Ex Parte Maier-Hunke

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2014

11992443 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2014)

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.
11/992,443 03/16/2009 Horst-Werner Maier-Hunke 407-409 8242
7590 07/31/2014
Mark P. Stone
Attorney at Law
400 Columbus Avenue
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
KIM, SHIN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3638
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2014 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 HORST-WERNER MAIER-HUNKE
____________

Appeal 2012-006174
Application 11/992,4431
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–21. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 According to the Appellant, “Durable Hunke & Jochheim GmbH u. Co.
KG, a limited partnership organized under the laws of Germany, . . . is the
real party in interest.” App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2012-006174
Application 11/992,443

2
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the subject
matter on appeal and is reproduced below.

1. Name badge with an attachment device (3), for attaching the
said badge to an item of clothing and which has a base (20) and
two cheeks (29, 30) spaced from one another as well as a
double-armed clamping element (27), which is supported
pivotably on a pivot axle (25) that is supported in the cheeks
(29, 30), wherein one arm of which is pressed against the base
(20) by a spring, characterised in that it has a mounting (8; 33),
which is formed as a type of frame (10 - 13) at least partially
enclosing the base (20) of the attachment device (3), the said
frame being provided with holding down clamps (14 - 17) for
the base (20) in the region of the attachment device (3) located
outside of the cheeks (29, 30).

Rejections
Claims 1–7, 12, and 14–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Gröner (US 6,170,181 B1, iss. Jan. 9, 2001).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gröner and Maier-Hunke (US 2007/0022794 A1, pub. Feb. 1, 2007).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gröner.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Gröner and Galloway (US 2003/0200690 A1, pub. Oct. 30, 2003).

ANALYSIS
We have considered the Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief
and the Reply Brief against the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and
determined that they are unpersuasive.
Appeal 2012-006174
Application 11/992,443

3
At the outset, we note that the Examiner finds Gröner’s guide grooves
9, 10 constitute the claimed “mounting” and resilient legs 12, 13 constitute
the claimed “holding down clamps.” Ans. 5; see id. at 7.
The Appellant contends Gröner fails to disclose “a mounting which is
formed as a type of frame . . . being provided with holding down clamps,” as
required by claim 1. App. Br. 6. In the Appeal Brief, the Appellant supports
this contention by asserting that Gröner’s grooves do not extend back of the
name badge. See id. However, this assertion is unpersuasive because claim
1 does not require a frame to extend back of the name badge. In the Reply
Brief, the Appellant asserts that Gröner “fails to disclose a frame, as
expressly recited in independent claim 1, but instead teaches a groove, a
totally different structure.” Reply Br. 2. However, the Appellant does not
explain why Gröner’s guide grooves 9, 10 cannot constitute a “mounting . . .
which is formed as a type of frame” (App. Br., Claims App’x (emphasis
added)), as recited in claim 1. The Specification lacks an explicit definition
of the term “frame.” If the Specification does not assign or suggest a
particular definition to a claim term, it is appropriate to consult a general
dictionary definition of the word for guidance in determining the ordinary
and customary meaning of the claim term as viewed by a person of ordinary
skill in the art. See Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed.
Cir. 2010). The term “frame” is defined as “a structure for admitting or
enclosing something.”2 This definition of the term “frame” is included
within the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the

2 DICTIONARY.COM, available at http://dictionary.reference.com/
browse/frame (last visited July 28, 2014) (def. 4).

Appeal 2012-006174
Application 11/992,443

4
Specification as interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Grooves 9,
10, and their inwardly projecting upper collars 14, form a structure for
admitting something because grooves 9, 10 admit fastening clip 6 and its
foot part 7 and slide 8 to be displaced and locked into position at end points
P2, P3, or P4. See Ans. 5 (citing Gröner, fig. 2); see also Gröner, col. 2, ll.
28–51. As such, grooves 9, 10 constitute a frame. Thus, the Examiner’s
finding that Gröner’s guide grooves 9, 10 constitute a “mounting . . . which
is formed as a type of frame” is supported by a preponderance of the
evidence.
The Appellant asserts that Gröner’s resilient legs 12, 13 do not
constitute the claimed “holding down clamps” because the resilient legs “do
not hold any attachment device inserted into the groove, but merely laterally
fix the attachment device.” App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 3. This assertion
is unpersuasive. Clip 6 is restricted from movement in a vertical direction,
and as such, held down, because clip 6, by way of slide 8, is secured against
falling out in a vertical direction due to resilient legs 12, 13. See Gröner,
col. 2, ll. 28–36; figs. 1–2. More specifically, fastening clip 6 and its foot
part 7 can be displaced laterally by use of slide 8, which slides within
grooves 9, 10. See id. at col. 1, ll. 39–40, col. 2, ll. 31–36. Grooves 9, 10
have inwardly projecting collars 14, which prevent slide 8 from falling out in
a vertical direction. See id. at col. 2, ll. 48–50, figs. 1–2. Collars 14 are
formed in-part by resilient legs 12, 13 (id. at col. 2, ll. 50–51) and resilient
legs 12, 13 lock clip 6 into place in a lateral direction (id. at col. 2, l. 64–col.
3, l. 9). As such, resilient legs 12, 13 prevent movement of clip 6 vertical
Appeal 2012-006174
Application 11/992,443

5
direction, but also in a lateral direction. Hence, resilient legs 12, 13 are
holding down clamps as required by claim 1.
The Appellant also asserts that Gröner “fails to recognize the
functional advantages of the name badge defined by independent claim 1, as
expressly discussed in Applicant’s Specification.” App. Br. 7; see Reply Br.
2. However, the Appellant does not identify any functional limitations
recited in claim 1 that are not disclosed by Gröner. Additionally, we do not
perceive any functional limitations recited in claim 1 that are not disclosed
by Gröner. Further, any functional advantages expressed in the
Specification and not expressed in claim 1 do not distinguish claim 1 from
Gröner’s disclosure.
Thus, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Gröner is sustained. The Appellant does not separately argue the
rejection of claims 2–7, 12, and 14–20, which depend either directly or
indirectly from claim 1. App. Br. 5. Thus, the rejection of claims 2–7, 12,
and 14–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Gröner is sustained.
The Appellant includes a separate heading regarding the rejection of
claim 21. App. Br. 9. Besides, relying on the unpersuasive arguments
presented against the rejection of claim 1, the Appellant also contends that
Gröner “fails to teach or suggest the specific structure and structural
arrangement expressly recited in dependent claim 21.” Id. However, the
Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive because it does not explain error in
the Examiner’s findings with regard to claim 21 (Ans. 7). Thus, the
rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Gröner is
sustained.
Appeal 2012-006174
Application 11/992,443

6
Lastly, the Appellant appeals, but does not separately argue, the
rejections of claims 8–11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See App. Br. 2,
4–5. The Appellant relies on the arguments presented against the rejection
of claim 1, for which claims 8–11 and 13 either depend directly or indirectly
from claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of: claims 8 and 9 as
unpatentable over Gröner and Maier-Hunke; claims 10 and 11 as
unpatentable over Gröner; and, claim 13 as unpatentable over Gröner and
Galloway.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1–21.
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