Sunit Saxena et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 23, 2020

2020002390 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 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.
11/945,231 11/26/2007 Sunit Saxena 364930-991200 7006
26379 7590 12/23/2020
DLA PIPER LLP (US )
2000 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
EAST PALO ALTO, CA 94303-2248
EXAMINER
JUNGE, KRISTINA N S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2020 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):
PatentDocketingUS-PaloAlto@dlapiper.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUNIT SAXENA and SHAN KUMAR
Appeal 2020-002390
Application 11/945,231
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JAMES P. CALVE, and
BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, 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 and 6–20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Altierre, Inc. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-002390
Application 11/945,231

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is directed to a device “for displaying one or
more display devices” that “may be easily attached to existing bays of the
shelves in a store with existing C-channels or . . . can be pre-built into the
shelves during manufacturing time.” Spec. 1:6, 3:4–6. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A shelf edge device, comprising:
a shelf edge rail device having a first end and a second
end rotatably mounted at the first end and the second end on a
shelf edge that has an adjustable angular position, the shelf edge
rail device capable of retaining two or more display devices at
an angle based on a height of the shelf relative to a floor of a
store;
the shelf edge rail device further comprising a C-shaped
mounting channel having a curved non-resilient top portion and
a curved non-resilient bottom portion that protect the two or
more display devices from damage, the C-shaped mounting
channel into which the two or more display devices are snapped
and a mounting bracket located at each one end of the mounting
channel that secures the mounting channel to a shelf, the
mounting bracket having a ratcheting mechanism and a set of
teeth wherein the ratcheting mechanism and the set of teeth
cooperate to maintain the shelf edge rail device in a particular
adjustable angular position; and
a biasing strip located inside of the mounting channel that
presses a display device in the mounting channel outward
against at least one of the curved top portion and the curved
bottom portion of the C-shaped mounting channel to securely
hold the display device in the mounting channel.
Appeal 2020-002390
Application 11/945,231

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Dalton US 6,000,611 Dec. 14, 1999
Kump US 6,119,990 Sept. 19, 2000
Gay US 6,302,282 B1 Oct. 16, 2001
Lowry US 2005/0193612 A1 Sept. 8, 2005

REJECTIONS
Claims 10–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12–18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dalton, Kump, and Lowry.
Claims 8, 11, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dalton, Kump, Lowry, and, Gay.
OPINION
Indefiniteness
The Examiner rejects claims 10–20 as being indefinite because,
according to the Examiner, it is unclear whether the second occurrence of
“C-shaped channel” in claim 10 refers back to the first occurrence of this
term. Final Act. 2. Appellant does not present any arguments contesting
this rejection. See Appeal Br. 3 (listing only the rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as grounds of rejection to be reviewed on appeal); id. at
4–5 (presenting arguments only against the rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)); see also Ans. 3 (confirming that the Examiner has not
withdrawn the indefiniteness rejection). Thus, Appellant has waived any
argument of error in the indefiniteness rejection, which we summarily
Appeal 2020-002390
Application 11/945,231

4
sustain. See In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984, 985 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding
that the Board did not err in sustaining a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, when the applicant failed to contest the rejection on
appeal); Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02 (9th ed.
rev. 08.2017 Jan. 2018) (“If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is
not addressed in the appellant’s brief, appellant has waived any challenge to
that ground of rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it, unless the
examiner subsequently withdrew the rejection in the examiner’s answer.”).
Obviousness—Dalton, Kump, and Lowry
The Examiner finds that Dalton discloses a shelf edge device
comprising most of the features recited in independent claims 1 and 10,
including, in relevant part, “a c-shaped mounting channel (Figure 2, #40)
having a curved non-resilient top portion and a curved non-resilient bottom
portion (Figure 4, curved top portion of #40 near θ, curved bottom portion
near #78) that protects a display device from damage.” Final Act. 3, see id.
at 6. The Examiner finds that “Dalton does not teach that the device is as
long as a shelf edge and can hold multiple electronic displays, or the
structure of the biasing strip.” Id. at 4, 7.
The Examiner relies on Kump for its teaching of “a shelf edge device
with a first end and a second end mounted at the first end and the second end
of a shelf edge, the device capable of retaining two or more display devices.”
Id. (determining it would have been obvious to incorporate Kump’s
teachings into Dalton to accommodate display devices for multiple products
on a shelf, provide one convenient rail edge for attaching all devices, and
provide as many rotatably mounting arrangements as necessary at ends and
Appeal 2020-002390
Application 11/945,231

5
in the middle of the rail to securely connect the device and the shelf edge).
Appellant does not contest this aspect of the rejection. See Appeal Br. 4–5.
The Examiner finds that
Lowry teaches a shelf edge device with a biasing strip
(Figure 4, #22) located inside of a mounting channel (Figure 4,
#12) that presses a display device in the mounting channel
outward against at least one of a curved top portion (Figure 4,
#14) and a curved bottom portion (Figure 4, #16) to securely
hold the display device in the mounting channel (end of ¶0026).
Final Act. 4, 7. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to
incorporate Lowry’s teachings into Dalton “in order to provide a secure
connection in the mounting channel to limit movement of the display device
therein, as well as to assist in securely holding the display device in place
with the aid of curved edges.” Id.
Appellant argues that Lowry’s mounting channel is mostly flat with
resilient lips 14, 16. Appeal Br. 5. Thus, Appellant contends that
Lowry fails to disclose the mounting channel with the non-
resilient top and bottom portions and the claimed biasing strip
that presses a display device in the mounting channel outward
against at least one of the curved top portion and curved bottom
portion to securely hold the display device in the mounting
channel.
Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant’s argument appears to attack Lowry individually, rather
than the combination of Dalton and Lowry. “Non-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981)). As the Examiner points out, and as discussed above, the
Appeal 2020-002390
Application 11/945,231

6
Examiner finds that Dalton discloses a c-shaped mounting channel with a
curved non-resilient top portion and a curved non-resilient bottom portion,
and, thus, “Lowry is not being relied upon for this limitation.” Ans. 3.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Dalton’s
mounting channel has a curved non-resilient top portion and curved non-
resilient bottom portion, nor does Appellant specifically contest the
Examiner’s reasoning in combining Lowry’s resilient biasing strip with
Dalton. Thus, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 10.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 10 as
unpatentable over Dalton, Kump, and Lowry. We also sustain the rejection
of dependent claims 2–4, 6, 7, 9, 12–18, and 20, for which Appellant relies
solely on the argument presented for claims 1 and 10 (Appeal Br. 5), as
unpatentable over Dalton, Kump, and Lowry. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Obviousness—Dalton, Kump, Lowry, and Gay
In contesting this rejection, Appellant argues only that “Gay does not
cure the disclosure defects of Dalton and Kump and Lowry” asserted by
Appellant in contesting the rejection of claims 1 and 10. Appeal Br. 5. For
the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s argument fails to apprise us of
error in the rejection of claims 1 and 10 and, likewise, fails to apprise us of
error in the rejection of claims 8, 11, and 19 as unpatentable over Dalton,
Kump, Lowry, and Gay, which we also sustain.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED.
Appeal 2020-002390
Application 11/945,231

7
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
10–20 112, second
paragraph
Indefiniteness 10–20
1–4, 6, 7, 9,
10, 12–18,
20
103(a) Dalton, Kump,
Lowry
1–4, 6, 7, 9,
10, 12–18,
20

8, 11, 19 103(a) Dalton, Kump,
Lowry, Gay
8, 11, 19
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–20

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