2019003194 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 2020)

Richter, Harald

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 2, 2020

2019003194 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 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. 14/283,111 05/20/2014 Harald Richter HG69 8403 27956 7590 11/02/2020 KLAUS J. BACH 4407 TWIN OAKS DRIVE MURRYSVILLE, PA 15668 EXAMINER LAFONTANT, GARY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2646 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/02/2020 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 HARALD RICHTER Appeal 2019-003194 Application 14/283,111 Technology Center 2600 Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, 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 1–8. 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 the inventor Harald Richter. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-003194 Application 14/283,111 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a plug module for a mobile telephone holder. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A universal plug module for use in connection with a universal mobile telephone holder (H), comprising: - a frame (1) for connection to the telephone holder (H), - a plug carrier block (2) and a replaceable plug holder insert (3) for removable installation in a plug carrier block (2), - the replaceable plug holder insert (3) having an accommodation opening (31) adapted specifically for the insertion of a certain charger plug or a certain data cable plug, and - a clamping element (4) for fixing the replaceable plug holder insert (3) together with the charger or data cable plug inserted into the plug holder insert (3) engaged in the plug carrier block (2). Appeal Br. 10 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES2 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Crooijmans US 7,580,255 B2 Aug. 25, 2009 Sikora WO 2011-047984 A2 Sept. 29, 2011 2 References are identified by their first named inventor. Appeal 2019-003194 Application 14/283,111 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1–8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sikora and Crooijmans. Final Act. 2. ANALYSIS The Examiner’s Findings and Conclusion of Obviousness The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over Sikora and Crooijmans. The Examiner finds that Sikora teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 except for that Sikora’s plug holder insert is not a replaceable plug holder insert, nor is it adapted for a certain charger plug or data cable plug as claimed. Final Act. 4. The Examiner addresses these deficiencies with the teachings of Crooijmans, finding that it “teaches about docking station[] that utilize[s] removable inserts that accommodate portable hand held devices with different sizes and shapes.” Final Act. 4 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds that Sikora and Crooijmans are analogous art, and that a person of skill in the art “could use Crooijmans [ ] so as to be able to modify inset type [of Sikora] in order to accommodate more phone chargers and plug[s] of different shapes and sizes.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner concludes “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to combine Sikora and Crooijmans as to obtain a flexible, modular phone adapter charger capable of accommodating multiple phone type[s].” Final Act. 4–5. Appellant’s Contentions Appellant argues the Examiner erred because “Crooijmans is deeply and only concerned with the mounting of tray-like inserts in the docking station so as to be easily replaceable” and that “the removable inserts are independent of the plug.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant further argues the inserts Appeal 2019-003194 Application 14/283,111 4 in Crooijmans “does not support or in [any way] engage the plug.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant further contends the cited references fail to teach or suggest “a clamping element (4) for fixing the replaceable plug holder insert (3) together with the charger or data cable plug inserted into the plug holder insert (3) engaged in the plug carrier block (2),” as recited in claim 1. Appellant argues Crooijmans describes only the use of “locking elements which only lock the insert to the docking station.” Appeal Br. 8. According to Appellant, “the references do not disclose or in any way suggest an arrangement wherein a single clamping element fixes a replaceable insert for accommodating different connector plugs in a telephone holder support and, at the same time, provides for engagement of a connector plug accommodated in the replaceable insert.” Reply Br. 3. Our Review We are not persuaded of error. Appellant’s arguments do not address the findings made by the Examiner, and the arguments generally attack the references individually, when the rejection was based what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner determines that Sikora teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, except for a plug holder insert that is replaceable, and adapted for a specific charger or data cable. The Examiner relies on Crooijmans as demonstrating that is was known to use removable inserts to accommodate portable hand held devices with different sizes and shapes, and such knowledge would have made it obvious to modify Sikora to include a replaceable insert to accommodate the different openings needed for specific types of chargers. Appeal 2019-003194 Application 14/283,111 5 Appellant’s argument that Crooijmans teaches that “the removable inserts are independent of the plug” (Appeal Br. 7) is not persuasive because the Examiner relies on Sikora, and not on Crooijmans, as teaching engagement with the plug. See Sikora ¶ 6 (“the plug projects into the device via the opening of the raised holder . . [t]he charging station is thus not tailored to a specific device, but allows adaptation.”). Appellant’s argument that the Crooijmans only teaches the use of locking elements which lock the insert, and not “a clamping element (4) for fixing the replaceable plug holder insert (3) together with the charger” is also not persuasive. The Examiner does not rely on Crooijman alone as teaching this element. As explained by the Examiner: [T]he rejection of the claims are performed according to the combination of Sikora and Crooijmans. Sikora teaches about clamping the plug cable by tapering the rectangular shaft- shaped holder. The plug goes through the plug holder opening from the bottom and it is engaged or secured through leaf spring or locking mechanism (See [0006-0007]). Meaning the replaceable plug insert being clamped in Crooijmans (See Column 8, lines (14 - 27)) also engaged the charger or data cable plug since the data cable plug is fix to the insert (See [0006- 0007]). Therefore the plug is engaged in the replaceable insert since the plug is fix through the plug holder insert and the clamping of the insert is also together with the charger and data cable. Ans. 7 (emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner’s explanation that the combined teachings of Sikora and Crooijmans teach or suggest the recited clamping element. Sikora teaches the use of clamping elements to hold the plug in place within non-replaceable the plug holder. Sikora ¶ 7. Crooijmans teaches “securing the [replaceable] insert to the docking station.” Crooijmans col. 8, l. 22. Taken together, the modification of Appeal 2019-003194 Application 14/283,111 6 Sikora to include a replaceable insert that accommodates different device shapes and sizes as taught by Crooijmans would result in clamping that would affix both the insert and the charger. Because we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of Examiner error, we sustain the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–8 103 Sikora, Crooijmans 1–8 AFFIRMED