Lowe's Companies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 13, 2020

14497554 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 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.
14/497,554 09/26/2014 James Michael Broughman 08530/917921 2102
23342 7590 07/13/2020
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
Mailstop: 22 - IP Docketing
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
HANSEN, KENNETH J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2020 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):
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte JAMES MICHAEL BROUGHMAN,
DANA LYNN JODICE, and JASON LU
___________________

Appeal 2019-006838
Application 14/497,554
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAUFFMAN, 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 1–4, 8–18, 20–30, 34–39, and 41–43.
Final Act. 2–13. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Lowe’s
Companies, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006838
Application 14/497,554

2
The claimed invention relates to systems and methods for mounting
electrically powered devices (e.g., ceiling fans) to ceilings and other
structures. Spec. ¶ 2. The Specification describes that perhaps the most
challenging aspect of ceiling fan installation is supporting the weight of the
fan assembly while connecting the fan assembly wires to the electrical
junction box. Spec. ¶¶ 4–5. The claimed invention addresses improvements
to systems and methods for such installations. Spec. ¶ 5.
Claims 1, 14, 26, 37, and 43 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced
below.
1. A system for mounting an electrically-powered
device to a supporting structure, comprising:
a mounting bracket comprising a receiving portion and a
first electrical connector; and
a hangable structure comprising a mating member
configured to be positioned against the receiving portion, the
hangable structure further comprising a second electrical
connector,
wherein the second electrical connector is configured to
engage the first electrical connector to establish an electrical
connection therebetween during a positioning event in which the
mating member is brought into position so as to rest in a proper
alignment against the receiving portion without further
manipulation of the hangable structure after establishment of the
electrical connection, and wherein the mounting bracket and the
hangable structure are configured so that the mounting bracket
interferes with gravity-influenced disengagement of the
hangable structure from the mounting bracket when the mating
member is in the proper alignment.

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–4, 8–18, 20–30, 34–39, and 41–43 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite for failure to particularly point out and
Appeal 2019-006838
Application 14/497,554

3
distinctly claim the subject matter Appellant regards as the invention. Final
Act. 4.
II. Claims 1–4, 8–18, 20–30, 34–39, 41, and 42 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for failure to comply with the written description
requirement. Final Act. 3.
III. Claims 1–4, 9–18, 21–25, and 422 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kerr.3 Final Act. 5–10.
V. Claims 26–29 and 34–39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kerr and Miller.4 Final Act. 10–13.

ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness5
Claims 1–4, 8–18, 20–30, 34–39, 41, and 42
The system of independent claim 1 includes a mounting bracket
having both a receiving portion and a first electrical connector, and a
hangable structure having both a mating member and a second electrical
connector. Claim 1 further requires that the second electrical connector is

2 The Examiner also rejected claim 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) in the
Final Office Action. Final Act. 5–10. The Examiner withdrew this rejection
in the Answer. Ans. 3. Claim 43 is not currently subject to a rejection over
prior art.
3 Kerr (US 2002/0111063 A1, published Aug. 15, 2002).
4 Miller (US 8,033,787 B1, issued Oct. 11, 2011).
5 This indefiniteness rejection interrelates to the written description
rejection that follows. For that reason, we reference relevant portions of the
other rejection as well as relevant portions of Appellant’s associated
argument.
Appeal 2019-006838
Application 14/497,554

