Ex Parte Mattia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 13, 2018

13630015 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/630,015
11943 7590
O""Shea Getz P.C.
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
09/28/2012 Stephen H. Mattia
07/17/2018
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.
P A-0022695-US 2843
EXAMINER
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205 BEEBE, JOSHUA R
Farmington, CT 06032
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/17/2018 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):
uspto@osheagetz.com
shenry@osheagetz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN H. MATTIA and CURT R. HETHERINGTON
Appeal2017-009723
Application 13/630,015
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the non-final
rejection of claims 1-5 and 8-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify United Technologies Corporation as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-009723
Application 13/630,015
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a wrenching mechanism. Spec. ,r 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A wrenching mechanism comprising:
a housing with a multiple of rectilinear openings, a multiple
of housing lightening openings through said housing;
a multiple of rectilinear fastener plates each with a nut-
shaped opening, each of said multiple of rectilinear fastener
plates located within one of said multiple of rectilinear
opemngs;
a fastener mounted at least partially through said nut-shaped
opening of each of said multiple of rectilinear fastener plates;
a first face sheet having a multiple of first sheet lightening
openings extending through said first face sheet; and
a second face sheet;
wherein said first face sheet and said second face sheet are
mounted to said housing to trap each of said multiple of
rectilinear fastener plates there between; and
wherein said multiple of housing lightening openings are
aligned with said multiple of first sheet lightening openings.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Charles
Munroe
Denslow
Csik-1
Csik-2
Rintelmann
us 4,193,435
us 5,224,341
US 2006/0067806 Al
US 2009/0103997 Al
US 2009/0129885 Al
US 2013/0000101 Al
Mar. 18, 1980
July 6, 1993
Mar. 30, 2006
Apr. 23, 2009
May 21, 2009
Jan.3,2013
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Csik-1, Charles, and Csik-2.
2
Appeal2017-009723
Application 13/630,015
2. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Csik-1, Charles, Csik-2, and Munroe.
3. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Csik-1, Charles, Csik-2, Rintelmann, and Denslow. 2
OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-20, and 22
over Csik-1, Charles, and Csik-2
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-20
Appellants argue claim 1, but do not advance separate arguments for
the patentability of claims 2-5, 8-11, and 13-20. Br. 8-10. We select
claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Csik-1 discloses the invention except for:
(1) a multiplicity of fastener plates; and (2) multi-sheet construction. Final
Action 3-5. The Examiner relies on Charles as disclosing a wrenching
mechanism that incorporates multiple fastener plates and nuts. Id. at 4.
According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
done this to simplify manufacture and assembly. Id. The Examiner relies on
Csik-2 as disclosing multi-sheet construction. Id. According to the
Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this as the
mere act of making an item separable or integral cannot be considered non-
obvious. Id. Appellants do not challenge the Examiner's findings regarding
integral versus separable construction of the housing and associated face
sheets. See generally Appeal Br.
2 For ease of reading and consistency, citations in the prosecution record to
"Csikl" and "Csik2," including direction quotations, shall be reproduced in
this Decision as "Csik-1" and "Csik-2."
3
Appeal2017-009723
Application 13/630,015
Appellants traverse the Examiner's rejection by arguing that Csik-1
fails to disclose housing lightening openings that are aligned with first sheet
lightening openings. Br. 8. Appellants challenge the Examiner's reliance on
two different embodiments of Csik-1.
FIG. 42 of Csik-1 is directed to a different fastener and
receptacle combination than FIGS. 1, 5, and 6 of Csik-1 (cf
paragraphs [0019], [0023], and [0024] of Csik-1 with paragraph
[0060] of Csik-1 [ referring to FIG. 42 as another example of a
fastener and receptacle combination]). As the drawings of
FIGS. 1, 5, and 6 ofCsik-1 are completely different from
FIG. 42 of Csik-1 in terms of form factor, this strongly suggests
a lack of alignment between any alleged first sheet lightening
openings in the upper wall 778 of FIG. 42 and the annotated,
alleged housing lightening openings of FIGS. 5 and 6 of Csik-1.
Id. at 9.
In response, the Examiner takes the position that Figures 5, 6, and 7 of
Csik-1 show the most basic elements within the embodiments of Csik-1.
Ans. 2. The Examiner observes that fastener hole 116 runs entirely through
the bottommost surface and housing as well as through the larger holes in
the top surface and housing. Id. ("Every Figure in Csik-1 that is top down or
isometric shows a fastener/rivet being retained in holes that pierce the top,
middle, and bottom surface").
