Ex Parte Rosendahl

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2017

12836676 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2017)

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.
12/836,676 07/15/2010 Dean R. Rosendahl 85862-402 ADB 2707
23529 7590 09/14/2017
A OF ^ COMPANY TN C EXAMINER
2157 Henderson Highway MASINICK, JONATHAN PETER
WINNIPEG, MB R2G1P9
CANADA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2017 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):
u spto @ adeco .com
djones @ adeco.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DEAN R. ROSENDAHL
Appeal 2015-007227
Application 12/836,6761
Technology Center 3600
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—3, 5—7, 9-14, 18, and 25—33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellant, the “invention relates to a joint for
connecting extruded panels edge to edge.” Spec. 1,11. 2—3. Claims 1 and 25
1 According to Appellant, “[ajpplicant Dean Rosendahl” is the real party in
interest. Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-007227
Application 12/836,676
are the independent claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as
illustrative of the appealed claims.
1. A joint comprising:
a first extruded member having an outside surface, an
inside surface and a first side edge;
a second extruded member having an outside surface, an
inside surface and a second side edge;
wherein the outside surfaces of the first and second
extruded members define a substantially common outside plane;
the first side edge and the second side edge having first
and second cooperating connection members extending along the
first and second side edges respectively by which the first side
edge is fastened to the second side edge along a full length of the
extruded members at the side edges;
wherein the first connection member includes a slot
defined by an inner wall and an outer wall, the inner wall being
spaced further away from the outside surface of the first and
second extruded members than is the outer wall;
wherein the second connection member includes a blade
member with an inner surface and an outer surface inserted into
the slot, the inner surface being spaced further away from the
outside surface of the first and second extruded members than is
the outer surface;
wherein the blade member has a shoulder on the inner
surface thereof adjacent the inner wall of the slot;
wherein the inner wall of the slot includes a cooperating
shoulder and is flexible to allow the shoulders to pass;
wherein the outer surface of the blade member and the
outer wall of the slot define planar wall surfaces which slide over
one another as the blade member enters into and moves fully into
the slot to guide movement of the blade member as it slides along
the planar wall surface of the slot into the slot;
and wherein the planar wall surfaces lie in a common
plane which is not parallel to the common outside plane so as to
2
Appeal 2015-007227
Application 12/836,676
lie at an angle different from 0 degrees to the common outside
plane to guide the movement of the blade member as it enters the
slot in a direction toward the common outside plane.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. claims 1, 3, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hoke (US 4,551,792, iss. Nov. 5, 1985) and Hamberger
(US 2002/0057942 Al, pub. May 16, 2002);
II. claims 2 and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hoke, Hamberger, and Holmes (US 6,125,604, iss. Oct. 3,
2000);
III. claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hoke, Hamberger, and Pletzer (US 6,647,689 B2, iss. Nov. 18,
2003);
IV. claims 12—14 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hoke, Hamberger, and Massimo (US 4,777,777, iss.
Oct. 18, 1988);
V. claims 25—31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Pletzer and Massimo; and
VI. claims 32 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Pletzer, Massimo, and Holmes.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, among other
recitations,
3
Appeal 2015-007227
Application 12/836,676
a first extruded member having an outside surface, an
inside surface and a first side edge;
a second extruded member having an outside surface, an
inside surface and a second side edge;
wherein the outside surfaces of the first and second
extruded members define a substantially common outside plane;
the first side edge and the second side edge having first
and second cooperating connection members extending along the
first and second side edges respectively by which the first side
edge is fastened to the second side edge along a full length of the
extruded members at the side edges;
wherein the first connection member includes a slot. . .;
wherein the second connection member includes a blade
member. . .;
wherein the outer surface of the blade member and the
outer wall of the slot define planar wall surfaces which slide over
one another as the blade member enters into and moves fully into
the slot to guide movement of the blade member as it slides along
the planar wall surface of the slot into the slot;
and wherein the planar wall surfaces lie in a common
plane which is not parallel to the common outside plane so as to
lie at an angle different from 0 degrees to the common outside
plane to guide the movement of the blade member as it enters the
slot in a direction toward the common outside plane.
Br., Claims App. Restated, claim 1 recites that the common outside plane,
defined by the outer surfaces of the first and second members, is not parallel