4
configured to engage the first electrical connector to establish an electrical
connection “during a positioning event in which the mating member is
brought into position so as to rest in a proper alignment against the receiving
portion without further manipulation of the hangable structure after
establishment of the electrical connection.” Independent claims 14, 26, and
37 have similar requirements.
The Examiner interprets each of the limitations at issue as a negative
limitation requiring the claimed structure to prevent manipulation of the
hangable structure after establishment of the electrical connection. Final
Act. 3. The Examiner elaborates that the claim phrase “without further
manipulation . . . after engagement” is a “functionally nebulous limitation”
that provides no basis for determining the scope of the phrase. Ans. 7
(emphasis in original), 8 (citing the meaning of “manipulate” as “to treat or
operate with or as if with the hands or by mechanical means[,] especially in
a skillful manner”6); see also Final Act. 4 (determining that the meaning of
“manipulate” is unclear). Based on this, the Examiner concludes that the
claims at issue are indefinite.7 Final Act. 4; Ans. 6–10.
Appellant argues that, contrary to the Examiner’s interpretation, the
claims do not require preventing further manipulation after the electrical
connectors are engaged. Appeal Br. 11 (referring to Appeal Br. 9–10).

6 Quoting Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/manipulate (last accessed June 9, 2020).
7 In the Final Action, the Examiner mentions that the claims are indefinite
for failing to recite structure for accomplishing the claimed function. Final
Act. 4. Then, in the Answer, the Examiner retracts that position by making
clear that functional language alone does not make a claim improper.
Ans. 7.
Appeal 2019-006838
Application 14/497,554

5
Rather, the claims require that once the first and second electrical connectors
are engaged, no further manipulation of the hangable structure is necessary
to achieve alignment with the mounting bracket. Id. In other words,
Appellant asserts that the positioning that permits the first and second
electrical connectors to engage also aligns the mating member of the
hangable structure with the receiving portion of the mounting bracket. For
the reasons that follow, we agree with Appellant’s claim interpretation.
Claim 1, recites, in relevant part,
wherein the second electrical connector is configured to engage
the first electrical connector to establish an electrical connection
therebetween during a positioning event in which the mating
member is brought into position so as to rest in a proper
alignment against the receiving portion without further
manipulation of the hangable structure after establishment of the
electrical connection.
In the context of the claim, both “manipulation” and “positioning” refer to
the movement of the hangable structure that aligns the hangable structure
with the mounting bracket. Therefore, the claim language suggests that the
positioning event aligns the mating member with the receiving portion so
that no additional positioning (manipulation) is needed to create that
alignment.
This interpretation is consistent with Appellant’s Specification. The
Specification describes the known problem of supporting the weight of a fan
assembly while making electrical connections between the fan assembly and
a junction box. Spec. ¶ 4. The invention addresses this problem by
configuring the first and second electrical connectors for engagement as the
mating member is properly aligned with the receiving portion of the
mounting bracket. See id. ¶ 119; see also id. ¶ 61.
Appeal 2019-006838
Application 14/497,554

6
Because the electrical connectors engage as the mating member and
receiving portion align, we agree with Appellant that the claims at issue
“describe systems that are configured to make post-connection manipulation
[of the mating member of the hangable structure] unnecessary.” Appeal Br.
11 (emphasis in original); see also Reply Br. 5–6; id. at 7 (“[O]ne skilled in
the art would recognize that [he or she] could simply let go of the hangable
structure once the electrical connection is established.”).
Given this claim construction, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would understand the scope of the claims at issue. The claims do not require
an unbridled prohibition of the manipulation of the hangable structure, but
simply exclude manipulation of the hangable structure during engagement of
the first and second electrical connectors such that the engagement of the
first and second electrical connectors aligns the mating member of the
hangable structure with the receiving member of the mounting bracket.
Simply put, the meaning of the claims at issue is not unclear. See In re
Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (The Federal
Circuit has held that a claim is “indefinite when it contains words or phrases
whose meaning is unclear.”); see also Ex parte McAward, 2017 WL
3669566, at *5 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential) (adopting the approach
for assessing indefiniteness approved by the Federal Circuit in Packard).
Consequently, the Examiner’s reasoning is not persuasive, and we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 1–4, 8–18, 20–30, 34–39, 41, and 42 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.

