Valinge Innovation AB

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 21, 2020

14573572 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 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.
14/573,572 12/17/2014 Christian BOO 1033462-000379 9596
21839 7590 04/21/2020
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
POST OFFICE BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404
EXAMINER
MCMAHON, MATTHEW R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3678
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/21/2020 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):
ADIPDOC1@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTIAN BOO
Appeal 2019-001582
Application 14/573,572
Technology Center 3600
Before DANIEL S. SONG, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
SONG, 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 1–21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). A telephonic oral hearing was conducted on April 2, 2020,
a transcript of which will be entered into the electronic record in due course.
We REVERSE.

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 VALINGE
INNOVATIONS AB. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001582
Application 14/573,572
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to furniture panel for an assembled product
such as a bookshelf. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter (emphasis added):
1. A furniture panel comprising a first element and a second
element which are configured to be locked together, wherein a
first main plane of the first element is essentially parallel to a
second main plane of the second element when the first element
and the second element are locked together, wherein the furniture
panel comprises a first face and an opposite second face which
are parallel to a main plane of the furniture panel when the first
element and the second element are locked together, and the first
element and the second element are provided with a mechanical
locking system, the mechanical locking system comprising:
a first tongue provided at a first edge of the first element,
wherein the first tongue is configured to cooperate with a first
tongue groove provided at a second edge of the second element
for locking together the first element and the second element in
a first direction perpendicular to the main plane of the furniture
panel, at least a portion of the first tongue groove being spaced
from the second face by a first lip extending from the second
element along a second direction parallel to the main plane of the
furniture panel;
a second tongue at the second edge of the second element,
wherein the second tongue is configured to cooperate with a
second tongue groove at the first edge of the first element for
locking together the first element and the second element in the
first direction, at least a portion of the second tongue groove
being spaced from the first face by a second lip extending from
the first element along the second direction;
a first pair of locking surfaces provided between (a) the
second tongue and the second tongue groove and (b) the first face
for locking together the first element and the second element in
the second direction; and
a second pair of locking surfaces provided between (a) the
first tongue and the first tongue groove and (b) the second face
Appeal 2019-001582
Application 14/573,572
3
for locking together the first element and the second element in
the second direction, wherein the second pair of locking surfaces
is offset in the second direction from the first pair of locking
surfaces.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Maertens US 2012/0027967 A1 Feb. 2, 2012
Lindauer2 CH 698 988 B1 Dec. 31, 2009
OPINION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Maertens in view of Lindauer. Final Act. 3. The
Examiner finds that Figure 14 of Maertens discloses a furniture panel
substantially as claimed, but fails to specifically disclose that “the second
pair of locking surfaces is offset in the horizontal direction from the first pair
of locking surfaces.” Final Act. 3–5; see also Final Act. 5, annotated Figure
14 of Maertens. The Examiner also finds that Lindauer discloses first and
second pairs of locking surfaces that are offset in a horizontal direction from
each other “for the purpose of securely engaging the first and second
element so as to provide a rigid and stable assembly.” Final Act. 5–6, citing
Lindauer, ¶ 15; Figs. 2, 3. Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to:
[have] modif[ied] the device of Maertens such that the second
pair of locking surfaces is offset in the second direction (i.e. the
horizontal direction) from the first pair of locking surfaces, as
taught by Lindauer for the purpose of more securely engaging
the first and second elements so as to provide a more rigid and
stable assembly, for example, by ensuring that a force applied at

