Raymond, Jeffrey A. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 24, 2020

14472547 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 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.
14/472,547 08/29/2014 Jeffrey A. Raymond 5914-US : AD2014000887 1817
81029 7590 01/24/2020
Avery Dennison Corporation
Brian G. Bembenick
8080 Norton Parkway, 22D
Mentor, OH 44060
EXAMINER
MATTEI, BRIAN DAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3633
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/24/2020 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):
patentdocket@averydennison.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY A. RAYMOND and DANIEL GILBERTSON
Appeal 2019-002151
Application 14/472,547
Technology Center 3600
BEFORE MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, 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, 5–8, 10–16, 18, and 20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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 Avery Dennison
Retail Information Services, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002151
Application 14/472,547

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a fastener. Claim 1, reproduced below with
modified formatting, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A fastener comprising:
(a) a pawl to include an elongated strap accepting channel, the
pawl comprising a locking tang which is disposed to
project into the strap accepting channel;
(b) a strap having a first end and a second end, the first end
being formed onto a head, the strap being dimensioned for
insertion into the strap accepting channel so the cable tie
forms a closed loop, the strap being adapted to be engaged
by the locking tang when the tie is formed into a closed
loop; and
(c) an aperture head formed onto at least one of the pawl and
the strap, the fastener comprising,
(i) a platform shaped to define a transverse opening
and the platform includes a substantially flat front
surface and a substantially flat rear surface with a
pair of spring tabs formed onto opposing sides of
the rear surface,
(ii) a support member formed onto the platform, and
(iii) a first retention wing having an elongated release
arm with a free end, wherein at least a portion of the
first retention wing extends vertically upward
through the transverse opening and is positioned
above the front surface of the platform such that the
first retention wing is pivotally coupled to the
support member; and
wherein the first retention wing is generally triangular blade with
an inwardly curved back surface having a series of steps
formed on an outer surface of the first retention wing[;]
wherein the first retention wing is configured to receive an
inward compressive force on the inwardly curved back
Appeal 2019-002151
Application 14/472,547

3
surface to disengage the fastener from either side of a
panel.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Omata US 4,490,886 Jan. 1, 1985
Gordon US 6,474,921 B1 Nov. 5 2002
Igarashi US 2006/0130286 A1 June 22, 2006
Sano US 2011/0239412 A1 Oct. 6, 2011
Yoshitake JP 2010276041 Dec. 9, 2010
REJECTIONS
Claims 15, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Gordon and Sano.
Claims 1–3, 6–8, and 10–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Omata, Yoshitake, and Igarashi.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Omata, Yoshitake, Igarashi, and Gordon.
OPINION
Claims 15, 16, 18, and 20
Claim 15 is independent. Claims 16, 18, and 20 depend from claim
15. The Examiner finds that Gordon teaches everything recited in claim 15,
other than “the first and second retention wings being laterally offset from
one another.” Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that Sano teaches this
missing feature and proposes modifying Gordon’s teachings accordingly.
Id. at 3.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings related to Gordon,
other than contending that “[u]nlike the Current Application, Gordon has
Appeal 2019-002151
Application 14/472,547

4
legs connected to a knob . . . which would not provide a ‘free’ end,” as
required by claim 15. Appeal Br. 11.
Figure 2 of Gordon is reproduced below.

Figure 2 is an exploded section view of Gordon’s fastener. The Examiner
finds that upper end portions 86, 96 of Gordon’s retaining legs 80, 90
correspond to the recited “release arm[s],” which Appellant does not dispute.
Final Act. 2. The Examiner explains that “[t]he elongated release arms of
Gordon have ‘free ends’ because they are not fixed in any way to the
actuator or any other element.” Ans. 3–4. The Examiner explains that “[a]s
is clearly seen in [Gordon’s] figures, the ‘free ends’ are guided through slots
by projections in the actuator to an inward or outward position and are in no
way fastened or connected to the actuator.” Id. at 4.
The Examiner’s explanation of Gordon’s “free ends” is supported by
Gordon’s teachings. See, e.g., Gordon Fig. 2. Moreover, the Examiner’s
finding is not rebutted by Appellant because Appellant did not file a Reply
Appeal 2019-002151
Application 14/472,547