Appeal 2019-006838
Application 14/497,554

7
Claim 43
Independent claim 43 is similar to independent claim 1, and we
reproduce it below with emphasis added:
43. A system for mounting an electrically-powered device
to a supporting structure, comprising:
a mounting bracket comprising a receiving portion and a
first electrical connector, the receiving portion include[s] an
opening and one or more support surfaces; and
a hangable structure comprising a mating member
configured to be passed above the opening and lowered against
the one or more support surfaces of the receiving portion, the
hangable structure further comprising a second electrical
connector,
wherein the second electrical connector is configured to
engage the first electrical connector to establish an electrical
connection therebetween during a positioning event in which the
mating member is brought into position so as to rest in a proper
alignment against the receiving portion, wherein the mounting
bracket and the hangable structure are configured so that, at
substantially the same time that the mating member is brought
into position against the receiving portion in the proper
alignment, the mounting bracket interferes with gravity-
influenced disengagement of the hangable structure from the
mounting bracket.
The Examiner concludes that the recitation “at substantially the same
time” is indefinite because: (1) the claimed phrase “the same time” lacks
antecedent basis, and (2) the meaning of “substantially” is unclear for the
reason that it is a term of degree that requires some standard for measuring
that degree. Final Act. 4; Ans. 9–10.
Appellant contends that a claim is not indefinite simply because it is
subjective; rather, it is indefinite if a person of ordinary skill could not
ascertain the meaning of the claim. Appeal Br. 13 (citing case law for the
proposition that the term “substantially” does not necessarily render a claim
Appeal 2019-006838
Application 14/497,554

8
indefinite); Reply Br. 8. According to Appellant, a person of ordinary skill
in the art would understand claim 43 requires that a positioning event
engaging the first and second electrical connectors would overlap in time
with aligning the mating member with the receiving portion. Appeal Br. 13–
14. Appellant elaborates that the term “substantially” indicates that the two
events (engaging and aligning) overlap, but one event may take longer than
the other. Id. For the reasons that follow, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not adequately demonstrated that claim 43 is indefinite.
Whether the lack of an antecedent basis for the claim term “the same
time” renders the claims indefinite must be decided in context. See
Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed.
Cir. 2006). Regarding the claim term “substantially,” our reviewing court
instructs us that, “[w]hen a word of degree is used [one] must determine
whether the patent’s specification provides some standard for measuring that
degree.” Exxon Research & Eng’g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371,
1381 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crate &
Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Nevertheless,
“mathematical precision is not required—only a reasonable degree of
particularity and definiteness.” Exxon, 265 F.3d at 1381. Moreover, the
Federal Circuit has held that the claim term “substantially” means
“approximately.” See Playtex Prods., Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 400
F.3d 901, 907 (Fed. Cir. 2005). With these standards in mind, we turn to the
language of independent claim 43 and then the Specification.
Independent claim 43 requires that at “substantially the same time”
that the mating member and receiving portion align (“aligning”), the
mounting bracket interferes with gravity influenced disengagement of the
Appeal 2019-006838
Application 14/497,554

9
hangable structure from the mounting bracket (“interfering”). In other
words, the aligning and interfering occur at substantially the same time.
This suggests that claim 43 requires “aligning” to occur at approximately the
same time as eh “interfering.”
In parity with the claim language, the Specification describes that the
mounting bracket and the hangable structure are configured so that “when
the mating member is positioned against the receiving portion in the proper
alignment, the effect of gravity on the hangable structure tends to keep the
hangable structure engaged to the mounting bracket.” Spec. ¶¶ 8, 45.
Although in the cited paragraphs of the Specification do not include the term
“substantially,” elsewhere the Specification uses the term “substantially” to
mean “approximately.” For example, the Specification describes that the
electrical connectors engage “substantially simultaneously” with placement
of the mating member against the support surface of the receiving portion of
the mounting bracket. Spec. ¶ 61; see also id. ¶ 57 (describing the mating
member as having a shape that “substantially” matches that of the support
surface of the receiving portion).
Although claim 43 does not specify a time that something occurs
before reciting the same time, the context of the claim is understandable
because two things (aligning and interfering) are happening simultaneously
(at the same time). For that reason, the lack of antecedent basis for the claim
term “the same time” does not make the scope of claim 43 unclear.
Viewing the claim language in light of the Specification, a person of
ordinary skill would understand that claim 43 requires that the mating
member and the receiving portion align at approximately the same time as
the mounting bracket interferes with gravity influenced disengagement of
Appeal 2019-006838
Application 14/497,554

