Ex Parte Shalev

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2017

14371442 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 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.
14/371,442 07/10/2014 Shaul Shalev 4280/20 8253
44696 7590 09/22/2017
DR MARKM FRIEDMAN
EXAMINER
Moshe Aviv Tower, 54th Floor, 7 Jabotinsky St. MATTEI, BRIAN DAVID
Ramat Gan, 5252007
ISRAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3633
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2017 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):
patents @ friedpat. com
friedpat.uspto@gmail.com
rivka_f@friedpat.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHAUL SHALEV
Appeal 2017-003204
Application 14/371,442
Technology Center 3600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN A. EVANS, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 1—13, 15—18, and 21—23; Claims 14,
19, and 20 are cancelled. Claims Appx. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2
1 Appellant states the real party in interest is the inventor, Shaul Shalev. Br.
3.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 25, 2016, “App. Br.”), the Examiner’s
Answer (mailed July 11, 2016, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed July 13,
Appeal 2017-003204
Application 14/371,442
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a mounting device for mounting a front derailleur
to a bicycle frame. See Abstract.
INVENTION
Claims 1 and 21 are independent. An understanding of the invention
can be derived from a reading of Claim 1, which is reproduced below with
some formatting added:
1. A densely packable sequential series of housing units
comprising:
at least one external housing unit and at least one internal
housing unit comprising distinct and independently deployable
structures, the at least one external housing unit and the at least
one internal housing unit configurable into a packed orientation,
where at least a substantial portion of the at least one internal
housing unit is received in the at least one external housing
unit, and, the at least one internal housing unit is both:
1) movable within the at least one external
housing unit, to a position where a housing structure with
at least two scalable spaces is provided; and
2) separable from the at least one external housing
unit upon deployment from the packed orientation to an
unpacked orientation, such that the at least one internal
housing unit is combinable with the at least one external
housing unit to form a combined housing structure, or
completely separable from the at least one external
housing unit to define a separate housing structure from
the at least one external housing unit.
2015, “Final Act.”), and the Specification (filed July 10, 2014, “Spec.”) for
their respective details.
2
Appeal 2017-003204
Application 14/371,442
References and Rejections
Daughenbaugh, et al., US 3,833,954 Sept. 10, 1974
Schimmang, et al., US 5,732,839 Mar. 31,1998
Gunthardt US 5,797,224 Aug. 25, 1998
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4—8, 10, 13, 15—18, and 21—23 stand rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Schimmang. Final Act.
2-7.
2. Claims 3 and 12 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Schimmang and Daughenbaugh. Final
Act. 7—8.
3. Claims 9 and 11 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Schimmang and Gunthardt. Final Act. 8—
9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1—13, 15—18, and 21—23 in
light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred.
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 14—20.
Claims 1,2,4—8,10,13,15-18, and 21-23: Anticipation by Schimmang
Independent Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “at least one internal housing
unit comprising distinct and independently deployable structures.”
3
Appeal 2017-003204
Application 14/371,442
Appellant contends Schimmang discloses a container having a main
unit telescopically-extendible additional units that remain connected and
attached to the main unit. Br. 14. Appellant argues Schimmang fails to
disclose any unit which is detachable from the main unit so as to form a
separate structure when deployed. Id.
The Examiner finds, without reference to the Specification, that the
meaning of the term “separate” is “to keep apart or divide, as by an
intervening barrier or space.” Ans. 2. The Examiner finds Schimmang’s
units are capable of being divided by a wall placed between the units. Id.
We disagree.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “distinct and independently deployable
structures.” Appellant discloses in Figure 4b a full deployment of a series of
housing units wherein “[a]ll deployed units are independently deployed.”
Spec., 11,11. 7—8. We find a wall placed between Schimmang’s telescoped
sections would not result in “independently deployable structures,” as
claimed.
In view of the forgoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims
1, 2,4—8,10,13,15-18, or 21-23.
Claims 3,9,11, and 12: Obviousness over Schimmang and
Daughenbaugh or Gunthardt
The Examiner does not apply either Daughenbaugh or Gunthardt to
teach the “independently deployable structures” limitation discussed above.
In view of the forgoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims
3,9, 11, or 12.
4
Appeal 2017-003204
Application 14/371,442
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4—8, 10, 13, 15—18, and 21—23 under 35
U.S.C. § 102 is REVERSED.
The rejection of Claims 3,9, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
5