Ex Parte Martin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 17, 2016

12128217 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/128,217 05/28/2008
26710 7590 10/19/2016
QUARLES & BRADYLLP
Attn: IP Docket
411 E. WISCONSIN A VENUE
SUITE 2350
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-4426
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kirt Martin
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
871462.00340.PA1285761USA 9896
EXAMINER
TEFERA, HIWOT E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3637
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/19/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
pat-dept@quarles.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KIRT MARTIN, DA YID C. EBERLEIN, and
DANIEL EDWARD WAUGH
Appeal2014-005633
Application 12/128,217
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, LISA M. GUIJT, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kirt Martin et al. (Appellants) 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of the Examiner's decision, as set forth in the Final Action, dated April 12,
2013, rejecting claims 1--4, 6-8, and 10-35. Claims 5, 9, and 36-38 are
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Steelcase Development
Corporation. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-005633
Application 12/128,217
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' claimed subject matter relates to "a furniture assembly kit
that include[ s] components that can be combined in different subsets to
provide different useful furniture arrangements." Spec., para. 3.2 Claims 1,
22, 30, and 34 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is reproduced
below.
1. A furniture assembly kit comprising:
at least a first support structure having top and bottom
ends;
a sub-structure supported by the support structure and
having a substantially flat support surface defined by a
circumferential edge including first and second lateral edges and
first and second oppositely facing end edges, the sub-structure
also forming lip members that extends upward from the support
surface to a distal upper edge along at least a portion of the first
lateral edge and at least a portion of the second lateral edge, the
space adjacent the support surface and between the lip members
being a single and unobstructed furniture receiving space; and
a plurality of tiles, each tile having a first component width
dimension and a first component length dimension;
at least one storage cabinet including a base structure
having the first component width dimension and the first
component length dimension;
wherein, different subsets of the at least one storage
cabinet and tiles can be positioned on and supported by the
support surface and with the tiles and the base structure
substantially covering the sub-structure support surface and at
least partially received in the furniture receiving space, a first
2 Citations to "Spec." refer to the Substitution Specification, filed on July 27,
2009.
2
Appeal2014-005633
Application 12/128,217
subset including a plurality of the tiles supported on and covering
the support surface with edges of adjacent tiles abutting each
other and a second subset including a plurality of the tiles and the
at least one storage cabinet supported on and covering the
support surface with edges of adjacent tiles abutting each other
and edges of tiles adjacent the storage cabinet abutting the base
structure of the cabinet.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied upon the following evidence in the Final Action:
Gutmann, Jr.
("Gutmann")
Price
Chang
Saltzman
Shaw
Brauning3
us 4,049,331
us 5,071,204
us 5,683,154
US 6,659,023 B2
US 2006/0179792 A 1
WO 2005/120288 Al
REJECTIONS
The Final Action included following rejections:
Sept. 20, 1977
Dec. 10, 1991
Nov. 4, 1997
Dec. 9, 2003
Aug. 17, 2006
Dec. 22, 2005
1. Claims 1--4, 6-8, 10-14, 20, 22-25, and 29-33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Saltzman, Shaw, Brauning, and
Gutmann.
2. Claims 15-19 and 26-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Saltzman, Shaw, Brauning, Gutmann, and Price.
3 The Examiner relies on U.S. pre-grant publication (US 2008/0276841 Al,
published November 13, 2008), as an English-language translation of
Brauning. Final Act. 2. References to Brauning in this Decision cite to the
pre-grant publication.
3
Appeal2014-005633
Application 12/128,217
3. Claim 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Saltzman,
Shaw, Brauning, Gutmann, and Chang.
4. Claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Saltzman,
Shaw, and Price.
5. Claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Saltzman,
Shaw, Price, and Brauning.