10
the hangable structure from the mounting bracket. Because a person of
ordinary skill would understand the claim in light of the Specification, the
term “substantially” is not unclear.
The Examiner has not shown that the phrase “at substantially the same
time” renders claim 43 unclear. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 43
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.

Written Description
The Examiner concludes that the phrase “without further manipulation
of the hangable structure after establishment of the electrical connection,” as
used in independent claim 1, is new matter that lacks written description
support. Final Act. 3; Ans. 5–6. The Examiner also concludes that similar
limitations in independent claims 14, 26, and 37 lack written description.
Final Act. 3. In support of these conclusions, the Examiner finds that “the
subject limitations are simply not disclosed in the originally filed
specification in a manner that reasonably conveys possession.” Ans. 5; see
also Final Act. 3. Similar to the indefiniteness rejection, the written
description rejection is premised on the claim interpretation that each of the
limitations at issue is a negative limitation requiring the claimed structure
prevent manipulation of the hangable structure after establishment of the
electrical connection. Final Act. 3; Ans. 5–6.
As explained above, we agree with Appellant that the claims require
the positioning that engages the first and second electrical connectors also
aligns the mating member of the hangable structure with the receiving
portion of the mounting bracket. See Appeal Br. 9–10. Because that
Appeal 2019-006838
Application 14/497,554

11
positioning aligns the mating member with the receiving portion, no further
manipulation of the hangable structure is needed. See id.
When properly construed, the claimed subject matter finds support in
the Specification. The Specification describes that the known problem of
supporting the hangable structure while making the electrical connection and
then aligning the hangable structure was solved by instead simultaneously
making the electrical connection and aligning the mating member with the
receiving portion. Spec. ¶¶ 4, 61, 119. Therefore, the Specification
describes both the limitation “without further manipulation of the hangable
structure after establishment of the electrical connection,” as recited in claim
1, and the similar limitations recited in claims 14, 26, and 37. See Vas-Cath,
Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Adequate
written description means the written description must “convey with
reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought,
[the inventor] was in possession of the [claimed] invention.” (emphasis
omitted)); see also In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 425 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (finding
that the specification described the negative limitation “not permanently
fixed” because that imitation was “of the essence of the original
disclosure”).
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–4, 8–18, 20–30, 34–39,
41, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for failure to comply with the written
description requirement.

Anticipation
The decisive issue with regard to this rejection relates to the
requirement of independent claims 1 and 14 that the electrical connection is
Appeal 2019-006838
Application 14/497,554

12
established as the hangable structure is aligned with the mounting bracket so
that further manipulation of the hangable structure is not necessary.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 9–18, 21–25, and 42 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kerr. Final Act. 5–10; Ans. 10–13.
This determination is based in part on the underlying finding that Kerr
discloses a second electrical connector (conventional cylindrical three-prong
plug 44) configured to engage first electrical connector (receptacle 30) to
establish an electrical connection during a positioning event that brings the
mating member (plug plate 42) into proper alignment with the receiving
portion (receptacle plate 16) without further manipulation for the hangable
structure after establishment of the electrical connection. Final Act. 6, 9.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues that Kerr does not anticipate the
claims at issue because in Kerr’s device, the mating member (plug plate 42)
is rotated to be brought into proper alignment with the receiving portion
(receptacle plate 16) after the electrical connection is made between the
second electrical connector (conventional cylindrical three-prong plug 44)
configured to engage the first electrical connector (receptacle 30). Appeal
Br. 14–18. Appellant elaborates that Kerr’s ceiling fan is installed in a two-
step process. Appeal Br. 15–17. In the first step, the mating member (plug
plate 42) is raised to push the plug prongs fully into the receptacle. Appeal
Br. 15 (citing Kerr ¶ 44, Figs. 4, 5). We reproduce Kerr’s Figures 4 and 5
below.
Appeal 2019-006838
Application 14/497,554

