Robert Akin

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 18, 2020

2020002074 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 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.
15/793,196 10/25/2017 Robert A. Akin JR. AKN-1 2179
73994 7590 09/18/2020
Daniel R. Brown
57 Stagecoach Road
Fort Worth, TX 76244
EXAMINER
COX, JUSTIA Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3736
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/18/2020 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 ROBERT A. AKIN, JR.
____________

Appeal 2020-002074
Application 15/793,196
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
CARL M. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–16. 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 as Robert A. Akin, Jr.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-002074
Application 15/793,196

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 10 are independent claims. Claim 1 illustrates the
claimed subject matter.
1. A humidor with improved moisture control, comprising:
a box having a flat base with plural lower sides extending
upwardly therefrom;
a cover having a top with plural upper sides extending
downwardly therefrom;
a box liner comprising plural lower panels
correspondingly disposed adjacent said plural lower sides, each
of said plural lower panels having an upper edge;
a cover liner comprising plural upper panels
correspondingly disposed adjacent said plural upper sides, each
of said plural upper panels having a lower edge, and wherein
said plural upper edges and said plural lower edges have
a curvilinear cross section profile, generally following an “S”
shape, which defines a convex cylindrical portion joined with a
concave cylindrical portion along each of said plural lower
edges and each of said plural upper edges, and wherein
said lower edges profiles and said upper edges profiles
are aligned to cooperatively and correspondingly engage said
concave cylindrical portions with said convex cylindrical
portions between said upper edges and said lower edges while
said cover is disposed on said box, to thereby form a circuitous
path between said upper edges and said lower edges against the
movement of air and moisture.
Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.).

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–4, 6, 9–12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Barrerio (US 5,970,987, issued Oct. 26, 1999) and Beattie
(US 6,752,092 B2, June 22, 2004).
Appeal 2020-002074
Application 15/793,196

3
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Barreiro, Beattie, and Green (US 7,287,306 B1, issued Oct. 30, 2007).
Claims 7, 8, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Barreiro, Beattie, and Krawec (US 6,116,029, Sept. 12,
2000).

ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Barrerio and Beattie (Claims 1–4, 6, 9–12, and 16)
Claims 1–4, 6, and 9
Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “a box liner comprising plural lower
panels . . . each of said plural lower panels having an upper edge,” “a cover
liner comprising plural upper panels . . . each of said plural upper panels
having a lower edge,” and “said plural upper edges and said plural lower
edges have a curvilinear cross section profile, generally following an ‘S’
shape, which defines a convex cylindrical portion joined with a concave
cylindrical portion along each of said plural lower edges and each of said
plural upper edges.” Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
Claim 1 further requires that:
said lower edges profiles and said upper edges profiles
are aligned to cooperatively and correspondingly engage said
concave cylindrical portions with said convex cylindrical
portions between said upper edges and said lower edges while
said cover is disposed on said box, to thereby form a circuitous
path between said upper edges and said lower edges against the
movement of air and moisture.
Id. (emphasis added).
Appellant’s Figure 5 shows a humidor comprising a box liner
including lower panels 7 each having an upper edge 11, and a cover liner
Appeal 2020-002074
Application 15/793,196

4
including upper panels 9 each having a lower edge 13. See Fig. 5, Spec.
¶ 48. Figure 6 shows an edge 30 having a curvilinear cross-sectional profile
of a generally “S” shape, with a convex cylindrical portion 32 and a concave
cylindrical portion 34. See Fig. 6, Spec. ¶ 50. Figure 7 shows liners
including an upper panel 43 engaging a lower panel 41 along cooperative
curvilinear edges 47 and 45, where the curvilinear edges are mated such that
the concave and convex cylindrical portions engage one another, thereby
providing a circuitous path. See Fig. 7, Spec. ¶ 51.
The Examiner finds that Barreiro discloses a humidor comprising a
box including lower sides (side walls 18) and a cover (lid 22) including
upper sides. Final Act. 3. The Examiner relies on Beattie as teaching a box
liner and a cover liner (inner shell 46). Id.; see also Ans. 21 (“[T]here is no
assertion that Barreiro discloses a liner. Beattie . . . is used to modify
Barreiro—in part—to add the use of a liner.”). The Examiner finds that
Beattie’s box liner and cover liner comprise respective upper edges and
lower edges that include each of the recited limitations of the upper and
lower edges. Final Act. 3; see also id. at 6 (annotated Beattie Figure 3).
Appellant contends, inter alia, that Beattie does not teach a box liner
and a cover liner comprising upper and lower edges, each having a
curvilinear cross section profile, generally following an “S” shape, which
defines convex and concave cylindrical portions, as required by claim 1.
Ans. 19–21. Beattie discloses a labyrinthine gasket seal between bottom
element 10 and top element 12. Beattie, col. 3, ll. 58–59. As to the gasket
seal, Appellant notes that inner shell 46 of top element 12 has an inner ridge
52 surrounded by an intermediate groove 54, in turn surrounded by an outer
ridge 56. Appeal Br. 20 (citing Beattie, Figs. 2–5). Appellant further notes
Appeal 2020-002074
Application 15/793,196

