Ex Parte Senate

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2019

14294983 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/294,983 06/03/2014
116923 7590 04/01/2019
Chamberlain Legal Services, PLLC
POBOX2303
Cadiz, KY 42211
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Patricia Ann Senate
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.
SenateNP AOO 1 4325
EXAMINER
GRANO, ERNESTO ARTURIO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3735
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PATRICIA ANN SENATE
Appeal 2018-004503
Application 14/294,983
Technology Center 3700
Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Patricia Ann Senate ("Appellant") appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 8-12, 14, and 16-18.
Appeal Br. 6. Claims 2, 4--7, 13, and 15 have been canceled, and claims 19
and 20 have been withdrawn. Id. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2018-004503
Application 14/294,983
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's disclosed invention "relates to the field of containers for
small items," and more specifically, "relates to containers for storing and
organizing jewelry." Spec. ,r 4. Claims 1 and 10, reproduced below with
emphasis added, are the only independent claims and are representative of
the subject matter on appeal.
1. A necklace and bracelet storage apparatus comprising:
(a) a horizontally elongated container with
(i) a lid having an interior and exterior surface and
proximal and distal ends along vertical and horizontal
planes; and
(ii) a base having an interior and exterior surface
and proximal and distal ends along vertical and
horizontal planes;
wherein the lid and base define an interior chamber;
(b) a first hook device attached to the interior surface of
the base at the proximal end of the horizontal plane of the base;
and
( c) a second hook device approximately the same width
and length of the first hook device attached to the interior
surface of the base at the distal end of the horizontal plane of
the base;
( d) a third hook device approximately the same width and
length of the first hook device attached to the interior surface of
the base between the proximal and distal ends of the horizontal
plane of the base and aligned horizontally between the first
hook device and second hook device;
( e) a fourth hook device attached to the interior surface of
the base at the proximal end of the horizontal plane of the base
slightly larger than the width and length of the first hook
device;
2
Appeal2018-004503
Application 14/294,983
(t) a fifth hook device approximately the same width and
length of the fourth hook device attached to the interior surface
of the base at the distal end of the horizontal plane of the base;
(g) a sixth hook device approximately the same width and
length of the fifth hook device attached to the interior surface of
the base between the proximal and distal ends of the horizontal
plane of the base and aligned horizontally between the fourth
hook device and fifth hook devices; and
(h) a plurality of storage compartments centrally located
within the interior surface of the base or the lid wherein an
extra length of a necklace or bracelet aligned along the first,
second and third hooks or aligned along the fourth, fifth and
sixth hooks may be stored within the storage compartments.
10. A necklace and bracelet storage apparatus comprising:
(a) a horizontally elongated container with
(i) a lid having an interior and exterior surface and
proximal and distal ends along vertical and horizontal
planes; and
(ii) a base having an interior and exterior surface
and proximal and distal ends along vertical and
horizontal planes;
wherein the lid and base define an interior chamber;
(b) a first vertical channel located at the proximal end of
the horizontal plane of the base;
( c) a second vertical channel located at the distal end of
the horizontal plane of the base; and
( d) a substantially rectangular portion of the base
protruding between the first and second [ vertical] channels with
a plurality of horizontally linear channels extending through
the portion of the base from the first vertical channel to the
second vertical channel.
3
Appeal2018-004503
Application 14/294,983
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Morrison us 4,787,516 Nov. 29, 1988
Dragonette Des. 418,347 Jan.4,2000
Lin US 6,766,610 Bl July 27, 2004
Williams US 9,131,789 Bl Sept. 15, 2015
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. Claims 10-12, 14, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(a)(l) as anticipated by Lin. Final Act. 3-5.
II. Claims 1, 3, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Dragonette and Williams. Id. at 5-8.
III. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lin and Morrison. Id. at 9.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I - Claims 10-12, 14, 17, and 18 as anticipated by Lin
Appellant presents argument against the rejection of independent
claim 10 (see Appeal Br. 11-13), and relies on the same argument when
addressing the dependent claims (see id. at 12). We select claim 10 as
representative of the issues that Appellant presents in the appeal of this
rejection, with claims 11, 12, 14, 17, and 18 standing or falling therewith.
See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal2018-004503
Application 14/294,983
The Examiner found that Lin discloses all the elements recited in
claim 10. See Final Act. 3--4; see also Ans. 3--4 (including an annotated
reproduction of Figure 4 of Lin). Appellant argues that "the structures
presented in Lin and the present invention are not identical nor are they
substantially identical." Appeal Br. 12; see id. at 12-13. In particular,
Appellant asserts that Lin's compartments 51 do not extend "through" the
rectangular portion, because they do not extend all the way down to the base
of the organizer, noting that "it would be impossible to run a length of chain
through the compartment 51 from one recess 53 to another recess 53 without
resting on the locating notch 52." Id. at 13.
