Ex Parte Webber et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 4, 2012

11551271 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 4, 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.
11/551,271 10/20/2006 Kevin A. Webber 05262P 1047
27804 7590 09/05/2012
HOLLAND & BONZAGNI, P.C.
171 DWIGHT ROAD, SUITE 302
LONGMEADOW, MA 01106-1700
EXAMINER
KLEIN, GABRIEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3641
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2012 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 KEVIN A. WEBBER, SEAN P. TONER, and
JOSEPH A. HOELL JR.
____________________

Appeal 2010-005497
Application 11/551,271
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: LINDA E. HORNER, STEVEN D.A. MCCARTHY, and
CHARLES N. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005497
Application 11/551,271
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 9-
13. App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The claims are directed to an easy connect stock system for firearms.
Claim 9, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
9. A method for substituting a stock in a long gun,
comprising:
a. attaching an adaptor to a receiver assembly of a long
gun;
b. removably attaching the stock to the adaptor to
interconnect the stock to the receiver assembly;
c. lifting a stock release, partially out of the adaptor,
without the use of tools, to unlock the adaptor;
d. removing the stock from the unlocked adaptor;
e. placing a substitute stock inside the adaptor;
f. pressing down the stock release to lock the adaptor and
thereby interconnect the substitute stock to the receiver
assembly; and
g. during steps (a)-(f), retaining the stock release always
within the adaptor.

REJECTIONS
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schoppman (US 7,162,823 B2, iss. Jan. 16, 2007) and
Chen (US 2004/0128900 A1, pub. Jul. 8, 2004). Ans. 3.

OPINION
Appellants argue claims 9-13 as a group. App. Br. 15-19. We select
claim 9 as the representative claim, and claims 10-13 will stand or fall with
claim 9. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2010-005497
Application 11/551,271
3
The Examiner correctly determined that Schoppman discloses the
basic method recited in claim 9. The Examiner also correctly determined
that, unlike the subject matter of claim 9, Schoppman’s locking member 64,
interpreted by the Examiner as the “stock release,” is completely removed
from the first connector 10, interpreted by the Examiner as the “adapter.”
See Figs. 2, 3 (locking member 64 disengaged from recesses 78, 46). The
Examiner correctly found that Chen discloses a similar device where sliding
blocks 160a and 160b will disengage with grooves 33 to release the device
while remaining within Chen’s connecting device. See Fig. 8B. Chen regards
this arrangement, among others disclosed, as an improvement over prior art
devices which use square bolts 12. See Chen p. 1, para. [0005], Figs. 1, 2.
The square bolts described by Chen engage grooves 31, 111 in a manner
similar to Schoppman’s locking member in the form of a rod or pin.
Schoppman col. 5, ll. 18-20, fig. 10. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify
Schoppman’s device with the gripping arrangement of Chen in order to
predictably provide the advantages described by Chen, ease of use and
manufacture (p. 1, paras. [0007]-[0008]) and/or discourage loss of the
locking member (Ans. 6).
Appellants’ argument that Schoppman’s device would not function if
the pin were not entirely removed (App. Br. 17) is not on point. The
Examiner never proposed making such a modification to the removal
process of Schoppman’s pin. Rather, the Examiner proposed replacing
Schoppman’s pin structure with the gripping and releasing structure of Chen.
Such a modification would have resulted in a device that, in its ordinary use,
performed the claimed method. Appellants argue that Schoppman teaches
away from welding the release pin to the adapter base. App. Br. 5. Again, we
Appeal 2010-005497
Application 11/551,271
4
do not find this to be a position taken by the Examiner. Schoppman never
expresses any criticality of using an arrangement wherein the locking
member is completely removed, much less discourages use of an
arrangement where that is not the case.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.

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