Herman, Kent

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 9, 2020

15135137 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 9, 2020)

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.
15/135,137 04/21/2016 Kent Herman 0037-001US2 4973
16404 7590 07/09/2020
Leber IP Law
400 TradeCenter
Suite 5900
Woburn, MA 01801
EXAMINER
O'BRIEN, JEFFREY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3677
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/09/2020 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):
admin@leberiplaw.com
celia@leberiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENT HERMAN
Appeal 2019-003766
Application 15/135,137
Technology Center 3600
Before DANIEL S. SONG, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SONG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 10. 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 the Applicant,
Kent Herman. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003766
Application 15/135,137
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to pocket door pull devices. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A device comprising:
a pocket door surface pull having a top surface and a
plurality of mounting fastener holes, and
a pocket door surface pull cover comprising:
a plate configured to fit over the pocket door surface pull
such that it substantially covers the top surface,
the plate comprising a planar body having a top surface
and a bottom surface, and grippable flange members protruding
from the top surface of the planar body on opposite edges of the
plate,
wherein the plate includes open areas that are positioned
to align with the mounting fastener holes of the pocket door
surface pull when the plate substantially covers the top surface
of the pocket door surface pull with the bottom surface of the
plate in contact with the top surface of the pocket door surface
pull.
OPINION
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. §103
as being unpatentable over Mantarakis (US 5,890,261, iss. Apr. 6, 1999) in
view of Andross (US 414,625, iss. Nov. 5, 1889). Final Act. 2. As to
independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Mantarakis discloses the
invention as substantially claimed, except for “multiple grippable flange
members on opposite edges of the plate,” because it only discloses “a single
grippable flange member (F) on one edge of the plate.” Final Act. 3, 5
(annotated Figure 1 of Mantarakis). The Examiner relies on Andross for
disclosing a “device having multiple grippable flange members (Figure 2: B)
extending from a plate on opposite edges of the plate,” and concludes that it
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have
Appeal 2019-003766
Application 15/135,137
3
provided “multiple grippable flange members (F) to opposite edges of the
device of [Mantarakis] as taught by [Andross] in order to allow more
gripping surfaces.” Final Act. 3.
The Appellant disagrees and argues that “interpreting Mantarakis’s
door handle base 10 as a pocket door pull is not a reasonable interpretation.”
Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 3 (“interpreting the door handle base 10 of
Mantarakis as Appellant’s claimed pocket door surface pull is not the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the term ‘pocket door surface pull’ as
used by Appellant” in view of the Specification and common use). The
Appellant asserts that “pocket door [surface] pull” is “a term of art used in
the building trade for hardware that is applied to a pocket door . . . to allow a
user to open and close, and in some cases latch, the door,” and “functions as
a door knob or handle would on a conventional swinging door.” Appeal Br.
3–4. According to the Appellant, “it is clear from [the] specification that the
pocket door surface pull recited in claim 1 is something that in itself
functions as a door pull.” Reply Br. 2.
The Appellant also argues that the Examiner’s articulated reasoning is
insufficient to support the rejection. Appeal Br. 6. In particular, the
Appellant argues that nothing indicates the need or desirability of adding
another flange to the handle of Mantarakis, and that Mantarakis’s “door
handle 12 has a T-shape that could easily be grasped by a user . . . [and]
allow it to be grasped in much the same manner as the drawer pull of
Andross.” Appeal Br. 7, citing Andross, col. 2, ll. 40–44.
We are persuaded by the Appellant’s arguments. As to the claim
interpretation issue, the Examiner responds that “‘pocket door’ is merely the
intended use of the ‘surface pull,’” which is a device that is:
Appeal 2019-003766
Application 15/135,137
4
capable of attachment to a door or drawer surface for
engagement by a user’s hand or other appendage for movement
of the door or drawer. Therefore the claimed ‘pocket door
surface pull’ is a device which is capable of attachment to a
pocket door for engagement by a user’s hand or other
appendage for movement thereof.
Ans. 3.
However, nothing in Mantarakis indicates that its door handle base 10
is for engagement by the user’s hand. As the Appellant points out, the part
annotated “A” by the Examiner in Figure 1 of Mantarakis is “a door handle
base 10, which does not function as a door handle in itself, but instead is
used to mount a door handle [12] to a door” by snap fitting the door handle
12 to the door handle base 10. Appeal Br. 4–5, citing Mantarakis Figs. 1, 2;
col. 3, ll. 5–24. Indeed, the Appellant is correct that “[i]n use, the base 10 is
not exposed for contact with a user’s hand, but instead is positioned below
and covered by the door handle 12.” Reply Br. 2. Thus, as the Appellant
argues:
Even assuming for the sake of argument that the Examiner’s
definition of “surface pull” is correct, the door handle base 10
does not meet this definition. It is not designed or suitable “for
engagement by a user’s hand or other appendage for movement
of the door or drawer.”
Reply Br. 2.
Accordingly, we agree with the Appellant that “[t]he person of
ordinary skill in the art would not consider the door handle base 10, which is
neither intended nor suitable for use in itself as a door pull, to be a pocket
door pull” (Appeal Br. 5), and that “the rejection is predicated on an
improper interpretation of the term ‘pocket door surface pull.’” (Appeal Br.
6).
Appeal 2019-003766
Application 15/135,137
5
We further find persuasive, the Appellant’s argument that the
Examiner’s reason for modifying the handle of Mantarakis is inadequate. In
particular, as the Appellant points out, “[a] user can, if desired, place a finger
(or thumb) on one side of the central flange [of Mantarakis], under one of
the side flanges, and another finger on the other side, under the other side
flange, in the manner described by Andross.” Appeal Br. 7. Because the T-
shape allows for grasping of Mantarakis’s door handle 12 in the manner
disclosed by Andross, the references themselves do not provide a reason to
add a second gripping flange to the Mantarakis’s door handle 12.
The Examiner responds that “it would be desirable to have additional
gripping surfaces on an opposite side of the plate as taught by Andross [] for
gripping when the first gripping flange is otherwise difficult to grasp,” such
as when the sliding door is fully opened and the T-shape door handle “is
likely to be adjacent or in contact with the door frame or an adjacent sliding
door panel.” Ans. 4. However, we find persuasive the Appellant’s rebuttal
that “[f]or a sliding door . . . the half of the door with the handle slides over
the stationary half of the door, so that the user would still have full access to
the handle even with the door completely open,” and that “the problems
hypothesized by the Examiner may not reflect a commercial reality in the
sliding door industry.” Reply Br. 4. Indeed, the rejection appears to be
based on impermissible hindsight.
Therefore, in addition to the unreasonably broad claim interpretation
discussed above, we also find the Examiner’s articulated rationale
inadequate to support the conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we
reverse the rejection as to independent claim 1, and claims 3, 4, 6, and 10
that depend therefrom.
Appeal 2019-003766
Application 15/135,137
6
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 10 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4, 6, 10 103 Mantarakis,
Andross
1, 3, 4, 6, 10
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 4, 6, 10
REVERSED