As the Examiner correctly notes, however, the asserted distinguishing
feature (namely, the horizontally linear channels extending all the way down
to the base of the organizer) is not recited in the claim. Ans. 4 (citing In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). In relevant part, the claim
recites only "a plurality of horizontally linear channels extending through
the portion of the base from the first vertical channel to the second vertical
channel." Appeal Br. 23, Claims App. (emphasis added). In this regard, the
Examiner's finding that Lin discloses a plurality of horizontally linear
channels 51, each extending through the identified substantially rectangular
portion of the base from one vertical channel 53 to the other vertical
channel 53, is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ans. 3--4
(including an annotated reproduction of Figure 4 of Lin). The presence of a
notch 52 at each end of the horizontally linear channels 51, particularly
where the notches define openings between these channels and the vertical
channels 53 between which they extend, does not diminish this relevant
disclosure.
5
Appeal2018-004503
Application 14/294,983
After careful consideration of the record before us, Appellant's
arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's factual findings from
Lin, which are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In short, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 10 based on the reasoned positions
set forth therein and in light of the Examiner's thorough responses to
Appellant's arguments. See Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 3--4. Claims 11, 12, 14,
17, and 18 fall therewith.
Rejection II- Claims 1, 3, 8, and 9 as unpatentable over
Dragonette and Williams
Appellant presents arguments against the rejection of claims 1, 3, 8,
and 9 together as a group. See Appeal Br. 13-17. We select independent
claim 1 as representative of the issues that Appellant presents in the appeal
of this rejection, with dependent claims 3, 8, and 9 standing or falling
therewith.
The Examiner determined that a combination of teachings from
Dragonette and Williams renders obvious the subject matter recited in
claim 1. See Final Act. 5-8; Ans. 5-7 (including an annotated reproduction
of Figure 7 of Dragonette ). Appellant argues that the teachings of the cited
references do not render obvious the claim, primarily based on an assertion
that neither Dragonette nor Williams discloses a "hook structure" that would
be "capable of performing the claimed function of holding the chains in a
linear fashion." Appeal Br. 14 (emphasis omitted). This assertion is
premised on a contention that the identified "pegs" in Dragonette and
Williams are in some way structurally distinct from the "hook devices"
recited in the claim. See id. at 14--16; see also id. at 20, Claims App.
6
Appeal2018-004503
Application 14/294,983
After careful consideration of the record before us, Appellant's
arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's factual findings from
Dragonette or Williams, which are supported by a preponderance of the
evidence, or the Examiner's reasonable conclusion of obviousness, which is
rationally articulated based on prior art teachings. In short, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection based on the reasoned positions set forth therein and in
light of the Examiner's thorough responses to Appellant's arguments. See
Final Act. 5-8; Ans. 5-7.
In particular, the Examiner explains that the disputed claim term,
"hook device," is interpreted to be "anything that catches; snare; trap."
Ans. 6 (boldface omitted; citing a plain meaning of the term "hook" from
Dictionary.com). The elements identified from Dragonette fit this broad, but
reasonable, interpretation for "hook devices." See id. at 5 (including an
annotated reproduction of Figure 7 ofDragonette). For that matter, we note
that the elements identified from Dragonette also fit another definition
provided by the Examiner-namely, "[a] curved or angular piece of metal
or other hard substance for catching, pulling, holding[,] or suspending
something." Id. at 6 (emphasis added; citing a plain meaning of the term
"hook" from Dictionary.com). Thus, Appellant's arguments do not apprise
us of error in the Examiner's rejection.
Further, Appellant asserts that the identified "storage compartments"
in Dragonette are in some way insufficient to teach those recited in the
claim. See Appeal Br. 17. As the Examiner correctly explains, however,
elements in an apparatus claim must be distinguished from the prior art in
terms of a structural difference rather than intended use. See Ans. 7. The
Examiner's finding that Dragonette discloses storage compartments,
7
Appeal2018-004503
Application 14/294,983
"centrally located" within the interior surface of the base as claimed, is
supported by a preponderance of the evidence, as the storage compartments
of Dragonette are generally in the middle of the base surface and are
disposed inwardly from its periphery. See id. at 7-8; see also id. at 5
(including an annotated reproduction of Figure 7 of Dragonette ). The claim
does not recite additional structural details or dispositions for the storage
compartments, such that Appellant's assertion regarding these elements does
not apprise us of error in the Examiner's rejection.
After careful consideration of the evidence of record, Appellant's
arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's findings or reasoning
in support of the conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1, and of claims 3, 8, and 9 falling therewith.
Rejection III - Claim 16 as unpatentable over Lin and Morrison
With respect to this rejection, Appellant does not set forth any
additional arguments separate from those discussed supra with respect to
independent claim 10. See Appeal Br. 11-13. Accordingly, for the same
reasons that Appellant's argument does not apprise us of error in the
rejection of base claim 10, Appellant also does not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 16, which we likewise sustain.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 10-12, 14, 17,
and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Lin.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 8, and 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dragonette and Williams.
8
Appeal2018-004503
Application 14/294,983
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lin and Morrison.
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
9