Ex parte Mangone

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 29, 1998

08307328 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 29, 1998)

Application for patent filed September 16, 1994.1
Claims 1, 8 and 18 have been amended subsequent to final rejection.2
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publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte PETER G. MANGONE, Jr.
_____________
Appeal No. 96-4018
Application 08/307,3281
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before CALVERT, MEISTER and STAAB, Administrative Patent
Judges.
MEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Peter G. Mangone, Jr. (the appellant) appeals from the
final rejection of claims 1-20, the only claims present in the
application.2
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 96-4018
Application 08/307,328
2
The appellant's invention pertains to a cable clip for
use in attaching a cable to a support. Independent claim 1 is
further illustrative of the appealed subject matter and a copy
thereof may be found in the appendix to the supplemental
brief.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Cummings 627,819 Jun. 27, 1899
Logsdon 4,903,921 Feb. 27, 1990
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Logsdon in view of Cummings. It is the
examiner's position that:
The patent to Logsdon shows a cleat having
a housing comprising a top, bottom, sides,
front and rear surfaces, a channel defined
in the bottom surface for receiving a
cable, and a bore extending through the top
and bottom surfaces for receiving a
fastener means. Logsdon does not show a
fastener means having an extended arm. The
reference to Cummings shows a fastener
means having an extended arm. It would
have been obvious to one skilled in the art
at the time the invention was made to
provide the cleat shown by Logsdon with a
fastener means having an extended arm as
shown by Cummings to further secure the
Appeal No. 96-4018
Application 08/307,328
3
housing by providing additional support to
the housing. [Answer, pages 4 and 5.]
The appellant disagrees noting that, while Logsdon shows
a cable clamp, Cummings is directed to a railroad spike. From
the appellant's perspective there is no suggestion to combine
the teachings of the references in the manner proposed by the
examiner. In support of this position the appellant has
attached Exhibit A to the brief which, in Fig. 2, shows the
railroad spike of Cummings holding a rail R to a railroad tie
T in its "installed" position for the purpose of emphasizing
the disparate manner in which Cummings' railroad spike is
used. Even if the teachings of the references were combined,
the appellant asserts that they would be combined in the
manner depicted in Fig. 1 of Exhibit A, which shows the arm or
bridge member c extending away from the housing 12 of
Logsdon's clip (as distinguished from extending over the
housing in such a manner so as to contact the top and front
surfaces thereof as set forth in claim 1).
According to the examiner, however:
It is the extended arm of Cummings what
[sic, that] provides the securing means
Appeal No. 96-4018
Application 08/307,328
4
when the fastener is used, same as
appellant's extended arm. It is correct,
as pointed out by appellant, that [the]
Cummings fastener means is used to secure
railway-rails but its teachings can be
applied to other fields as well. Referring
now to Fig. 1 on appellant['s] Exhibit A,
the extended arm should be rotated 180
degrees and pointed toward the front
surface 18 of the housing. That would be
the logical orientation of the fastener
means because, as explained by Cummings,
the extended arm is a bridge member of
desired length used to rest upon the
surface of the rail when the fastener is
driven in. When use in combination with
Logsdon the arm must rest upon the housing.
The extension or length of said arm would
be, as stated by Cummings, of a "desired
length", consequently it can be extended to
bridge the front surface of the housing to
further secure the cleat shown by Logsdon.
Answer, pages 6 and 7.]
The examiner is simply in error in his findings as to the
manner in which the railroad spike of Cummings is used.
Cummings clearly states that the front face of the shank a
(immediately below the head) sweeps outwardly at a "to cause4
the spike in driving to hug the rail" (page 1, lines 61 and
62; emphasis ours). Cummings further states that the bridge
member c extends rewardly and has a flat underside so as "to
rest squarely upon the surface of the tie when the spike is
Appeal No. 96-4018
Application 08/307,328
5
driven" (page 1, lines 69-71; emphasis ours). In addition,
Cummings states that the spur c' (which extends downwardly
from the bridge c) is V-shaped so as to "facilitate its free
entrance into the wood [of the tie]" (page 1, line 95;
emphasis ours) as it "is driven into the tie" (page 2, line
6). According to Cummings, the spike provides "an effective
bridge-support and spur for resisting any tendency of the
spike to loosen under lateral thrust of the rail" (page 2,
lines 16-18).
From the above, it is readily apparent that (1) the arm
or bridge c of Cummings does not contact or rest upon the rail
when it is secured to the tie as the examiner apparently
believes and (2) the appellant in Fig. 2 of Exhibit A has
correctly depicted the orientation of Cummings' spike in its
"driven" or installed position (rather than being 180 degrees
out of orientation as the examiner would have us believe). In
view of the disparate nature of Cummings' railroad spike, we
are at a complete loss as to why one of ordinary skill in this
art would have been motivated to incorporate the railroad
spike of Cummings into the device of Logsdon.
Appeal No. 96-4018
Application 08/307,328
6
Moreover, even if the artisan would somehow have been
motivated to combine the teachings of Logsdon and Cummings,
these references would, at the most, suggest the orientation
depicted in Fig. 1 of Exhibit A, with the additional feature
of the spur being of such an extent that it could also be
driven into the supporting surface 22 so as to provide
additional lateral support in accordance with Cummings'
teachings.
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined teachings of Logsdon and
Cummings is reversed.
REVERSED
)
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JAMES M. MEISTER )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JMM:yrt
KLAAS, LAW, O’MEARA and MALKIN
Appeal No. 96-4018
Application 08/307,328
7
1999 Broadway
Suite 2225
Denver, CO 80202