Ex Parte Nofziger

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2018

15150817 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/150,817 05/10/2016
20879 7590 09/20/2018
Schaffer, Schaub & Marriott, Ltd.
POBOX916
ONE SEAGATE SUITE 1980
TOLEDO, OH 43697
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Edward L. Nofziger
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.
13015A 6544
EXAMINER
MITCHELL, KATHERINE W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3634
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2018 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@dockettrak.com
ssm@ssm-law.com
kolson@ssm-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EDWARD L. NOFZIGER
Appeal2018---001421 1
Application 15/150,8172
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed July 20, 2017), the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Sept. 28, 2017), and the Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed Feb. 3, 2017).
2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Edward L. Nofziger.
Br. 1.
Appeal2018---001421
Application 15/150,817
BACKGROUND
According to Appellant, "[t]he present invention pertains to a wind
load reinforcement beam for a sectional garage door and a method of
installing the reinforcement beams." Spec. 1, 11. 4--5.
CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 6 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. An apparatus for providing horizontal reinforcement for a
sectional garage dooring comprising:
a C-shaped frame having a top portion and a bottom
portion the top portion defining a longitudinally oriented channel
located between two opposed longitudinally extending edges;
at least two fastening holes for receiving means to fasten
the reinforcing apparatus a garage door section;
at least one reinforcement plate;
at least one edge folded over onto itself on the top portion
of the C-shaped frame.
Br., Claims App.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.
2. The Examiner rejects claims 1-3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as
anticipated by Schleef. 3
3. The Examiner rejects claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Moser4 in view of Rubel. 5
3 Schleef et al., US 2012/0234501 Al, pub. Sept. 20, 2012.
4 Moser et al., US 3,443,625, iss. May 13, 1969.
5 Rubel, US 2,196,399, iss. Apr. 9, 1940.
2
Appeal2018---001421
Application 15/150,817
4. The Examiner rejects claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Brenner. 6
DISCUSSION
Indefiniteness
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that the recited phrase
"apparatus a garage door section" is ambiguous. Final Act. 2. Appellant
responds that this phrase is not in the claim. Br. 4. However, in Appellant's
Claim Appendix, the phrase does appear in claim 1, and we agree that the
phrase is ambiguous because the claim appears to be missing a word or
words. Thus, we sustain this rejection.
With respect to claim 4, the Examiner finds that it is unclear whether
Appellant intends to positively claim a garage door. Final Act. 2. Because
"the garage door, as recited in all other claims, [is] only functionally
claimed, it is unclear if claim 4 is intended to actually recite the door in
combination with the reinforcing apparatus." Id. Thus, the Examiner
indicates that "[f]or examination purpose, only the reinforcing apparatus is
considered to be claimed." Id. Because Appellant does not respond to this
rejection (see Br. 1---6) we summarily sustain it.
Anticipation
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Schleef discloses a
device as claimed including fastening holes 218 and a reinforcement plate
220. Final Act. 2. Further, the Examiner finds that the barbs 222A on the
reinforcement plate can be considered the claimed means to fasten because
6 Brenner et al., US 5,749,407, iss. May 12, 1998.
3
Appeal2018---001421
Application 15/150,817
"they enable the plate 220 to support the channel on an unclaimed garage
door structure." Ans. 4.
Appellant argues only that the claim requires fastening holes, which
are "defined as holes through which a fastener is applied to fasten the
horizontal reinforcing bar to a garage door" and that this is not the same
structure as the Schleef s device, which includes engaging portions of a
connecting bridge that "snap into recesses 218 in the manner of a barbed
hook." Br. 4. Without further explanation from Appellant, we are not
persuaded of error. First, we find that Appellant has not adequately
explained why the barbs 222 on plate 220 cannot themselves be considered a
fastening means. Second, we agree with the Examiner's unrebutted finding
in the Answer that the recesses 218 may be considered holes and could be
used as fastening holes for connecting Schleef s device to another device,
such as a garage door section. See Ans. 4.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Schleef. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1 on this ground. We also sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 2, 3, and 5 on this ground, for which Appellant does not
provide separate arguments.
Obviousness
Claims 1-5
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Moser discloses a C-
shaped device with a reinforcement plate as claimed except that Moser does
"not specifically show[] the edges folded over unto themselves." Final Act.
3. However, the Examiner finds that "Rubel discloses that folding edges of
metal beam onto themselves is conventional so as to reinforce the edges,"
4
Appeal2018---001421
Application 15/150,817
and therefore, the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to
include folded over edges in Moser. Id.
Appellant first argues that Moser discloses a C-shaped apparatus that
is vertically extended and not horizontally extended. Br. 5. We are not
persuaded by this argument. We agree with the Examiner that Appellant
does not adequately explain why Moser is not capable of being mounted
horizontally. Further, we note that the claim does not even appear to require
any particular orientation of the device. The device is functionally claimed
as providing horizontal reinforcement for a garage door, but we fail to see
how this necessarily requires a device that is oriented horizontal. Whether
oriented vertically or horizontally, a device such as Moser's would provide
some horizontal reinforcement.
Second, Appellant argues that Moser's channel is "sectionally hinged
with other channel members" and because they "are vertically oriented they
must pivot and rotate about each other as the garage door is raised and
lowered." Br. 4. Appellant asserts that this structure "represent[s] the
complex prior art over which the Appellant's invention is intended to
improve." Id. We are not persuaded by this argument because it fails to
identify any structural element required by the claim that is not present in the
proposed combination of art.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection of claim 1 as obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1 here. We also sustain the rejection of claims 2-5, for which
Appellant does not provide separate argument.
5
Appeal2018---001421
Application 15/150,817
Claim 6
The Examiner separately rejects claim 6 as obvious over Brenner. See
Final Act. 3. Appellant acknowledges this rejection but does not present
arguments regarding the merits of the rejection. See Br. 4---6. Therefore, we
will summarily sustain this rejection.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1-6.
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
6