5
that outer shell 34 of bottom element 10 has a ridge 58 surmounted by a
rounded rib 60, both surrounding well 42 and defining an upper edge 61. Id.
(citing Beattie, Figs. 1, 3, 4). Outer shell 34 includes an outer contact
surface 65 that opposes outer ridge 56 of inner shell 46 when container 14 is
closed, as shown in Figure 4. Id. In inner shell 46, a gasket 62 including a
contact surface 67 is press-fit into groove 54 for mating against rib 60 to
form a fire- and water-resistant seal when container 14 is closed, as shown in
Figure 4. Id. Appellant contends that Figure 6 of Beattie shows that ridge
58 is not curvilinear in shape and does not follow an “S” shape, as claimed.
Id. Appellant further contends that, as shown in Figure 5 of Beattie,
intermediate groove 54 and outer ridge 56 do not satisfy the claim
limitations that the lower edges profiles and the upper edges profiles are
aligned to cooperatively and correspondingly engage the concave cylindrical
portions with the convex cylindrical portions between the upper edges and
lower edges while the cover is disposed on the box, because intermediate
groove 54 and outer ridge 56 do not possess the requisite shape. Id.
Appellant’s contentions are persuasive. As shown in Figures 5 and 6
of Beattie, both outer contact surface 65 of bottom element 10 and outer
ridge 56 of top element 12, which oppose each other when container 14 is
closed (Fig. 4), are linear surfaces, not curved surfaces. Further, contact
surface 67 of top element 12 appears to also be flat. As described in Beattie,
contact surface 65, outer ridge 56, contact surface 67, and rib 60 form the
seal when the cover is closed. We agree with Appellant that neither outer
ridge 56 and contact surface 67 provided on top element 12 nor contact
surface 65 and rib 50 provided on bottom element 10 generally follows an
Appeal 2020-002074
Application 15/793,196

6
“S” shape, much less also defining convex and concave cylindrical portions
that “cooperatively and correspondingly engage,” as required by claim 1.
Annotated Beattie Figure 3 includes the annotations “curvilinear cross
section ‘s’ shape” and two associated arrows. Final Act. 3. The lower arrow
points to the portion of bottom element 10 in the vicinity of rib 60 and outer
ridge 65 as having a curvilinear “S” shape. Id. As discussed above,
however, we disagree that Figure 3 or Figure 6 shows this region of bottom
element 10 having “a curvilinear cross section profile, generally following
an ‘S’ shape, which defines a convex cylindrical portion joined with a
concave cylindrical portion,” as claimed.
As also shown in Annotated Beattie Figure 3, the upper arrow points
to the surface identified by reference number 46 in Figure 5 of Beattie. See
Final Act. 3; Beattie, Fig. 5. It is Appellant’s position that this surface is not
even part of the edge, but rather, is a cross sectional view of the blow-
molded interior of the top element 12. Appeal Br. 20–21. But even if this
drawing line of top element 10 represents a surface having a general “S”
shape, as the Examiner submits, this surface does not “cooperatively and
correspondingly engage” the region of bottom element 10 that the Examiner
has annotated “curvilinear cross section ‘s’ shape,” which can be seen by
comparing Figure 3 with Figures 4–6 of Beattie. As such, the claim
limitation that the lower and upper edge profiles engage the concave
cylindrical portions with the convex cylindrical portions while the cover is
disposed on the box would not be satisfied by the “curvilinear cross section
‘s’ shape[s]” identified by the Examiner.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or dependent claims
2–4, 6, and 9.
Appeal 2020-002074
Application 15/793,196

7
Claims 10–12, and 16
Claim 10 is directed to a box comprising, inter alia, an upper portion
terminated by a lower edge that engages a lower portion terminated by an
upper edge, wherein the upper and lower edges have “a curvilinear cross
section, generally following an ‘S’ shape,” with limitations similar to those
recited in claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 10, or dependent
claims 11, 12, and 16, for reasons similar to those discussed for claim 1.

Obviousness over Barreiro, Beattie, and Green (Claims 5 and 13)
Obviousness over Barreiro, Beattie, and Krawec (Claims 7, 8, 14, and 15)
The Examiner does not rely on Green or Krawec to cure the
deficiency in the rejection of claim 1 or 10. Final Act. 17–20. Thus, we do
not sustain the rejections of claims 5, 7, 8, and 13–15 for the same reasons as
for claims 1 and 10.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6, 9–12,
and 16
103 Barreiro, Beattie 1–4, 6, 9–
12, and 16
5, 13 103 Barreiro, Beattie,
Green
5, 13
7, 8, 14, 15 103 Barreiro, Beattie,
Krawec
7, 8, 14, 15
Overall
Outcome
1–16

REVERSED