Ex Parte Thomsen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 29, 2012

11601288 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 29, 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.
11/601,288 11/17/2006 Verne E. Thomsen 5745
31083 7590 08/30/2012
THOMTE LAW OFFICE, L.L.C.
2120 S. 72ND STREET, SUITE 1111
OMAHA, NE 68124
EXAMINER
BOSWELL, CHRISTOPHER J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3673
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2012 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 VERNE E. THOMSEN
____________

Appeal 2010-008971
Application 11/601,288
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, LYNNE H. BROWNE and
MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Verne E. Thomsen (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 19-26. Appellant cancelled
claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2010-008971
Application 11/601,288

2
The Invention
Claim 19, reproduced below is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
19. A securement system for vehicles, trailers and
containers having a door that is moveable between
open and closed positions and a door retention
segment disposed adjacent an edge of the door
when the latter is in its closed position, said door
and said door retention segment having inner and
outer edges, said securement system comprising:
a first lock body having inner and outer
sides;
said first lock body including a mounting
section which is positioned adjacent the outer side
of the door adjacent said edge thereof and a
locking pin receiving section extending therefrom
towards the door retention segment;
said locking pin receiving section of said
first lock body having a bore hold [sic] extending
therethrough;
said mounting section of said first lock body
being rigidly secured to the door for movement
therewith;
a second lock body having inner and outer
sides;
said second lock body including a mounting
section which is positioned adjacent the outer side
of the door retention segment adjacent the edge of
the door and a locking pin receiving section
extending therefrom towards the door;
said locking pin receiving section of said
second lock body having a borehole extending
therethrough;
said mounting section of said second lock
body being rigidly secured to the door retention
segment;
Appeal 2010-008971
Application 11/601,288

3
said first and second lock bodies being
located such that upon closing of the door the
locking pin receiving sections thereof are disposed
adjacent one another with said bore holes thereof
being in general alignment;
said second lock body further including a
locking mechanism portion;
a locking assembly including an elongated
locking pin and a pin securement block mounted
on said locking pin at one end thereof;
the arrangement and configuration of the
system being such that when the door is closed, the
locking pin may be inserted so as to extend at least
partially through said bore holes with the pin
securement block being adjacent to and aligned
with said locking assembly and so that said pin
securement block covers and shields the said one
end of said locking pin to prevent access to said
locking pin;
said pin securement block having a borehole
formed therein;
said locking mechanism including a
movable lock pin which is received by said bore
hold [sic] in pin securement block when the
locking mechanism is locked to securely maintain
said locking pin in said bore holds [sic] of said
locking pin receiving sections of said first and
second lock bodies to securely hold said first and
second lock bodies together thereby securing the
door and the door retention system in a closed
position;
and a cover plate rigidly affixed to and
carried by said first lock body which extends from
said first lock body towards said second lock body
to cover the locking pin receiving sections, said
locking pin and the juncture of said locking pin
and said pin securement block when the door is
closed to thereby impede unauthorized
manipulation of the system.
Appeal 2010-008971
Application 11/601,288

4

The Rejections
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
Claims 19-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Nakano (US 5,544,506, iss. Aug. 13, 1996) and Garvey (US 3,736,016,
iss. May 29, 1973).
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Nakano, Garvey, and Lee (US 5,335,520, iss. Aug. 9, 1994).
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that “Appellant respectfully believes that Claims 19-
25 are clearly patentable over the references of record. Neither Nakano nor
Garvey disclose[s] any structure even remotely similar to that set forth in
Claims 19-25.” App. Br. 5.
Claim 19
Specifically, with respect to claim 19, Appellant states:
Claim 19 specifically describes that the
arrangement and configuration of the system is
such that when the door is closed, the locking pin
may be inserted so as to extend at least partially
through the bore holes with a pin securement lock
being disposed adjacent to and aligned with the
locking system so that the pin securement block
covers and shields one end of the locking pin to
prevent access to the locking pin. Claim 19 further
describes that the pin securement lock has a bore
hole formed therein. Claim 19 also describes that
the locking mechanism includes a movable lock
pin which is received by the bore hole in the pin
securement lock when the locking mechanism is
locked to secure and maintain the locking pin in
the bore holes of the 1ocking pin receiving
sections of the first and second lock bodies to
Appeal 2010-008971
Application 11/601,288

