11185580 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 15, 2012)

Ex Parte Martin

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 15, 2012

11185580 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 15, 2012)

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. 11/185,580 09/15/2005 Garret Martin 022448-0010US1 4102 34284 7590 03/16/2012 Rutan & Tucker, LLP. 611 ANTON BLVD SUITE 1400 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 EXAMINER VENNE, DANIEL V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3617 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/16/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte GARRET MARTIN ____________________ Appeal 2010-009399 Application 11/185,580 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before KEN B. BARRETT, EDWARD A. BROWN, and JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Garret Martin (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-4 and 23-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Murrant (US 5,715,771, issued Feb. 10, 1998), Dimmitt (US 3,136,538, issued June 9, 1964), and Appellant’s Disclosure (Spec., Background). Claims 5-22 have been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2010-009399 Application 11/185,580 2 THE INVENTION Claim 23, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 23. A boat having an exterior portion that includes a pocket door housed in an enclosure that opens to provide a passageway large enough for a person to pass and has tolerances that restrict side to side movement of a distal edge of the door under normal operating conditions wherein the pocket door has at least a traveler and a guide provided to be used as a sliding mechanism and wherein the weight of the pocket door is supported by the traveler. OPINION Appellant argues the rejected claims as a group. Br. 5-11. We select claim 23 as representative, and claims 1-4 and 24-26 stand or fall with claim 23. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Most of Appellant’s arguments are based on the assertion that the claims require a pocket door to be located in the transom of a boat. E.g., Br. 8 (“Contrary to the Patent Office’s assertions, the doors in the present invention are in fact located within the transom of the boat. Applicant has several times before this tried to explain to the Patent Office that the doors are in the transom.” and “Additionally, neither Dimmitt et al. nor Murrant teach or suggest a first sliding door that slides into and out of the opening in the housing which is contained within the transom as required by Claim 23.”) Contrary to Appellant’s assertions, claim 23 does not recite a transom, but rather recites “an exterior portion [of a boat] that includes a pocket door housed in an enclosure.” The term “exterior portion” is broader than the term “transom.” See Spec. 2, ll. 15-16 (“The door can be anywhere on the exterior of the boat; for example along the transom, along a side of the boat, Appeal 2010-009399 Application 11/185,580 3 or leading into the cabin.”) Accordingly, none of Appellant’s arguments regarding the location of the door in the transom are persuasive of error. Appellant also argues that “neither Murrant nor Dimmitt et al., taken singly or in combination, teach or suggest any pocket door.” Br. 9. We agree with the Examiner that Dimmitt discloses a pocket door. Ans. 6-7; see also id. at 9 (referring to Dimmitt’s element 25); Dimmitt, col. 2, l. 18 (“wall pocket 25”). Appellant’s argument that one of ordinary skill would not consider Dimmitt’s teachings appears to be based on the above-discussed mistaken assertion that the claim requires a transom door. Br. 9. As Appellant acknowledges, both references pertain to “the concept of the door.” Br. 9. It was reasonable for the Examiner to rely on Dimmitt’s door teachings. Lastly, Appellant presents arguments focusing on the alleged faults of Murrant and Dimmitt but fails to address the rejection as articulated, which also relies on Appellant’s own admissions. See Br. 9; Ans. 7, 9-10. The Examiner’s rejection includes reliance upon the Background portion of Appellant’s Specification (see 1, ll. 9-13), which states that pocket doors have been used on boats and acknowledges that it is known to use curved pocket doors in cabinets and such. Ans. 7; see also id. at 9-10. By failing to address the Examiner’s articulated obviousness rejection, Appellant has failed to point out any error in that rejection. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-4 and 23-26 is affirmed. Appeal 2010-009399 Application 11/185,580 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED nlk