Ex Parte Wu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 12, 2018

14485884 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/485,884 09/15/2014
69638 7590 10/12/2018
KAMRATH IP Lawfirm, PA
4825 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 150
Golden Valley, MN 55422
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ming-Chieh Wu
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.
CFP-6034-1 7245
EXAMINER
SHAKER!, HAD!
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3723
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/12/2018 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 MING-CHIEU WU
Appeal2017-010907
Application 14/485,884
Technology Center 3700
Before CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, AMEE A. SHAH, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 "Title to the present invention remains with the inventor." (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal2017-010907
Application 14/485,884
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant's invention "relates to a locking pliers, more
particularly to a locking pliers that can be held firmly in a closed and locked
position without the continuous application of force by a user while tightly
gripping a workpiece." (Spec. 1, 11. 8-11.)
Sole Independent Claim on Appeal
1. A locking pliers comprising:
a fixed handle;
a fixed jaw connected securely to the fixed handle and
including a first clamping surface;
a movable jaw cooperating with the fixed jaw and
including a second clamping surface and movable and fixed
pivoting regions;
a movable handle pivotally connected to the movable
pivoting region about a pivotal axis;
a movable pivot unit including a pivot pin engaging with
the fixed handle and the fixed pivoting region;
a pivot hole disposed in one of the fixed handle and the
fixed pivoting region, with the pivot hole configured to form a
contour of a circular shape defining trailing, middle and leading
regions, with the circular shape of the pivot hole having a first
diametrical size and the pivot pin having a second diametrical
size not greater than 0.8 times the first diametrical size, with the
pivot pin received and movable along an annular trajectory
relative to the pivot pin in the pivot hole and partially abutting
against the contour of the pivot hole; and
a biasing member engaging with the fixed handle and the
movable jaw, with the fixed handle and the movable jaw
subject to a tensional force of the biasing member;
wherein the fixed and movable handles are movable from
initial, locking, to tightening positions, the pivot pin has the
annular trajectory in the pivot hole, and the movable jaw is
pivoted closer toward the fixed jaw, and the pivot pin is in
abutting engagement with the trailing, middle and leading
regions defined from the contour of the pivot hole, respectively.
2
Appeal2017-010907
Application 14/485,884
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Chervenak. 2 (Final Action 2.)
The Examiner rejects claims 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Chervenak and Wu. 3 (Final Action 4.)
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites "[a] locking pliers" (Appeal Br., Claims
App.); and the Examiner determines the claimed locking pliers would have
been obvious over Chervenak (see Final Action 2). As discussed below, we
are persuaded by the Appellant's arguments that the Examiner fails to
sufficiently support this determination. (See Appeal Br. 2---6; see also Reply
Br. 1-3).
Independent claim 1 requires the locking pliers to comprise a "pivot
pin" and a "pivot hole." (Appeal Br., Claims App.) These components are
identified and enlarged in our below annotated version of Appellant's
Figure 6.
2 US 2010/0018361 Al, published January 28, 2010.
3 US 7,454,999 B2, issued November 25, 2008.
3
r~ §'~{(~ r
i~~)h:~
Appeal2017-010907
Application 14/485,884
As depicted in the above drawing, and as recited in independent claim 1, the
pivot hole is "configured to form a contour of a circular shape," and the
pivot pin is "received" in the pivot hole. (Id.)
Independent claim 1 also recites that "the pivot pin has [an] annular
trajectory in the pivot hole" (Appeal Br., Claims App.); and this trajectory is
shown by our below annotated versions of the Appellant's Figures 8-10.
Initial Position
tn:tiling region
:_ ......
Locking Position
middle region
:::.:.
Tightening Position
leading region
~-.
4
Appeal2017-010907
Application 14/485,884
As indicated by the above drawings, and as recited in independent claim 1,
the pliers handles "are movable from initial, locking, to tightening
positions," and "the pivot pin is in abutting engagement with the trailing,
middle and leading regions defined from the contour of the pivot hole,
respectively." (Id.)
The Examiner finds that Chervenak discloses a locking pliers with a
pivot pin 218 and a pivot hole 221 (see Final Action 2); and these
components are identified and enlarged in our below annotated version of
Chervenak' s Figure 6.
As depicted in the above drawing, Chervenak' s pivot hole 221 is configured
to form a contour of a circular shape, and Chervenak' s pivot pin 218 is
received in the pivot hole 221. However, as argued by the Appellant,
Chervenak's Figure 6 shows "a clearance between" the pin 218 and the pivot
hole 221; and Chervenak's Figure 6 does not show "that pin 218 moves in
an annular trajectory relative the aperture 221" and/or "continues abutting
against the contour of the aperture 221." (Appeal Br. 5.) In other words,
Chervenak fails to disclose, at least in Figure 6, that when its plier handles
are moved from an initial position to a locking position to a tightening
5
Appeal2017-010907
Application 14/485,884
position, the pivot pin 218 travels in an annular trajectory, and/or is in
abutting engagement with the trailing, middle and leading regions defined
from the contour of the pivot hole 221, respectively.
