Wayne Sokoly

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 15, 2020

2019006703 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 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.
15/937,049 03/27/2018 Wayne Sokoly MSH-1155 1149
8131 7590 09/15/2020
MCKELLAR IP LAW, PLLC
784 SOUTH POSEYVILLE ROAD
MIDLAND, MI 48640
EXAMINER
WUJCIAK, ALFRED J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3632
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/15/2020 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 WAYNE SOKOLY

Appeal 2019-006703
Application 15/937,049
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before DANIEL S. SONG, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, 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, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the
inventor. See Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006703
Application 15/937,049

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates generally to equipment hangers,
[and] especially equipment hangers that can be used for hunting and
camping.” Spec. 1:11–12. Apparatus claim 1 is the sole independent claim,
is illustrative of the claims on appeal, and is reproduced below.
1. A utility hanger assembly, said assembly comprising a
unitary structure comprised of:
a. a back wall, said back wall comprising a flat plate
having a front surface, a back surface and two openings through
said back wall, said back wall having four corners, said back
wall having four integrally mounted spikes projecting rearward
from said back surface, one from each said corner, said front
surface having a top edge, and, projecting forwardly from said
front surface top edge,
b. an extended arm with a terminating hook.
EVIDENCE
Name Reference Date
Rhodes et al. (“Rhodes”) US 2,687,836 Aug. 31, 1954
Bogaerts US 5,522,187 June 4, 1996
Zupan et al. (“Zupan”) US 5,885,024 Mar. 23, 1999
Plowman US 2007/0108357 A1 May 17, 2007
REJECTIONS
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Zupan
and Bogaerts.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Zupan,
Bogaerts, and Plowman.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Zupan,
Bogaerts, and Rhodes.
Appeal 2019-006703
Application 15/937,049

3
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Zupan,
Bogaerts, Rhodes, and Plowman.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Bogaerts and Zupan.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Bogaerts, Zupan, and Plowman.2
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Bogaerts, Zupan, and Rhodes.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Bogaerts, Zupan, Rhodes, and Plowman.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claim 1
as unpatentable over Zupan and Bogaerts
In this rejection, the Examiner primarily relies on the teachings of
Zupan for disclosing nearly all the limitations of claim 1, with the exception
that Zupan “fails to teach more than two integrally mounted spikes.” Final
Act. 3. The Examiner relies on the additional reference to Bogaerts for this
teaching. Final Act. 3. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to combine Zupan with Bogaerts so as “to provide additional
gripping surface for mounting on an object.” Final Act. 3 (referencing
Bogaerts 4:4).

2 The Examiner’s rejection does not list Zupan but instead states the
rejection is “over Bogae[r]ts in view of and in further view of” Plowman.
Final Act. 4. We understand the Examiner’s failure to list Zupan is an
oversight. Appellant also understands the Examiner to have relied on Zupan
for this rejection. See Appeal Br. 5.
Appeal 2019-006703
Application 15/937,049

4
Appellant contends that “Zupan is non-analogous art” because “it
deals with a roof tile tie down clip as opposed to the instant invention which
is a utility hanger.” Appeal Br. 3. Appellant contends that this is “two
completely different uses.” Appeal Br. 3.
The Examiner responds that “Zupan’s device is in the same field of”
endeavor as Appellant’s invention “because the appellant is very broad with
[the] term hanger.” Ans. 6, 7. The Examiner also provides a dictionary
definition of “hanger” as “one that hangs or causes to be hung or hanged.”
Ans. 6 (referencing “Merria[m] Webster’s Dictionary online (www.m-
w.com)”). Neither party addresses the other prong of the analogous art test,
i.e., pertinent to the particular problem encountered by the inventor. See K-
TEC, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp., 696 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Appellant’s Specification employs the term “hanger” in a somewhat
broad manner. For example, as expressed above, Appellant states that the
invention relates to “equipment hangers,” but more specifically for “hunting
and camping” purposes.3 Spec. 1:11–12. Elsewhere, Appellant employs the
term “hanger” in reference to “U.S. Patent 6,182,933 issued to Rapp”
(hereinafter “Rapp”). Spec. 1:19–20. Rapp is entitled “Friction-Mountable
Hanger” and is used “for hanging an object” from a cantilevered projection.
See Rapp Title, Abstract. Appellant’s Specification also refers to the term
“hanger” when discussing U.S. 5,337,986 which Appellant describes as “a
post mounted hanger for plants.” Spec. 1:21–23. What all these usages
have in common, however, is the hanging or the suspending of an object

3 Appellant’s Specification states, “the hangers of the instant invention are
constructed for use during bow hunting for game and the hunter can hang
any equipment on the arm 8 and hook 9.” Spec. 3:6–8.
Appeal 2019-006703
Application 15/937,049