ANALYSIS
First Ground of Rejection
Appellants argue the claims subject to the first ground of rejection as a
group, and present additional arguments for claim 6. Br. 8-12. We select
claim 1 as representative of the group, with claims 2--4, 11-14, 20, 22-25,
and 29-33, standing or falling with claim 1. We address the separate
argument for claim 6, infra, with claims 7, 8, and 10 depending therefrom,
standing or falling with claim 6. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part,
a first subset including a plurality of the tiles supported on and
covering the support surface with edges of adjacent tiles abutting
each other and a second subset including a plurality of the tiles
and the at least one storage cabinet supported on and covering
the support surface with edges of adjacent tiles abutting each
other.
Br. A-1 (Claims App.). The Examiner found that Saltzman discloses the
furniture assembly substantially as called for in claim 1, except that, inter
alia, "Saltzman doesn't show the edges of adjacent tiles abutting each
other." Final Act. 2--4. The Examiner found that Shaw shows tiles
4
Appeal2014-005633
Application 12/128,217
supported on a substructure "with edges of adjacent tiles abutting each
other." Id. at 4 (citing Shaw Figs. 5, 6). The Examiner determined that it
would have been obvious "to modify the tiles of Saltzman, so that the edges
of adjacent tiles are abutting each other, such as shown by Shaw, in order to
create a uniform appearance to the substructure surface without requiring the
use of additional structures to completely cover the receiving space." Id.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in determining that it would
have been obvious to modify Saltzman to use the adjacent tiles of Shaw
because "doing so would change the principle of operation of Saltzman."
Br. 9. Appellants explain that the proposed modification would require
elimination of Saltzman' s internal frame 14, which, along with external
frame 16, forms a framework that "provides recesses and support for the
tiles and are necessary to meet an object of the Saltzman invention." Id.
(citing Saltzman, col. 1, 11. 63-65); id. at 10 (citing Saltzman, col. 3, 11. 47-
48).4
4 The Examiner further proposed to modify Saltzman (1) to substitute some
of the tiles for a plurality of cabinets, as disclosed in Brauning, (2) to modify
the dimensions of the base structures of the cabinets to have the width and
length dimensions of the tiles, and (3) to have the edges of the tiles adjacent
the storage cabinet abutting the base structure of the cabinet, as disclosed in
Gutmann. Final Act. 4-7. Appellants do not contest the Examiner's
findings as to Brauning and Gutmann, as set forth in the Final Action for the
rejection of claim 1, and do not assert error in the Examiner's proposed
further modifications to the furniture assembly of Saltzman to result in the
subject matter of claim 1. Br., passim.
5
Appeal2014-005633
Application 12/128,217
We agree with the Examiner that "[t]he internal frame 14 ... of
Saltzman [is] not required for laying and supporting the tiles flat on the table
top surface of Saltzman." Ans. 3 (finding that "[t]he tiles of Saltzman can
be completely supported on the table top without adding the frame members
since the table top would effectively support the bottom of the tiles and the
lips around the edges of the table top would prevent the tiles from falling off
the table"). We further agree with the Examiner that an "object of Saltzman
is to seat tiles on a table top and to remove and replace the tiles based on the
user's design preferences." Id.; see also Saltzman, col. 1, 11. 59 - col. 2, 1.
5). The proposed modification to eliminate the internal frame 14 of
Saltzman would not frustrate this purpose. Further, Appellants' reliance on
the alternative embodiment of Figure 3 (Br. 10), which discloses ledges 32
on internal frame 14 to support the tiles, is not persuasive of error in the
proposed combination. Saltzman, col. 2, 11. 36-38, col. 3, 11. 31-54. These
ledges are not a necessary component of the support structure of the tiles;
rather, they are disclosed only in an alternative embodiment. Saltzman
discloses another embodiment in which the tiles are supported on the
recessed top surface of the table top. Saltzman, Figs. 1, 2, col. 2, 11. 56-59.
For these reasons, Appellants have not demonstrated error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As such, we sustain
the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2--4, 11-14, 20, 22-25, and 29-33 which
fall therewith, as unpatentable over Saltzman, Shaw, Brauning, and
Gutmann.