5
Brief responding to the Answer. Accordingly, Appellant fails to apprise us
of error in the Examiner’s findings related to Gordon.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings related to Sano or
the rationale for the proposed modification to Gordon’s teachings.
Appellant contends that “both Gordon and Sano restrict a user from
accessing the fastener from both sides, effectively teaching away from the
ability to remove the fastener from either side.” Appeal Br. 11. This, too, is
unpersuasive of Examiner error, because, as the Examiner explains, “the
feature upon which Appellant relies (i.e., the device being removed from a
front of a panel or a rear of a panel) is not recited in the rejected claim 15.”
Ans. 3. Appellant does not argue dependent claims 16, 18, and 20
separately.
For at least these reasons, we are not apprised of error in the rejection
of claims 15, 16, 18, and 20.
Claims 1–3, 6–8, and 10–14
Claim 1 is independent. Claims 2, 3, 6–8, and 10–14 depend from
claim 1. The Examiner finds that Omata teaches everything recited in claim
1, other than “the first retention wing being generally triangular with an
inwardly curved back surface and a series of steps on an outer surface and at
least a portion of the first retention wing extend[ing] through the transverse
opening in the platform.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Yoshitake
and Igarashi teach the missing limitations and proposes modifying the
teachings of Omata accordingly. Id.
Appellant contends that “Omata does not disclose . . . the elongated
release arm extending through the opening . . . including the ability to
remove the aperture from either side of the panel after insertion.” Appeal
Appeal 2019-002151
Application 14/472,547

6
Br. 13. Specifically, Appellant contends that “[b]ecause the release arms are
not elongated, there is no ability to remove the fastener from the front
surface . . . of a panel in Omata.” Id. Appellant further contends that “the
engaging member disclosed in Omata would not permit a user to disengage
it from both sides of a panel” and “Omata teaches away from what is
disclosed in the Current Application.” Id.
Appellant’s contentions are unpersuasive. The Examiner explains that
although “Appellant argues that Omata does not disclose the elongated
release arms extending through the opening . . . the examiner modified the
elongated release arms of Omata to extend them beyond the opening as
taught by Yoshitake.” Ans. 5. With respect to the ability to disengage
Omata’s modified fastener from either side of the panel, the Examiner
explains that “[w]hen the release arms of Omata are modified to extend
beyond the upper surface as taught by Yoshitake, the combination clearly
allows the device to be removed from the upper side of a panel,” and
because “the wings could be squeezed together by a user from the lower side
of a panel it is configured to be disengaged from either side of a panel.” Id.
Because Appellant’s contentions do not address the actual findings made by
the Examiner, those contentions are not persuasive of error. As for
Appellant’s teaching away contention, we note that Appellant does not
allege that Omata teaches away from any particular modification proposed
by the Examiner.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings related to
Yoshitake or Igarashi, or the rationale for the modifications to Omata’s
teachings proposed by the Examiner. See Appeal Br. 13–14 (contending that
Appeal 2019-002151
Application 14/472,547

7
Yoshitake and Igarashi do not cure alleged deficiencies in the Examiner’s
findings related to Omata).
For at least these reasons, we are not apprised of error in the rejection
of claims 1–3, 6–8, and 10–14.
Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 1, and further recites that “the support
member comprises: (a) a pair of parallel arms that are formed onto and
extend orthogonally out from the rear surface of the platform; and (b) a
cross-member that extends transversely between the pair of parallel arms.”
The Examiner finds that Gordon teaches these additional features and
proposes further modifying Omata’s teachings accordingly. Final Act. 6.
Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive because they do not
address the particular findings or rationale presented by the Examiner. See
Appeal Br. 14–15.
For at least these reasons, we are not apprised of error in the rejection
of claim 5.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
Appeal 2019-002151
Application 14/472,547

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
15, 16, 18,
20
103 Gordon, Sano 15, 16, 18,
20

1–3, 6–8,
10–14
103 Omata, Yoshitake,
Igarashi
1–3, 6–8,
10–14

5 103 Omata, Yoshitake,
Igarashi, Gordon
5
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–8,
10–16, 18,
20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED