Ex Parte Sturdivant

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 8, 2012

11548602 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 8, 2012)

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.
11/548,602 10/11/2006 Toni Sturdivant 1612-3 5644
44190 7590 08/09/2012
WALTER W. DUFT
LAW OFFICES OF WALTER W. DUFT
8616 MAIN ST
SUITE 2
WILLIAMSVILLE, NY 14221
EXAMINER
ISLAM, SYED A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3611
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/09/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TONI STURDIVANT
____________

Appeal 2010-003418
Application 11/548,602
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before GAY ANN SPAHN, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
PATRICK R. SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Toni Sturdivant (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 and 7-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Meur (US 6,354,031 B1, issued Mar. 12, 2002), Kacius
(6,438,883 B1, issued Aug. 27, 2002), Sherman (US 4,385,744, issued May
31, 1983), and De Luccia (US 6,322,039 B1, issued Nov. 27, 2001).
Appeal 2010-003418
Application 11/548,602

2
Appellant cancelled claims 4-6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates to the field of graphical display,
and more particularly to framing for the display of artwork in sheet media
form.” Spec. 2, ll. 6-7. Claims 1, 19, and 20 are independent, and claim 1,
reproduced below, with emphasis added, is illustrative of the subject matter
on appeal.
1. A frame assembly for the display of interchangeable
sheet media, comprising:
a back frame section adapted for rigid attachment to a
surface;
said back frame section comprising a periphery and an
interior region that is open at a front face of said back frame
section;
a front frame section adapted for removable securement
to said back frame section;
said front frame section comprising a periphery and an
interior region that is open at a back face of said front frame
section;
said front frame section periphery comprising an interior
perimeter wall adapted to surround said back frame [section]
periphery, and a peripheral lip extending inwardly from said
peripheral wall to overlap said back frame section periphery on
a front face thereof and hide said front face of said back frame
section periphery from view;
said front frame section being pivotally mounted to said
back frame section;
said pivotal mounting being provided by one or more
fixed bracket members on a top flange of said back frame
section engaging a corresponding number of blind apertures on
a top flange of said front frame section;
Appeal 2010-003418
Application 11/548,602

3
said bracket members extending upwardly from said top
flange of said back frame section and said blind apertures
extending upwardly from a lower surface on said top flange of
said front frame section;
said pivotal mounting allowing pivoting of said front
frame section relative to said back frame section by tilting said
front frame section so that a bottom flange of said front frame
section periphery is pulled away from said back frame section
and from said surface while said blind apertures rotate relative
to said bracket members, said front frame section then being
disengageable from said back frame section;
said blind apertures being substantially larger than said
bracket members in a direction perpendicular to said sheet
medium, and said front frame section having sufficient
clearance relative to said back frame section and said surface, to
facilitate said pivoting and said rotation of said blind apertures
relative to said bracket members;
a transparent barrier blocking access to said front frame
section interior region from a front face of said front frame
section;
said barrier having a periphery that is captured between
said back frame section periphery and said peripheral lip of said
front frame section periphery, with all of said back frame
section interior region being visible through said barrier; and
a media-carrying region behind said barrier for
receiving a sheet medium for display, said media-carrying
region including said back frame section interior region;
whereby said sheet medium can be removed from said
frame assembly and exchanged with another sheet medium by
manipulating said front frame section while said back frame
section remains rigidly attached to said surface.

OPINION
Independent claims 1 and 20 and dependent claims 2, 3, and 7-18
Appellant argues claims 1-3, 7-18, and 20 as a group, and we select
independent claim 1 as the representative claim. See App. Br. 12-19; see
Appeal 2010-003418
Application 11/548,602

4
also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Claims 2, 3, 7-18, and 20 stand or
fall with independent claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Meur discloses a frame assembly, for the
display of interchangeable sheet media 8, including a back frame section 3
and a front frame section 2,
said front f[r]ame section periphery comprising an
interior perimeter wall adapted to surround said
back f[r]ame [section] periphery, and a peripheral
lip extending inwardly from said peripheral wall to
overlap said back f[r]ame section periphery on a
front face thereof and hide said front face of said
back f[r]ame section periphery from view.
Final Rej. 3.1
Appellant argues that “in Figs. 4 and 5 of Meur, the peripheral rim
(12) of the frame (2) does not overlap the front face of the back elements
(13) or (17) so as to hide the front face from view,” because “[t]he peripheral
rim only extends partially across the front face and thus cannot serve to hide
it from view” so that “Meur does not disclose or suggest the subject matter .
. . of claim 1.”2 App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 4-5.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner relied
on the back panel 3 of Meur’s first embodiment shown in Figures 1-3 to
satisfy claim 1’s recitation of a back frame section. See Final Rej. 3, ll. 5-6.
The Examiner has not applied either Meur’s second embodiment shown in

1 We refer to the Office Action mailed May 15, 2009 for the particulars of
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 since only the ground of rejection, not
the body of the rejection, is repeated in section (9) of the Examiner’s
Answer. See Ans. 3.
2 We first address Appellant’s second argument, i.e., Claim 1 – Item (2) at
pages 18-19 of the Appeal Brief and pages 4-5 of the Reply Brief, in order to
facilitate our review.
Appeal 2010-003418
Application 11/548,602

5
Figure 4, depicting back element 13 including back sheet 14 and added
pieces 15 (see col. 3, ll. 59-61), or Meur’s third embodiment shown in
Figure 5, depicting back element 17 including back sheet 14 and sections 18.
See Ans. 3; see also Meur, col. 4, ll. 1-5. Appellant’s argument fails to
address the first embodiment of Meur shown in Figures 1-3 having back
panel 3 as applied by the Examiner in the rejection of claim 1. Since
Appellant has not explained why the Examiner’s applied first embodiment
of Meur having back panel 3 as illustrated in the embodiment shown in
Figures 1-3 fails to constitute a back frame section satisfying the fifth
paragraph of the body of claim 1 as quoted supra, we are not persuaded of
error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Turning to Appellant’s argument that “the references do not disclose
or suggest . . . a media carrying region” as claimed (App. Br. 16-17), the
Examiner finds that Meur substantially discloses the subject matter of
independent claim 1; however, “Meur fails to disclose said back frame
section comprising a periphery and an interior region that is open at a front
face of said back frame section.” Final Rej. 6. To cure the deficiency of
Meur, the Examiner turns to Kacius to teach “a back frame section 112 (col.
3, line 28; see Fig. 2) comprising a periphery and an interior region that is
open at a front face of said back frame section.” Id.
Appellant argues that “the Kacius rear frame does not have an open
front face opening into an interior region,” because “the front face of the rear
frame (112) is blocked by the picture compartment support (114) having an
edge (115) that is carried in a front peripheral slot (109) of the rear frame.”
App. Br. 17. More particularly, the Appellant argues that “[t]he picture
compartment support is constructed with a forwardly-projecting picture
Appeal 2010-003418
Application 11/548,602

6
carrying surface that is flush with the display window of the front frame,”
and “[w]hen the front frame (50) is positioned over the rear frame (112), the
pictures will contact the display window (54).” Id. Thus, Appellant argues
that “Kacius is similar to Meur because the media are supported on a flat
surface at the front of a back element, without any use of a media-carrying
region that extends into a back frame section interior region that is visible
through a transparent barrier,” and “[t]he cited prior art . . . does not disclose
or suggest the subject matter of [the twelfth paragraph of the body] of claim
1 [as quoted supra].” Id.
The Examiner responds that “the element 106 [of Kacius] works as
the interior region of the rear frame section which has an open front face and
[is] not flush with the display window of the front frame, wherein the lip of
the frame works as the periphery.” Ans. 4.
In light of the Examiner’s response that Kacius’s rear frame member
112 and rear panel 106 constitute a back frame section having an open front
face with a media-carrying region, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments that the combination of Meur and Kacius fails to disclose “a
media-carrying region behind said barrier for receiving a sheet medium for
display, said media-carrying region including said back frame section
interior region” as recited in independent claim 1. See App. Br., Clms.
App’x. Meur discloses a device 1 for presentation of a document 8
including, inter alia, a frame 2, a transparent sheet 7, and a back panel 3.
Meur, Title, col. 3, ll. 5-14, and Figs. 1-3. The Examiner proposes to modify
Meur’s back panel 3 by Kacius’s teaching of a rear frame member 112
having groove 108 for accepting a rear panel 106 so as to have a media-
carrying region in front of the front face of the rear panel 106 and behind the
Appeal 2010-003418
Application 11/548,602

7
front face of the rear frame member 112. See Final Rej. 6 and Ans. 4. The
Examiner’s proposed modification of Meur does not include Kacius’s
picture compartment support 114 as argued by Appellant (see App. Br. 17
and Reply Br. 4). The Examiner’s proposed modification is reasonable
because what a reference teaches a person of ordinary skill is not limited to
what a reference specifically “talks about” or what is specifically
“mentioned” or “written” in the reference. Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex,
Inc. 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “[A] person of ordinary skill is
also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR v. Teleflex, 550
U.S. 398, 421 (2007). In view of Syntex and KSR, we agree with the
Examiner that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill and
creativity in the art to modify Meur’s back panel 3 to be an open frame
member with an interior media-carrying region by the teachings of Kacius’s
rear frame member 112, groove 108, and rear panel 106. Thus, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1-3, 7-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Meur, Kacius, Sherman, and De Luccia.
Independent claim 19
Appellant sets forth the same arguments for independent claim 19 as
those discussed supra with respect to independent claim 1. For the same
reasons as discussed supra with respect to independent claim 1, Appellant’s
arguments do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim
19.
Appellant also argues that method claim 19 “recites an affirmative
step involving the media-carrying region,” and “[n]one of the cited
Appeal 2010-003418
Application 11/548,602

8
references discloses or suggests a method as claimed that includes the act of
placing a sheet medium into a media-carrying region that includes a back
frame interior region” since “[n]o medium is placed in such a medium-
carrying region in either Meur or Kacius.”
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because one cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on a combination of references. See In re Merck & Co.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981). Appellant’s argument that neither Meur nor Kacius explicitly
discloses the step of “placing a sheet medium behind said barrier in said
media-carrying region,” fails to address the Examiner’s proposed
combination of the references. In the Examiner’s proposed combination,
Meur discloses placing a sheet medium (document 8) behind a barrier
(transparent sheet 7), and Meur’s back frame section (back panel 3) is
modified to be frame-like and have a media-carrying region as taught by
Kasius’s back frame section (rear frame member 112 and rear panel 106).
Thus, the combination of Meur and Kacius discloses the method step of
claim 19.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Meur, Kacius, Sherman, and De
Luccia.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-3 and 7-20.
Appeal 2010-003418
Application 11/548,602

9
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Klh