The Examiner acknowledges that, in Chervenak' s Figure 6, "the pin is
not abutting the contour" of the pivot hole 220, but finds that this may be
attributed to a "drafting error." (Answer 9.) However, the Examiner points
to nothing in Chervenak signifying that the illustrated central location of the
pivot pin 218, and the illustrated clearance therearound, is the consequence
of less-than-perfect drafting. Rather, Chervenak conveys that, when
"aperture 221 is formed as a circular aperture in jaw 316," there should be
"sufficient clearance between it and pin 218" (Chervenak ,r 25); and Figure 6
shows this sought-after "sufficient clearance."
The Examiner alternatively finds that Chervenak's Figure 6 can be
viewed as showing "a position between the locking and final tightening
positions," namely "a lightly locked position," whereat "the pin is not
required to abut the contour." (Answer 9.) The Examiner also implies that,
when torque is applied to such lightly-locked pliers "to tighten the grip," the
pivot pin 218 will be in abutting engagement with the contour of the pivot
hole 221. (See id.) The Examiner seems to be saying that Chervenak's
pivot pin 218 has a trajectory in the pivot hole 221 that includes a lightly-
locked position, whereat it is not in abutting engagement with the contour of
the pivot hole 221, and a torqued position, whereat it is. But the Examiner
does not explain how or why this supposedly sometimes-abutting trajectory
of the pivot pin 218 could be considered an "annular trajectory," and/or
include an initial position whereat the pivot pin 218 is in abutting
engagement with a trailing region of the contour of the pivot hole 221.
6
Appeal2017-010907
Application 14/485,884
The Examiner additionally finds that resizing the diameter of
Chervenak's pivot pin 218 relative to its pivot hole 221, so as to set a pin-to-
hole-diameter ratio that is "not greater than 0.8," would "result" in pliers that
meet the requirements of independent claim 1. (Answer 10.) However,
according to the Appellant, Chervenak lacks any disclosure of "non-
rotational movement" of the pivot pin 218 relative to the pivot hole 221.
(Reply Br. 2.) In other words, according to the Appellant, Chervenak's
pivot pin 218 rotates as the plier handles move from an initial position to a
locking position to a tightening position, but the pivot pin 218 remains in the
central location shown in Figure 6 throughout this rotation. If so, resizing
the pivot pin 218 to have a smaller/larger diameter, but to still have
"sufficient clearance" with respect to the pivot hole 221, would not result in
an annular trajectory and/or abutting engagements.
The Examiner looks to Chervenak' s disclosure of another
embodiment of the pliers, in which the pivot pin is received in an "angled
slotted aperture," as a teaching of the annular trajectory and/or abutting
engagements required by independent claim 1. (Answer 8.) The Examiner
finds that, in Chervenak's angled-slotted-aperture embodiment, "the pivot
pin tends to move towards the rear of [the slotted] aperture," and, "the pin
has to abut the contour." (Id.) These findings by the Examiner establish, at
best, that in this angled-slotted-aperture embodiment, the pivot pin moves in
a linear direction between one end of the slot ( when the pliers is in a "nearly
closed and locked position" and/or in a "closed, locked position on a
workpiece") to the other end of the slot (when the pliers is "in its closed,
locked position on a workpiece with a turning force applied to the pliers").
(Chervenak ,r,r 5-7; see also Figs. 1-3.) But the Examiner offers no
7
Appeal2017-010907
Application 14/485,884
explanation as to why this linear path of the pivot pin would translate into
the annular trajectory and/or abutting engagements required by independent
claim 1 if a circular, rather than slot-shaped, pivot hole were used. 4
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chervenak.
The Examiner's further findings and determinations with respect to
dependent claims 2-13 and the additional prior art reference (Wu) do not
compensate for the above-discussed shortcomings in the rejection of
independent claim 1. (See Final Action 4--5.) Thus, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chervenak; and we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of dependent claims 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chervenak and Wu.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-13.
REVERSED
4 Insofar as the Examiner is saying that the Chervenak's pivot pin follows
the contour of the pivot hole (which would equate a linear path with a slotted
hole and an annular path with a circular hole), this would be at odds with the
central location of the pivot pin 218 in the circular pivot hole 220 shown in
Chervenak's Figure 6.
8