2 Citations to the English translation of record.
Appeal 2019-001582
Application 14/573,572
4
one of the pairs of locking surfaces is offset from the other pair
of locking surfaces.
Final Act. 6.
According to the Examiner, “such a modification would amount to
substituting one known solution of engaging the first and second elements
for another to yield the predictable result of securely engaging the first and
second elements together.” Final Act. 6.
As to independent claims 1 and 19, the Appellant argues that the
rejection is “not based on the evidence of record, and is unsupported by
adequate rationale.” App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 4. Specifically, the Appellant
argues that paragraph 15 of Lindauer relied upon by the Examiner “refers to
the importance of the inelasticity of the first and second edges, not any
advantages due to the alleged offset locking surfaces.” App. Br. 13.
Accordingly, the Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reasoning is based on
impermissible hindsight because there is “no support for the Examiner’s
explanation in the prior art” and “increased stability is a contribution by the
inventor of this application.” Reply Br. 3, citing Spec. pg. 2, l. 4–pg. 3, l. 3;
see also Reply Br. 4 (“it is an explanation developed with benefit of the
Appellant’s disclosure, and not on the basis of facts gleaned from the prior
art.”).
The Appellant further argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not have modified Maertens in the manner suggested because such
modification would render Maertens unsuitable for its intended purpose.
App. Br. 15. In particular, the Appellant argues that:
Off[-]setting the locking surfaces in Maertens would weaken
the covering material 21, 22, because such material would no
longer be supported at the extremities. That is, with offset
locking surfaces, the profile of the elements 2, 3 would be much
Appeal 2019-001582
Application 14/573,572
5
further recessed, thus creating the situation where there would
be much less support for the covering material 21, 22.
App. Br. 14–15, citing Maertens ¶¶ 238–240.
The Examiner explains that “while paragraph [0015] of Lindauer does
refer to in elasticity of the first and second edges to provide rigidity of the
edges, the overall structure of the arrangement provides for a stable joint.”
Ans. 5, emphasis added. The Examiner also explains that the aligned pairs
of locking surfaces as disclosed in Maertens would allow for a force applied
at one of the pairs of locking surfaces to cause a rotation, separation, and
disengagement of the first and second elements, but the off-setting of the
pairs of locking surfaces such as in Lindauer would decrease such potential
separation force and “provid[e] a more rigid and stable joint.” Ans. 4–5,
referring to annotated Figure 14 of Maertens and annotated Figure 2 of
Lindauer. The Examiner further responds that the rejection is not based on
hindsight because it only “takes into account only knowledge which was
within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was
made,” and “Lindauer has been relied upon to teach a furniture panel having
offset locking surfaces. There would be no need to modify or eliminate any
other characteristics of the device of Maertens.” Ans. 7, emphasis added.
We find the Appellant has the better position. Paragraph 15 of
Lindauer relied upon by the Examiner merely states that the disclosed
configuration of the parts result in inelasticity of the first and second edges
to ensure that the connection is stable, even under high forces. Lindauer
¶ 15. However, Lindauer does not attribute attainment of such stable
connection to the illustrated offset of the locking surfaces, and instead,
attributes it to the overall configuration of the joints of the two edges. Thus,
without such teaching, it is unclear as to why one of ordinary skill in the art
Appeal 2019-001582
Application 14/573,572
6
would have extracted the illustrated off-setting characteristic shown in
Lindauer versus any other, or all other, characteristics of the Lindauer’s
illustrated joints.
In addition, as the Examiner acknowledges, the paragraphs of
Maertens cited by the Appellant “are concerned with the surfaces at the
corners and at contour courses 23 and 24 (see Fig. 17) being flat and further
that there are no portions of the edges that project above or below the
corners 27, 28 such that a flat surface is formed at the joint edges.” Ans. 6.
Nevertheless, according to the Examiner, there is no evidence to support the
Appellant’s assertion that the suggested modification to the locking surface
of Maertens would weaken the covering material 21, 22 or render it
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, and that “the locking surfaces of
Lindauer are also flat and are adequately supported at the edges.” Ans. 6–7.
The Examiner’s rebuttal explanation is not persuasive. The issue
being raised by the Appellant is not whether the locking surfaces of
Lindauer are also flat, but that upon modifying Maertens in the manner
suggested, at least the corner portions of the covering material 21, 22 of
Maertens would not be supported by the underlying board elements such that
they extend beyond the board elements. The Appellant is correct in that
regard. Accordingly, as the Appellant further explains, if the furniture panel
of Maertens is modified to have offset locking surfaces, “Maertens’ covering
material 21, 22 would lack support at the extremities in the proposed
combination, which Maertens contraindicates.” Reply Br. 7. The Examiner
does not adequately address the Appellant’s argument.
Therefore, in view of the above considerations, we do not find the
Examiner’s rejection to be adequately supported by rational underpinnings,
and we reverse the rejection as to independent claims 1 and 19. The
Appeal 2019-001582
Application 14/573,572
7
Appellant relies on dependency on independent claim 1 or 19 in asserting
patentability of the remaining dependent claims. App. Br. 17. Therefore,
we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these dependent claims as well.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–21 is REVERSED.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–21 103 Maertens, Lindauer 1–21

REVERSED