These holes must always be aligned, because the fastener
elements being delivered through them MUST be able to pass
through the top surface, middle surface, and a smaller portion of
a bottom surface to retain and serve as fastener elements.
Id. at 3. The Examiner disagrees with Appellants' position that the
Figure 42 embodiment suggests a lack of alignment. Ans. 3. The Examiner
explains that Figure 42 was cited as evidence that Csik-1 discloses a
wrenching mechanism with multiple fastener plates and corresponding
4
Appeal2017-009723
Application 13/630,015
rectilinear openings. Id. Otherwise, the Examiner takes the position that
opening 116 depicted in the embodiment of Figures 1, 5, and 6 is shared in
common with the Figure 42 embodiment. Id. at 3--4.
We find the Examiner's position to be more persuasive. With respect
to the various embodiments depicted in Figures 1, 5, 6, and 42, Csik-1
teaches that:
Any of the fastener element receptacles described herein
can be configured to accommodate more than one fastener
element. As shown in FIG. 42, fastener element receptacle 770
includes a base 772, a right side wall 77 4, left side wall 776
and an upper wall 778. The front 780 includes a first, second
and third cage areas 782, 784 and 786, respectively, for
receiving corresponding fastener elements. In the present
example, the fastener elements include the nut element 104, a
quarter-tum receptacle 788 (FIG. 43) and a cycle nut 790
(FIG. 44). The nut element 104 shown in FIG. 42 includes
serrations on the bottom surface thereof for having multiple
points of contact between the nut element and the underlying
support surface. The other fastener elements described herein
can also have non-flat bottom surfaces as well, and may include
other textured surface configurations. The same or different
fastener elements can be incorporated into a multiple receptacle
such as shown in FIG. 42. Each cage area can be identical or
can be configured to accommodate a particular type of fastener
element. The multiple receptacle can otherwise include any of
the features described herein with respect to the other
receptacles.
Csik-1 ,r 141. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
Figure 42 embodiment could be used with the opening 116 configuration
shown in Figures 1, 5, and 6.
Appellants' arguments do not apprise us of Examiner error. We
sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of claims 1-5, 8-11,
and 13-20.
5
Appeal2017-009723
Application 13/630,015
Claim 22
Claim 22 depends from independent claim 14 and adds the
limitations:
[W]herein the rectilinear fastener plates float within
rectilinear openings of the housing between the first and second
face sheets, the method further comprising:
rotating the rectilinear fastener plates into engagement with
the rectilinear openings,
wherein the rectilinear openings stop rotation of the
rectilinear fastener plates to provide for a blind assembly.
Claims App. (emphasis added). Appellants do not challenge the Examiner's
findings that Csik-1 discloses rectilinear plates within rectilinear openings,
but, nevertheless, argue that Csik-1 fails to disclose stopping rotation of the
fastener plates "to provide for a blind assembly." Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis
supplied by Appellants).
In response, the Examiner takes the position that the key language in
the claim is that the shape of the housing opening is rectilinear and arranged
such that the fastener plates cannot be rotated within it. Ans. 4. The
Examiner finds that Csik-1 discloses the required structure and further finds
that it is capable of providing for blind assembly. Id.
Appellants' argument is not persuasive as it fails to rise to the level of
a separate argument for patentability under our rules. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) ("A statement which merely points out what a claim recites
will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim");
see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Rule 41.37
requires more than recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion
that the elements are not found in the prior art).
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 22.
6
Appeal2017-009723
Application 13/630,015
Unpatentability of Claim 12
over Csik-1, Charles, Csik-2, and Munroe
Appellant does not argue for the separate patentability of claim 12
apart from arguments presented with respect to claim 9, which we have
previously considered. Appeal Br. 1 O; see id. at 9 (relying solely on the
arguments presented for claim 1 in traversing the rejection of claim 9). We
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 12. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(iv)
(failure to separately argue claims).
Unpatentability of Claim 21
Csik-1, Charles, Csik-2, Rintelmann, and Denslow
Appellant does not argue for the separate patentability of claim 21
apart from arguments presented with respect to claim 14, which we have
previously considered. Appeal Br. 10; see id. at 9--10 (relying solely on the
arguments presented for claim 1 in traversing the rejection of claim 14). We
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 21. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(iv).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5 and 8-22 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7