Ex Parte Meadows et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 11, 2016

13416869 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/416,869 03/09/2012 Kyle Meadows
27964 7590 08/15/2016
PARKER JUSTISS, P,C
P.O. BOX 832570
RICHARDSON, TX 75083
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.
TRIP-0013 1192
EXAMINER
CHEN,JOSEV
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3637
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/15/2016 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):
docket@pj-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KYLE MEADOWS, KEVIN KUYKENDALL,
GREG H. PARKER, ALLEN DONALD GOLLOTT, JR., and
PHILIP E. SMID
Appeal2014-005558
Application 13/416,869
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1 and 3-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-005558
Application 13/416,869
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a luggage stand. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A stand for use with luggage, comprising:
a first surface having a fully enclosed opening therein
configured to slide over and engage a telescoping handle of a
piece of luggage; and
a second surface slidably coupleable to the first surface,
the first and second surfaces coordinating to provide a work
surface of adjustable size.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
Appellants' Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter (Appeal
Br. 3) refers to Figures 1-3 in describing claim 1, and we reproduce
Appellants' Figure 3 below.
Appellants' Figure 3 depicts stand 300 attached to luggage 310. See
Spec. i121.
2
Appeal2014-005558
Application 13/416,869
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Walker
Ryburg
Jaramillo
Bae
Almond
us 2,244,861
us 6,105,508
US 6,439,133 Bl
US 7,859,836 B2
US 7,950,335 Bl
REJECTIONS
June 10, 1941
Aug. 22, 2000
Aug.27,2002
Dec. 28, 2010
May 31, 2011
(I) Claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Almond and Ryburg.
(II) Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Almond, R yburg, and Walker. 1
(III) Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Almond, Ryburg, and Jaramillo.
(IV) Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
unpatentable over Almond, Ryburg, and Bae.
1 We note that claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites that "the first
surface includes a T feature configured to engage and interpose support
structures of a telescoping handle of a piece of luggage." Appeal Br. 11
(Claims App.). It appears that, in order to avoid contradicting base claim 1,
claim 4 requires a second feature configured to engage a telescoping handle
inasmuch as the feature configured to engage a telescoping handle in claim 1
is a "fully enclosed opening."
3
Appeal2014-005558
Application 13/416,869
OPINION
Rejection(!)
Appellants argue claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 as a group. Appeal Br. 5---6.
We select claim 1 as representative, and claims 3, 5, and 6 stand or fall with
claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Almond discloses most of the features recited
in claim 1, but does not disclose that the opening on its first surface is "fully
enclosed." Final Act. 2 (referring to Almond, Fig. 17 A). Nonetheless, the
Examiner finds that Ryburg teaches a fully enclosed engagement structure.
Final Act. 2 (referring to Ryburg, Figs. 5, 10). The Examiner reasons that it
would have been obvious "to modify the structure of [Almond] to include a
fully enclosed opening, as taught by Ryburg since such structures are
conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and
environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby
providing structure as claimed." Final Act. 2-3; see KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Telej1ex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Appellants assert that "there is no motivation to combine the fully
enclosed opening of R yburg with the structure of Almond" and modifying
Almond as proposed by the Examiner would render Almond "unusable for
its intended purpose." Appeal Br. 6.
In response, the Examiner states, "both Almond and R yburg teach
conventional mounting structure used in the same intended purpose of
providing a mount for a worksurface/table on a structure." Ans. 2. The
Examiner further finds that the proposed modification does not render
Almond unsuitable for its intended use because "any leg structure can be
inserted into the opening including a tripod structure." Ans. 2 (emphasis
added).
4
Appeal2014-005558
Application 13/416,869
In reply, Appellants state, "Ryburg is directed to a work surface for
luggage and luggage carriers, wherein Almond is directed to a utility tray
(e.g., work surface) for a [t]ripod. Accordingly, Ryburg and Almond, in
contrast to what the Examiner argues, are not used in the same intended
purpose." Reply Br. 2. Appellants further assert, "[a]s [Almond and
Ryburg] are not used in the same intended purpose, the Examiner's alleged
motivation is lacking." Reply Br. 2.
Regarding whether the Examiner's proposed modification would
render Almond unsuitable for its intended use, Appellants state, "Almond, as
the Examiner is well aware, is directed to 'a removable tray assembly.' (See,
the first four words of the Abstract). By enclosing the opening of the tray of
Almond, as the Examiner suggests, the tray would not be removable, as
required." Reply Br. 3.
We do not agree with Appellants' argument that "there is no
motivation to combine the fully enclosed opening of Ryburg with the
structure of Almond." Appeal Br. 6. Both Almond and Ryburg disclose
small platforms that provide a work surface used to support laptop
computers, and both references teach openings for attaching the structures to
upright support members. See Almond, Fig. 6; Ryburg, Fig. 1. Contrary to
Appellants' argument, the tripod extension to which Almond attaches its
platform is not so different from the luggage handle extension to which
Ryburg attaches its platform that Almond and Ryburg are directed to
different purposes in any relevant way. In any event, Appellants' argument
relating to the purposes of Almond and Ryburg does not accurately address
the Examiner's rejection inasmuch as the Examiner finds that the "fully
enclosed opening" taught by Ryburg is a conventional alternative to the
opening that is not fully enclosed in Almond. See Final Act. 2-3. In other
5
Appeal2014-005558
Application 13/416,869
words, the Examiner's reasoning is based upon the fact that a subcomponent
of Ryburg is a conventional alternative to a subcomponent in Almond.
Thus, even if Almond and R yburg were, in general, directed to different
purposes as Appellants contend, this argument does not address why the
Examiner's proposed modification to Almond providing a subcomponent
feature taught by Ryburg would be incorrect. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded by Appellants' arguments on this point.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that the
Examiner's proposed modification would render Almond unsuitable for its
intended use. Appellants provide no persuasive technical reasoning or
objective evidence that modifying tray assembly 100 of Almond to include a
fully enclosed opening, rather than a partially enclosed opening, would not
allow a user to insert and remove leg extensions of the tripod 100 as the
Examiner discusses on pages 2-3 of the Examiner's Answer. Indeed,
regardless of whether the opening disclosed by Almond is open or fully
enclosed, the opening is still required to be large enough to accommodate
the legs of the structure with which it is engaged. Appellants do not explain
persuasively how an opening that can engage leg extensions of tripod 100
would not be able to have leg extensions of tripod 100 inserted therein, even
if the opening is fully enclosed.
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments for the patentability
of claim 1, but find them to be unpersuasive. Accordingly, the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 as unpatentable over Almond and Ryburg is
sustained.
6
Appeal2014-005558
Application 13/416,869
Rejections (II-IV)
Appellants do not make separate arguments for any of claims 4 and 7-
13. Appeal Br. 7-10. Accordingly, we sustain Rejections (II-V) for the
reasons discussed above with respect to Rejection (I).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 3-13 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7