5
securely hold the first and second lock bodies
together thereby securing the door and the door
retention system in a closed position. Additionally,
Claim 19 also describes that a cover plate is rigidly
affixed to and is carried by the first lock body
which extends from the first lock body towards the
second lock body to cover the locking pin
receiving sections, the locking pin and the juncture
of the locking pin and the pin securement lock
when the door is closed to impede unauthorized
manipulation of the system.
App. Br. 5-6.
The Examiner responds:
Nakano discloses a pin securement block (12)
mounted on the locking pin at one end thereof, the
arrangement and configuration of the system being
such that when the door is closed, the locking pin
may be inserted so as to extend at least partially
through the bore holes with the pin securement
block being adjacent to and aligned with the
locking assembly (figure 8) and so that the pin
securement block covers and shields the one end of
the locking pin to prevent access to the locking pin
(the pin securement block covers and shields the
locking pin in radial direction), the pin securement
block having a borehole (the bore holes the [sic]
receive the tumblers, visible in figures 7 and 8)
formed therein, the locking mechanism including a
movable lock pin (the locking tumblers associated
with the key lock) which is received by the bore
hold [sic] in pin securement block when the
locking mechanism is locked to securely maintain
the locking pin in the bore holds [sic] of the
locking pin receiving sections of the first and
second lock bodies to securely hold the first and
second lock bodies together thereby securing the
door and the door retention system in a closed
position (figures 1, 2 and 8), as claimed. Where the
Appeal 2010-008971
Application 11/601,288

6
examiner utilizes Garvey et al. to teach of a cover
plate (42) that spans the juncture of two movable
objects (18 and 20), where each object carries a
lock hasp (34 and 36) that receives a locking
member (40) to securely retain the objects in a
closed and locked condition, wherein the lock
guard covers the lock hasps and the locking
member (figure 4) such that it would be difficult
for an unauthorized user to access the locking
member to break or remove the locking member
from the hasps (column 1, lines 30).
Ans. 8.
We are primarily a Board of review. The Examiner has set forth a
prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“the PTO carries its procedural burden of establishing a prima
facie case when its rejection satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 132, in “notify[ing] the
applicant ... [by] stating the reasons for [its] rejection, or objection or
requirement, together with such information and references as may be useful
in judging of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the]
application.”) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 132). Appellant’s recitation of various
elements of claim 19 does not identify alleged error in particular findings or
reasoning contested by Appellant or provide evidence for our review. “It
has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the
alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.” Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365 (citing
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)(“The panel then
reviews the obviousness rejection for error based upon the issues identified
by appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon.”). “Specifically, the Board reviews the particular finding(s)
contested by an appellant anew in light of all the evidence and argument on
that issue.” Frye, 94 USPQ2d at 1075. As Appellant does not point out
Appeal 2010-008971
Application 11/601,288

7
specific errors in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning, Appellant’s
statements amount to no more than general allegations of patentability.
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as
our own.
Appellant further argues:
Clearly, there is absolutely no suggestion,
teaching or motivation whatsoever in Nakano or
Garvey that those references could be modified or
combined in any manner which would make
Applicant's claimed structure of Claim 19 obvious
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
App. Br. 6.
This argument is foreclosed by KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398 (2007), in which the Court rejected the rigid requirement of a teaching,
suggestion, or motivation to combine known elements in order to show
obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415. Moreover, the Examiner set forth
reasons with rational underpinning why the combined teachings of Nakano
and Garvey would have rendered the subject matter of claim 19 obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, thus setting forth
an un-rebutted prima facie case of obviousness. See Ans. 5-6.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nakano and Garvey.
Claims 20-25
Appellant states that each of claims 20-25 “are believed to be
independently allowable.” App. Br. 6, l. 24 and 7, ll. 2, 13-14 and 18. In
addition, for claims 20 and 21, Appellant recites the elements of the claim.
Id. at 6, l. 24 –7, ll. 0 and 6-7. Further, with respect to claims 20 and 22-25,
Appeal 2010-008971
Application 11/601,288

8
Appellant states that these claims are allowable based on their dependence
from claim 19. Id. at 6, ll. 22-23 and 7, ll. 17-18.
These statements do not amount to arguments for separate
patentability of these claims. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (holding that the Board had reasonably interpreted 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) as requiring “more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”).
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 20-25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nakano and Garvey.
Claim 26
Appellant makes essentially identical statements to those discussed
supra regarding claim 19. These statements do not amount to arguments for
separate patentability of claim 26. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nakano,
Garvey and Lee.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19-26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
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

mls