Ex parte Lorincz

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 19, 1998

08389684 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 19, 1998)

Application for patent filed February 16, 1995. 1
According to appellant, this application is a continuation of
Application 07/864,656, filed April 7, 1992, now abandoned.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 27
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte EUGENE M. LORINCZ
__________
Appeal No. 97-0675
Application No. 08/389,6841
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before MEISTER, ABRAMS and FRANKFORT, Administrative Patent
Judges.
ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the decision of the examiner
finally rejecting claims 30-34, which constitute all of the
claims remaining of record in the application.
Appeal No. 97-0675
Application No. 08/389,684
2
The appellant's invention is directed to an apparatus for
inserting picture hangers into picture backings. The subject
matter before us on appeal is illustrated by reference to
claim 30, which has been reproduced in an appendix to the
appellant’s Brief.
THE REFERENCES
The references relied upon by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Palmgren 1,761,640 June 3,
1930
Nordgren 3,837,069 Sep. 24,
1974
Lorincz 5,048,788 Sep. 17,
1991
THE REJECTION
Claims 30 through 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Lorincz in view of Palmgren and
Nordgren.
The rejection is explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Brief and the Reply Brief.
Appeal No. 97-0675
Application No. 08/389,684
3
OPINION
The appellant’s invention is directed to inserting
picture hangers into picture backings. On pages 1 and 2 of
the specification, the appellant explains that in the prior
art the hangers have been made in strips, with the prongs by
which they are attached to the picture backings being formed
by a punching operation, after which the prongs are oriented
in the desired direction and the individual hangers are
severed from the strip. Installation on the picture backing
was accomplished manually by means of a hammer or a press. In
the present invention, the punched strips are fed into an
apparatus comprising means for advancing the strip and an
anvil means movable in a direction generally perpendicular to
the strip. The anvil means presses the hangers into the
picture backing. Attached to and moving with the anvil means
are means for pressing the hanger into the picture backing,
means for severing the first blank from the strip, and means
for orienting the prongs. Each cycle of movement of the anvil
causes three functions to take place: (1) the finished hanger
positioned beneath the anvil is severed from the strip; (2)
the severed finished hanger is pressed into the picture
Appeal No. 97-0675
Application No. 08/389,684
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner2
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness (In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), which is established when the
teachings of the prior art itself would appear to have
suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill
in the art (In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529,
1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). If the examiner fails to establish a
4
backing; and (3) the prongs of the next hanger in the strip
are oriented.
As a portion of the apparatus by which these steps are
accomplished, each of the three independent claims recites paw
means on the anvil means for holding the blank hanger after it
has been severed and until it is inserted into the backing.
The paw means are required to have distal end surfaces which
are “disposed non-perpendicular to the direction of movement
of the anvil means” and are “oblique relative to the
respective longitudinal axes of the paw means.” This
limitation is not taught by the applied references, and forms
the basis upon which we conclude that the teachings of the
references fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to the subject matter recited in the three
independent claims, and thus the rejection cannot be
sustained. 2
Appeal No. 97-0675
Application No. 08/389,684
prima facie case, the rejection is improper and will be
overturned (In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596,
1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
5
The examiner looks to Nordgren for the above-quoted
structure. However, we agree with the appellant that it is
only by adopting a skewed interpretation of the term
“longitudinal axis” that the examiner can conclude that the
teachings of this reference render the claimed structure
obvious. It is clear to us from the appellant’s disclosure
that the term “longitudinal axis” should be interpreted as
being that axis of the paw which is in the direction of its
movement, that is, diagonally upward as shown in Figures 8-10
(see specification, page 13). This also is in keeping with
what we believe one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand to be the common definition of the term. Nordgren
discloses paws whose structure and operation have much in
common with the appellant’s invention. Nordgren provides no
description of the distal ends of the paws in detail. In view
of this, and from an inspection of the drawings, it is our
view that it cannot be concluded that the distal end of each
of the paws is oblique to the “longitudinal axis” of the paw,
Appeal No. 97-0675
Application No. 08/389,684
6
when considered in the light of the interpretation we have
given to that term. Rather, it would seem that the ends are
perpendicular. Thus, Nordgren does not teach this required
limitation.
The Palmgren reference, cited by the examiner for other
teachings, does not alleviate the above-noted deficiency.
The rejection is not sustained.
Appeal No. 97-0675
Application No. 08/389,684
7
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES M. MEISTER )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
)
NEAL E. ABRAMS ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge)
Appeal No. 97-0675
Application No. 08/389,684
8
William H. Eilberg
820 Homestead Road
P.O. Box 7
Jenkintown, PA 19046