6
Appeal2014-005633
Application 12/128,217
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites: 5
wherein the at least one storage cabinet includes at least one side
wall surface having a storage cabinet height dimension that is an
integer multiple of the first component length dimension and,
wherein, the storage cabinet is positionable with the side wall
surface supported by the support surface and at least one subset
of the simultaneously supported by the support surface so that
the support surface is covered.
Br. A-2 (Claims App.).
The Examiner determined that the claimed relationship of the storage
cabinet height dimension being an integer multiple of the first component
length dimension "would have been an obvious matter of design choice ...
since defining dimensions, and modifications of furniture units are a matter
of design choice based on the user's needs that are well within the skill level
of a person of ordinary skill." Final Act. 7. Appellants contend that the
relative dimensions of the storage cabinet, tiles, and furniture receiving
space are functional and enable the support surface to be completely covered
regardless of the orientation, i.e., horizontal or vertical, of the cabinet.
Br. 10.
Saltzman discloses square tiles. Saltzman, col. 3, 11. 16-17, 24
(discloses that recesses 18 are square and tiles 4 fit snugly into recesses 18).
Saltzman also teaches that"[ e Jach tile 4 is an individual unit having a
uniform length, width, and height dimension." Id., col. 3, 11. 24-26. The
5 We find the wording of claim 6 a bit confusing and query whether a word
may have been omitted unintentionally from the language of claim 6.
7
Appeal2014-005633
Application 12/128,217
Examiner found, with respect to claim 1, that it would have been obvious to
modify the dimensions of the base structures of the cabinets of Brauning to
have the width and length dimensions of the tiles. Final Act. 6. Appellants
do not contest this finding in the rejection of claim 1. Rather, Appellants
contest the Examiner's finding that it would have been obvious to make the
cabinet having a height that is an integer multiple of the base width/tile
width. Br. 10-12.
As the Examiner noted, however, Appellants did not invent the
concept of modular furniture. Ans. 5; see also Brauning, para. 2 ("[a]
modular load-bearing frame system for a table is known"). We agree with
the Examiner that, in modifying Saltzman to substitute the cabinets in
Brauning for some of the tiles of Saltzman, it would have been obvious, in
light of Brauning's disclosure of using the cabinets and tiles to make
modular furniture assemblies, to configure the dimensions of the cabinets to
allow the most versatile use of the cabinets as possible (e.g., in either a
horizontal or vertical orientation) so that the entire surface of the support
surface would be covered by the combination of the tiles and the cabinets.
Ans. 5.
For these reasons, Appellants have not demonstrated error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As such, we sustain
the rejection of claim 6, and claims 7, 8, and 10 which fall therewith, as
unpatentable over Saltzman, Shaw, Brauning, and Gutmann.
8
Appeal2014-005633
Application 12/128,217
Second Ground of Re} ection
Claims 15-19 and 26-28 are subject to the second ground of rejection.
Appellants present arguments directed only to claims 26 and 27. Br. 12-13.
Claim 15 depends from claim 1 and contains limitations similar to claim 26,
and claim 17 depends from claim 15 and contains limitations similar to
claim 27. Id. at A-4, A-7 (Claims App.). As such, we treat claim 26 as the
representative claim for the subgroup of claims 15, 16, 18, 19, 26, and 28,
and we treat claim 27 as the representative claim for the subgroup of claims
17 and 27. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 26
Claim 26 recites "wherein the sub-structure forms an upwardly
opening channel that is recessed from the support surface and that extends
between the first and second end edges, the tiles and at least one storage
cabinet supported on the support surface overlaying the channel." Br. A-7
(Claims App.). The Examiner found that Price shows the claimed channel
62 recessed from support surface 2 with tiles 70 overlaying the channel.
Final Act. 8 (citing Price, Figs. 1, 2, 6); see also Ans. 5 (finding that "the
definition of a channel is a passage and groove 62 is a passage for routing
different wires that are inserted through the groove"). The Examiner
determined that it would have been obvious "to include a wire management
channel [in] Saltzman, as shown by Price, in order to receive respective
wiring sets and permit access from below the support surface." Final
Act. 8-9.