to (i.e., lies at an angle different from 0 degrees relative to) the planar wall
surfaces, which guide the movement of the second member’s blade into the
first member’s slot.
4
Appeal 2015-007227
Application 12/836,676
Regarding claim 1 ’s rejection, the Examiner finds that although Hoke
does not teach the claimed arrangement of the common outside plane and
planar wall surfaces, Hamberger teaches such an arrangement, and the
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Hoke based
on Hamberger’s teaching. See, e.g., Final Action 5—6; see also, e.g.,
Answer 5. More specifically, the Examiner states that
Hamberger ... teach[es] the use of a blade member (120) having
a planar wall surface with a slot (134) at a common plane[,]
which is not parallel to a common outside plane of first and
second extruded members, for the purpose of flatly pressing the
outside surfaces against each other so that any gap between them
is minimal (paragraph 0051).
Final Action 6. Based on our review of the record, however, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection, because the Examiner does not support
adequately the finding that Hamberger teaches the claimed arrangement of
the common outside plane and planar wall surfaces. Br. 7—9.
More specifically, we determine that the Examiner does not establish
adequately that Hamberger’s notch 34 (or 134), which is not parallel to the
common plane defined by the outer surfaces of floor panels 2 and 4, guides
the movement of floor panel 4’s groove cheek 20 (or 120) into floor
panel 2’s slot. Rather, as shown in Hamberger’s Figure 2, for example, floor
panel 2’s twistlock 30 (or 130), which includes notch 34 (or 134), “is
resiliently deflected downwards” when floor panels 2 and 4 are joined, such
that a flat surface of floor panel 2 contacts a flat surface of floor panel 4’s
groove 16 (or 116), where both flat surfaces are parallel to the common
5
Appeal 2015-007227
Application 12/836,676
plane defined by the outer surfaces of floor panels 2 and 4. Hamberger Figs.
2, 4,136.2 * * * 6
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 1. Inasmuch as claims 3 and 5 depend from
claim 1, and the Examiner does not establish adequately that any other
reference remedies the deficiency in claim 1 ’s rejection, we also do not
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3 and 5.
Rejections II—IV
Claims 2, 6, 7, 9-14, and 18 depend from claim 1. Because the
Examiner does not establish adequately that any other reference remedies
the deficiency in claim 1 ’s rejection, we do not sustain the rejections of
dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 9—14, and 18.
Rejection V
Independent claim 25 recites, among other recitations, that “the
transverse center section [of the bridging member] is . . . generally parallel
to the common outside plane and holds the first and second extruded
members against movement in a direction which allows the outside surfaces
thereof to move apart.” Br., Claims App. The Examiner determines that
Pletzer discloses most of the structure recited in claim 25, with the exception
of the bridging member and structure on the first and second members which
attaches to the bridging member. Final Action 12—14. The Examiner finds
that Massimo teaches the bridging member and associated structure on the
first and second members. Id. at 14.
2 For similar reasons, we do not agree with the Examiner that Hamberger’s
sliding face 36 (or 136), which is also formed on twistlock 30 (or 130),
guides the movement of floor panel 4’s groove cheek 20 (or 120) into floor
panel 2’s slot. See Answer 5; see also Hamberger Figs. 1, 2, 4.
6
Appeal 2015-007227
Application 12/836,676
In response to Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief that it would
not have been obvious to use Massimo’s bridging member in Pletzer’s
arrangement (Br. 9—12), the Examiner determines “that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use this [i.e., Massimo’s]
bridging member to join (or further join) panels that already have a primary
locking/joining system [as is taught by Pletzer,] for the purpose of providing
additional disassembly prevention.” Answer 7. We note, however, that the
Examiner does not provide a citation to anything in Pletzer or Massimo that
discusses additional disassembly protection. Rather, as summarized by
Appellant, “Pletzer does not suggest or call for a bridging member as the
coupling provided by the slot and blade is complete, and Massimo provides
a bridging member but does not suggest or call for a blade and slot
coupling.” Br. 10. Thus, we determine that the Examiner does not provide a
reason with rational underpinnings to combine the references such that “both
connections should be provided” {id.), but, rather, it appears to be based
solely on hindsight that the Examiner proposes to use Massimo’s bridging
member with Pletzer’s arrangement.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 25. Inasmuch as the Examiner does not remedy the
above deficiency in claim 25’s rejection with a teaching or suggestion from
any other reference, we also do not sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 26—31.
Rejection VI
Claims 32 and 33 depend from claim 25. Because the Examiner does
not establish adequately that any other reference remedies the deficiency in
7
Appeal 2015-007227
Application 12/836,676
claim 25’s rejection, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 32
and 33.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—3,
5-7, 9-14, 18, and 25-33.
REVERSED
8