-shaped resilient coil mounted on adjacent two of the
multiple guiding wheels;
wherein the toothed periphery of the multiple guiding
wheels are meshed one by one to rotate synchronously.

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ciuca (US 6,601,635 B2; iss. Aug. 5, 2003) and
Kondziola (US 4,427,163; iss. Jan. 24, 1984).

OPINION
The Examiner finds that Ciuca discloses each of the features of claim
1 except the S-shaped resilient coil being mounted on the same structure that
includes the guiding wheels (including the toothed disks and reels). Ans. 3.
The Examiner finds that Kondziola discloses mounting spring ends (S-
shaped resilient coil) on a structure including the reels and toothed disks and
Appeal 2011-005559
Application 11/670,493

3
reasons that it would have been obvious to modify Ciuca accordingly in
order to reduce the size of the device and simplify assembly. Ans. 3-4.
Appellant explains that Ciuca requires the guide wheels 70, 72 to
rotate together, while the drums 12, 14 in Kondziola do not rotate together.
App. Br. 3. This explanation does not apprise us of Examiner error, as the
Examiner simply relies on Kondziola as teaching that spring ends (S-shaped
resilient coil) can be mounted on the same structure that includes the reels
and toothed disks. See Ans. 4.
Appellant contends that Kondziola is not in the field of reeling
devices for curtain cords and is non-analogous art because the disclosure is
directed solely to seat belts without any reference to further applications of
the device. App. Br. 3. Appellant further contends that because Kondziola
requires independent rotation of drums 12, 14 for seat belts (rather than the
synchronous rotation of the guide wheels for curtain cords in Ciuca and
Appellant’s invention), Kondziola is not in the same field of endeavor as
reeling devices for curtain cords. App. Br. 3-5; Reply Br. 1-2.
The Examiner explains that both Ciuca and Kondziola pertain to using
S-shaped springs on drums that operate winding reels while being geared
directly together. Ans. 4-5. We agree. Both Ciuca and Kondziola (and
Appellant’s claimed arrangement) are directed to reeling devices including
spring motors. See Kondziola, col. 1, ll. 60-67 and Ciuca, col. 1, ll. 29-31.
Appellant has failed to persuasively explain why Kondziola is not in
Appellant’s field of endeavor or at least reasonably pertinent to the problem
addressed by Appellant (i.e., reeling devices including spring motors). See
Spec. 3, para. [23]. Thus, we do not find Appellant’s arguments directed to
non-analogous art persuasive.
Appeal 2011-005559
Application 11/670,493

4
Appellant additionally contends that because one skilled in the art
would not look to seat belt mechanisms when designing curtain cord reeling
devices, the rejection must be based on impermissible hindsight. App. Br. 4,
5; Reply Br. 2. As explained above, we do not believe that Kondziola is
non-analogous art. Therefore, Appellant’s hindsight arguments (based on
Kondziola being non-analogous art) are not convincing.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellant’s arguments do not apprise
us of Examiner error and we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 2-4
depend from claim 1 and have not been argued separately. See App. Br. 2-6.
Thus, we also sustain the rejection of claims 2-4.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

mls