9
Appeal2014-005633
Application 12/128,217
Appellants contest the Examiner's finding as to the scope and content
of Price. Br. 13. In particular, Appellants argue "Price's structure 4 is
completely open downward at 50 between ledges 64 and 66" and that "[a Jn
opening is not the same as a channel." Id. (arguing that "[a] channel
includes a bottom portion whereas an opening would not"). Appellants have
not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's finding that Price's recessed
groove 62 is "an upwardly opening channel that is recessed from the support
surface and that extends between the first and second end edges" as claimed.
In particular, Appellants have not pointed us to any evidence in the
Record, language in the claim itself, or definitions of "channel" in the
Specification that would necessitate a reading of claimed "upwardly opening
channel" to require a completely closed bottom surface. In fact, claim 27,
which depends from claim 26, recites "at least one opening from the channel
to a space below the sub-structure." Br. A-7 (Claims App.). We agree with
the Examiner that the channels of Price are "formed by the inner walls of
front and rear side portions 60 and 58 and the strips 52, 54, and 56 of the
support surface 4 as shown in [F]igure[s] 3 and 6." Ans. 5-6; see also Price,
col. 3, 11. 19-36, Figs. 2, 3, 6. For these reasons, Appellants have not
demonstrated error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 26, or claims 15, 16,
18, 19, and 28 which fall with claim 26, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As such,
we sustain the rejection of these claims as unpatentable over Saltzman,
Shaw, Brauning, Gutmann, and Price.
10
Appeal2014-005633
Application 12/128,217
Claim 27
Claim 27 depends from claim 26 and further recites "wherein the sub-
structure forms at least one opening from the channel to a space below the
sub-structure for passing cables from the channel to the space below the sub-
structure." Br. A-7 (Claims App.). The Examiner found that the channel of
Price included the claimed opening. Final Act. 8 (citing Price, Figs. 2, 6).
Appellants contend that because "Price's 'channel' 50 ... is completely
open to below[,]" channel 50 "cannot also have an opening in its 'channel'
50." Br. 13. We disagree with Appellants' characterization that Price's
channel is completely open to below. As the Examiner found, the channel
includes strips 52, 54, and 56, and the space between these strips forms the
openings, as called for in claim 27. Ans. 5-6; see also Price, col. 3, 11. 19-
36, Figs. 2, 3, 6. For these reasons, Appellants have not demonstrated error
in the Examiner's rejection of claim 27, or claim 17 which falls with claim
27, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As such, we sustain the rejection of these
claims as unpatentable over Saltzman, Shaw, Brauning, Gutmann, and Price.
Third Ground of Rejection
Appellants omit entirely the third ground of rejection of claim 21 from
the listing of the grounds of rejection to be reviewed on appeal. Br. 8.
Appellants also present no arguments specifically contesting the rejection of
claim 21. As such, for the reasons provided above in our analysis of claim
1, from which claim 21 depends, we sustain the rejection of claim 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Saltzman, Shaw, Brauning,
Gutmann, and Chang.
11
Appeal2014-005633
Application 12/128,217
Fourth Ground of Rejection
Independent claim 34 contains limitations similar to the limitations in
claims 1, 26, and 27. Br. A-10 (Claims App.). Appellants rely on the same
arguments presented in support of the rejections of claims 1, 26, and 27 as
the basis for patentability of claim 34. Id. at 14. For the reasons provided
above in our analysis of claims 1, 26, and 27, these arguments do not
demonstrate error in the Examiner's rejection. As such, we sustain the
rejection of claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Saltzman, Shaw, and Price.
Fifth Ground of Rejection
Claim 35 depends from independent claim 34. Br. A-11 (Claims
App.). Appellants rely on the same arguments presented in support of claim
34 for patentability of claim 35. Id. at 14. For the reasons provided above,
these arguments do not demonstrate error in the Examiner's rejection .. ii1s
such, we sustain the rejection of claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Saltzman, Shaw, Price, and Brauning.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1--4, 6-8, and 10-35 is
AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ l.136(a)(l )(iv).
12
Appeal2014-005633
Application 12/128,217
AFFIRMED
13