13

Figure 4 (left) is an exploded of Kerr’s quick connect device before
engagement between the receptacle and the plug, and Figure 5 (right) is a
perspective view after initial engagement. Kerr ¶¶ 11, 13, 14, 36, 44.
In the second step, the mating member (plug plate 42) is aligned by
rotating flanges 34, 36 into latch slots 52, 54 until reaching stop 72 (see arrow
A in Figure 5 above), and then attaching screws to fix that position. Appeal
Br. 16–17 (citing Kerr ¶ 44, Figs. 5 (pre-rotation), 6 (post-rotation)). We
reproduce Figure 6 of Kerr below.
Appeal 2019-006838
Application 14/497,554

14

Figure 6 is a perspective view of Kerr’s quick connect device. Kerr ¶ 15. The
Examiner acknowledges that Kerr’s ceiling fan is installed as Appellant
asserts, yet maintains the rejection. Ans. 10. According to the Examiner, the
rejection is still proper because Kerr’s electrical connection is not established
until the mating member (plug plate 42) is aligned by rotation (after what
Appellant refers to as step 2). Ans. 10–12 (citing a supporting definition that
“establishment” means “to make firm or stable”).
Appellant responds that in Kerr, the electrical connection is
established in step 1 before the rotation of the mating member (plug plate
42) in step 2. Reply Br. 9–11. Appellant elaborates that the Examiner’s
definition of “establishment” as “to make firm or stable” is inconsistent with
the Specification, which describes that engagement of the electrical
connectors makes an electrical connection. Reply Br. 11 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 97,
106).
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s proffered definition is
incorrect. The Specification describes that first and second electrical
connectors “engage (making an electrical connection).” Spec. ¶ 97. The
Appeal 2019-006838
Application 14/497,554

15
Specification makes no mention that the connection must be firm or stable;
rather, an electrical connection is made (i.e., established) simply by
engaging the electrical connectors. Likewise, Kerr’s electrical connectors
form an electrical connection when engaged. See Kerr ¶ 5 (“The first and
second contacts are so positioned that they can be engaged before the
rotational connection of the canopy to the plate.”).
Therefore, the Examiner has not shown that Kerr describes each
limitation of independent claims 1 and 14. We do not sustain the rejection
of claims 1–4, 9–18, 21–25, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Kerr.

Obviousness
Claims 26–29 and 34–39
The Examiner concludes that the subject matter of claims 26–29 and
34–39 would have been obvious from the combined teachings of Kerr and
Miller. Final Act. 10–13; Ans. 13 –14. The Examiner relies on Kerr in the
same manner as the anticipation rejection, and relies on Miller to modify
Kerr’s mounting bracket to have an opening. Final Act. 11–12. Therefore,
we agree with Appellant that Miller fails to remedy the deficiencies in the
teachings of Kerr as applied to independent claims 26 and 37. See Appeal
Br. 23–25. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 26–29 and 34–39 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kerr and Miller.

Appeal 2019-006838
Application 14/497,554

16
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 8–18,
20–30, 34–
39, 41–43
112(b) Indefiniteness 1–4, 8–18,
20–30, 34–
39, 41–43
1–4, 8–18,
20–30, 34–
39, 41, 42
112(a) Written
Description
1–4, 8–18,
20–30, 34–
39, 41, 42
1–4, 9–18,
21–25, 42
102(a)(1) Kerr 1–4, 9–18,
21–25, 42
26–29, 34–39 103 Kerr, Miller 26–29, 34–39
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 8–18,
20–30, 34–
39, 41–43

REVERSED