Francisco Javier Tamez Reyes

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 29, 2019

14935637 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2019)

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.
14/935,637 11/09/2015 Francisco Javier TAMEZ REYES 1983-227 1070
24106 7590 08/29/2019
Egbert Law Offices, PLLC
1001 Texas Ave., Suite 1250
HOUSTON, TX 77002
EXAMINER
CAHN, DANIEL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3634
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2019 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
KMCDANIEL@EGBERTLAWOFFICES.COM
MAIL@EGBERTLAWOFFICES.COM
USPTO@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANCISCO JAVIER TAMEZ REYES
Appeal 2019-000339
Application 14/935,637
Technology Center 3600
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, ARTHUR M. PESLAK, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant,1 Louisville Ladder Inc.,
appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 14, and 15. Final
Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Louisville
Ladder, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-000339
Application 14/935,637
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a stepladder adapted for use as a single
ladder or an extension ladder. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis
added, is the sole independent claim and is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1 A ladder apparatus comprising:
a first ladder section having a pair of side rails and a
plurality of rungs extending between said pair of side rails;
a second ladder section hingedly connected to said first
ladder section adjacent an upper end of said first ladder section,
said second ladder section being movable between an extended
position and a retracted position, said second ladder section being
juxtaposed against said first ladder section in said retracted
position, said second ladder section being pivoted outwardly in
said extended position such that said first ladder section and said
second ladder section are in an inverted V-shaped configuration;
and
a latch mechanism cooperative with said first and second
ladder sections to automatically secure said second ladder section
in said retracted position, said latch mechanism comprising:
a latch bar having a first portion and a second portion,
said latch bar being entirely formed of a single piece of material,
said first portion mounted to an inner wall of a channel of one of
said first and second ladder sections, said second portion
extending into a channel of another of said first and second
ladder sections when said second ladder section is in the
retracted position, said second portion of said latch bar having
an end extending outwardly beyond a plane extending across
ends of opposite sides of the channel of said another of said first
and second ladder sections, said second portion of said latch bar
defining a space with respect to one of the sides of the channel
of said another of said first and second ladder sections, the space
allowing a finger to engage with said second portion of said latch
bar.
Appeal 2019-000339
Application 14/935,637
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Disston US 4,483,415 Nov. 20, 1984
Vosbein-Jensen US 2006/0124397 A1 June 15, 2006

REJECTION
Claims 1–6, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Disston; or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Disston; or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Disston and Vosbein-Jensen. Final Act. 3.
OPINION
In order to meet the limitation emphasized above the Examiner
determines that the shape of Disston’s clasp 65 is, inherently, much like that
of latch mechanism 400 depicted in the Figure 12 embodiment of
Appellant’s disclosure. See Ans. 7. Although this is a possibility, there is
insufficient evidence cited by the Examiner to demonstrate why this is
necessarily the case. Although Disston’s clasp 65 may reasonably be
understood to extend into a channel of ladder section 11 to couple sections
13 and 11, Disston’s figures are not clear enough to depict the shape the
Examiner proposes, and there does not appear to be any discussion in
Disston describing an end of clasp 65 “extending outwardly beyond a plane
extending across ends of opposite sides of the channel” as required by claim
1. This shortcoming renders the Examiner’s anticipation rejection
incomplete and, as the Examiner does not account for this deficiency in the
alternative obviousness rejections, none of the Examiner’s rejections
sufficiently demonstrate unpatentability of the subject matter claimed.
Appeal 2019-000339
Application 14/935,637
4
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection is reversed.
REVERSED