11502075 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2013)

Ex Parte Zelek

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 25, 2013

11502075 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2013)

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. 11/502,075 08/10/2006 Leonard Zelek WEB-1010-US 8753 61215 7590 11/25/2013 DAVID I. ROCHE BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP 300 EAST RANDOLPH STREET CHICAGO, IL 60601 EXAMINER KEE, FANNIE C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3679 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/25/2013 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 LEONARD ZELEK ____________ Appeal 2012-001950 Application 11/502,075 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-001950 Application 11/502,075 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Leonard Zelek (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-8, 23-25, 27, 28, and 30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claimed Subject Matter Claims 1, 8, and 23 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below. 1. A quick-connect fitting comprising: a female connector and a male connector, wherein the female connector and the male connector are adapted to mate; the female connector comprising a tubular body having an inwardly directed bridge formed therein, wherein the bridge defines a protrusion; the male connector being generally cylindrical and having an entry portion and a groove; the entry portion defining a pathway for receiving the protrusion; and, the groove extending for at least a portion of a circumference of the male connector and being adapted to receive the protrusion after it is received by the entry portion and to lock the female connector to the male connector. App. Br. 19, Claims App’x. Reference The Examiner relies upon the following prior art reference: Hansen US 2,092,116 Sept. 7, 1937 Appeal 2012-001950 Application 11/502,075 3 Rejection Appellant seeks review of the following rejection: Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 23-25, 27, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hansen. SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM. OPINION The Examiner found that Hansen discloses each and every element of claims 1, 2, 4-8, 23-25, 27, 28, and 30. Ans. 4-7. Claim 1, 2, and 4-7 Appellant raises several arguments in response to the rejection as applied to claims 1, 2, and 4-7.1 See App. Br. 9-14; Reply Br. 3-10. The Examiner provided thorough responses to each of Appellant’s contentions. See Ans. 7-14. We hereby adopt the Examiner’s findings as though they were our own. With respect to Appellant’s argument regarding the phrase “the female connector comprising a tubular body having an inwardly directed bridge formed therein, wherein the bridge defines a protrusion” as recited in claim 1 (see, e.g., App. Br. 10-11), we also note that Appellant’s Specification provides a broad disclosure regarding the bridge formed in the tubular body of the female connector: “The protrusion 82 can be formed by 1 Appellant does not separately argue claims 1, 2, and 4-7. See App. Br. 9-14; Reply Br. 3-10. We select claim 1 as representative. Accordingly, claims 2 and 4-7 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Appeal 2012-001950 Application 11/502,075 4 any means known in the art, such as by welding a protrusion 82 to the inside of the female connector 80.” Spec. 7, ll. 15-17 (emphasis added). Thus, regardless of how Hansen’s pin 13 is placed or held in the tubular body, we agree with the Examiner that it forms a bridge therein, wherein the bridge defines a protrusion. See, e.g., Ans. 8-10. Accordingly, because Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive, we sustain the rejection as applied to claims 1, 2, and 4-7. Claim 8 Appellant raises separate arguments as to why the Examiner’s rejection is allegedly erroneous as applied to claim 8. See App. Br. 14-15; Reply Br. 10-11. As with claim 1, the Examiner provided thorough responses to Appellant’s contentions directed toward claim 8. See Ans. 14-18. We hereby adopt the Examiner’s findings as though they were our own. With respect to Appellant’s contentions regarding the phrase “the entry portion defining a pathway for receiving the protrusion” of claim 8, we additionally note that the Specification does not use the term “defining;” rather, it states “[t]he entry portion is preferably adapted to allow the male connector to mate with the female connector and is characterized as a pathway for receiving the protrusion into the groove.” Spec. 3, ll. 3-5 (emphasis added). This description is consistent with and supportive of the Examiner’s explanation as to why Hansen discloses an entry portion defining a pathway as claimed. See, e.g., Ans. 18. Accordingly, because Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive, we sustain the rejection as applied to claim 8. Appeal 2012-001950 Application 11/502,075 5 Claims 23-25, 27, 28, and 30 Appellant asserts several reasons as to why the rejection of claims 23-25, 27, 28, and 30 is allegedly erroneous.2 App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 11. As noted with respect to Appellant’s other arguments, the Examiner provided thorough responses to Appellant’s contentions. See Ans. 18-23. In particular, the Examiner found that “Hansen teaches a groove which is capable of locking the protrusion upon rotation of the male connector as the male connector is inserted into the female connector.” Id. at 21. For the reasons explained by the Examiner, we agree. Accordingly, because Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive, we sustain the rejection as applied to claims 23-25, 27, 28, and 30. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting 1, 2, 4-8, 23-25, 27, 28, and 30. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED llw 2 Appellant does not separately argue claims 23-25, 27, 28, and 30. See App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 11. We select claim 23 as representative. Accordingly, claims 24, 25, 27, 28, and 30 stand or fall with claim 23. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2011).