5
from a support. This is also consistent with the Examiner’s proffered
dictionary definition above.
Zupan, on the other hand, is entitled “Roof Tile Tie Down Clip.”
Zupan Title. It is “for securing a roof tile to the surface of a roof.” Zupan
Abstract. Zupan’s clips are used to apply a downward force against the tile
to compress or hold the tile against a roof during installation. See Zupan
5:29–53. Zupan also discusses the use of these clips to counteract uplifting
forces in areas of “high winds that can act against exposed surfaces of the
tile.” Zupan 6:20–24. Zupan is silent, however, as to any usage or
suitability as a hanger for hanging or suspending an object therefrom
(consistent with how this term is used in Appellant’s Specification and the
cited dictionary definition). As such, the Examiner’s contention that
“Zupan’s device is designed to hang the roof tiles on the roof” (Ans. 6) is
not a correct interpretation of Zupan, because there is no disclosure in Zupan
that roof tiles “hang” (or are suspended) from the tie down clip.
Consequently, it is not apparent that Zupan’s clip can be properly
characterized as a “hanger” (as this claim term is understood in view of
Appellant’s Specification and the cited dictionary definition) such that
Zupan’s and Appellant’s devices can reasonably be deemed to be in the
same field of endeavor.
The Examiner’s further reliance on Bogaerts does not cure this defect.
See Final Act. 3. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim
1 as being obvious over the combination of Zupan and Bogaerts.

Appeal 2019-006703
Application 15/937,049

6
The rejection of (a) claim 2 as unpatentable over Zupan, Bogaerts, and
Plowman; (b) claim 3 as unpatentable over Zupan, Bogaerts, and Rhodes;
and, (c) claim 4 as unpatentable over Zupan, Bogaerts, Rhodes, and
Plowman
The Examiner relies on the additional reference to Plowman for
teaching the use of “soft polymeric material” and on Rhodes for teaching
“two arms.” Final Act. 3; see also id. at 4. Such usage does not cure the
defect with respect to the primary reference to Zupan discussed above.
Thus, we likewise reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–4 as being
obvious in view of the above cited combinations of Zupan, Bogaerts,
Rhodes, and Plowman.
The rejection of claim 1
as unpatentable over Bogaerts and Zupan
In this rejection, the Examiner primarily relies on the teachings of
Bogaerts, but acknowledges that Bogaerts “fails to teach two openings.”
Final Act. 4. The Examiner relies on the additional reference to Zupan for
such teachings and provides a reason for their combination. See Final Act.
4.
Appellant contends that “the [E]xaminer has missed the intent of the
openings.” Appeal Br. 5. We understand Appellant as contending, on a
more basic level, that Bogaerts’ teachings and Appellant’s teachings are
different and address different matters. There is merit to this understanding
because Bogaerts, like Zupan above, is directed to a tie down clip for roof
tiles. See generally Bogaerts; see also Bogaerts 1:21–27 (“The most
important function of tile hooks is to prevent the tiles rattling and falling
from the roof when the wind force is high . . . that is to say that in the event
of strong wind suction there is a risk of the tiles rattling and coming loose.”).
Appeal 2019-006703
Application 15/937,049

7
Bogaerts’ clips operate in the same manner discussed above with
respect to Zupan, i.e., they apply a downward force to compress or hold roof
tiles against a roof. See Bogaerts 4:10–15. Likewise, Bogaerts is silent as to
any usage as a hanger for hanging or suspending roof tiles from the roof.
Accordingly, for similar reasons already expressed, the Examiner’s reliance
on Bogaerts for disclosing the recited “hanger” is not supportable. Further,
and as noted above, Zupan does not cure this defect. We reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being obvious over Bogaerts and Zupan.
The rejection of (a) claim 2 as unpatentable over Bogaerts, Zupan, and
Plowman; (b) claim 3 as unpatentable over Bogaerts, Zupan, and Rhodes;
and, (c) claim 4 as unpatentable over Bogaerts, Zupan, Rhodes, and
Plowman
The Examiner’s further reliance on Plowman and Rhodes does not
cure the defect with respect to the primary reference to Bogaerts above.
Thus, we likewise reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–4 as being
obvious in view of the above cited combinations of Bogaerts, Zupan,
Rhodes, and Plowman.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 103 Zupan, Bogaerts 1
2 103 Zupan, Bogaerts,
Plowman
2
3 103 Zupan, Bogaerts,
Rhodes
3
4 103 Zupan, Bogaerts,
Rhodes, Plowman
4
1 103 Bogaerts, Zupan 1
Appeal 2019-006703
Application 15/937,049

8
2 103 Bogaerts, Zupan,
Plowman
2
3 103 Bogaerts, Zupan,
Rhodes
3
4 103 Bogaerts, Zupan,
Rhodes, Plowman
4
Overall
Outcome
1–4

REVERSED