AVDEL UK LIMITED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 23, 2021

2021002607 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2021)

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.
15/884,808 01/31/2018 Carl HERSANT AV443 7278
28268 7590 09/23/2021
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.
701 East Joppa Road, MR045
Towson, MD 21286
EXAMINER
SALONE, BAYAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3726
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2021 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 CARL HERSANT

Appeal 2021-002607
Application 15/884,808
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–14 and 16–20.2 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. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Avdel
UK Limited. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claim 15 is cancelled. Appeal Br., Claims App.
Appeal 2021-002607
Application 15/884,808

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
The Appellant’s “invention relates to rivets (more accurately, rivet
assemblies), for fastening workpiece members.” Spec. ¶ 2. “More
particularly, it relates to blind rivets of the break-stem type.” Id. The rivets
“are capable of providing locked fastening, i.e.[,] a type of fastening
whereby parts of the rivets are locked together to reduce or eliminate relative
movement between those parts independently or in addition to interactions
due to the fastening itself.” Id.
Claims 1 and 18 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A rivet for fastening workpiece members, the rivet
comprising:
a body comprising a shank extending in a first,
longitudinal direction and a head extending in a second,
substantially transversal direction, the head being radially
enlarged relative to the shank, a bore being defined through the
shank and the head; and,
a stem comprising a main longitudinal portion arranged
for insertion into said bore, and an enlarged portion arranged
for radially expanding the shank when the enlarged portion is
forced into said bore to fasten the workpiece members;
the rivet being configured for insertion into
respective apertures formed in the workpiece members; and
wherein the rivet being further configured such
that when the workpiece members are fastened, the head of the
body of the rivet undergoes displacement relative to the shank
to engage with the stem to lock the stem in place relative to the
body and/or the workpiece members, and
wherein the displacement of the head is due to a
deformation of the shank.

Appeal 2021-002607
Application 15/884,808

3

Rejections3
Claims 1–14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as
failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1–12, 14, 16, and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Jeal et al. (US 4,765,010, iss. Aug. 23, 1988)
(“Jeal”).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jeal
and Wright (US 4,904,133, iss. Feb. 27, 1990).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jeal
and Davies et al. (US 8,096,742 B2, iss. Jan. 17, 2012) (“Davies”).

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1–14, 16, and 17 as failing to comply with the
written description requirement
The Appellant argues, contrary to the Examiner’s finding, that the
Specification and Drawings reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant
art that the inventor had possession of “wherein the displacement of the head
is due to a deformation of the shank,” as recited in independent claim 1. See
Appeal Br. 7–8 (citing Spec. ¶ 54, Figs. 1, 7); see also id. at 4, 6 (citing
Spec. ¶¶ 39, 40, 47, 49, Figs. 1–7). The Appellant asserts that “head 21
can’t possibly pivot relative to the shaft without deformation of the shank.”
Id. at 8.
It is the Examiner’s position that “the [S]pecification implies that
displacement of the head of the rivet is due to engagement of the installation

3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1–14, 16, and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. Ans. 11.
Appeal 2021-002607
Application 15/884,808

4

tool with the head of the rivet.” Ans. 11–12; see Final Act. 2–3 (citing Spec.
¶¶ 53–54, Figs. 5–6). The Examiner explains that from the disclosure in
paragraphs 53 and 54 of the Specification and Figures 5 and 6, “it appears
the displacement of the ‘head’ of the rivet is caused by engagement of the
head 21 with the installation tool 51 and the stem 15, as the stem is drawn
towards the rivet head 21.” Final Act. 3 (emphasis added). The Examiner’s
explanation implies a construction of “due to,” in “wherein the displacement
of the head is due to a deformation of the shank” as recited in independent
claim 1, as meaning caused by.
Although the Examiner’s construction is reasonable, it does not strike
us as the broadest reasonable interpretation of “wherein the displacement of
the head is due to a deformation of the shank,” as recited in independent
claim 1, in light of the Specification. The phrase “due to” may also be
understood as because of or a result of. Figures 2–7 depict different stages
of the setting operation of rivet assembly 11 in apertures 19 of workpiece
members 191, 192. As shown in these figures, shank 17 of rivet body 13
deforms initially, and later head 21 of the rivet is later displaced.
Accordingly, we understand the written description to disclose the
displacement of the head as because of and/or a result of a deformation of
the shank.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 and dependent claims 2–14, 16, and 17.

The rejection of claims 1–12, 14, 16, and 18–20 as anticipated by Jeal
The Appellant argues claims 1–12, 14, 16, and 18–20 as a group. See
Appeal Br. 10–11. We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this
Appeal 2021-002607
Application 15/884,808

5

group. Claims 2–12, 14, 16, and 18–20 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Appellant asserts that Jeal’s head 18 corresponds to the “head” as
required by claim 1, suggests that collar 58 alone is what the rejection relies
on as the claimed “head,” and contends that collar 58 “is merely a portion of
Jeal’s head.” Appeal Br. 10–11. The Appellant also contends that Jeal’s
collar 58 “arguably does not extend transverse to the shank and is not
radially enlarged relative to the shank as required by the claimed head.” Id.
at 11. The Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive.
The Examiner finds that Jeal’s head 18, which includes collar 58,
corresponds to the “head” of claim 1. See Ans. 12; Final Act. 5–6.
Specifically, the Examiner finds:
head 18, 58 (locking collar 58 is integrally formed with the
radially extending portion 182 of the rivet head 18 and is thus
construed to be part of the head 18 of the rivet 180) extending
in a second, substantially transversal direction, the head 18
being radially enlarged relative to the shank.
Ans. 12 (citing Jeal, Figs. 7–9). The Examiner’s finding is adequately
supported.
The Appellant also contends that Jeal fails to teach “a head that
deforms relative the shank due to a deformation of the shank and one that
extends transverse to the shank and is radially enlarged relative to the shank
as claimed” because “Jeal intends for collar 58 to be loaded and deform
independently and distinctly from the remainder of head 18.” Appeal Br. 11
(citing Jeal, col. 12, 11. 8–15). The Appellant’s contention is not persuasive.
Claim 1 calls for the displacement of the head. See supra (Claim 1).
Claim 1 does not call for a specific portion of the head to undergo
displacement; more specifically, claim 1 does not call for a portion of the
Appeal 2021-002607
Application 15/884,808

6

head that extends in a transverse direction and/or is radially enlarged relative
to the shank to undergo displacement. See Appeal Br. 11. Accordingly, the
Appellant’s contention that a portion of Jeal’s head 18, not including
collar 58, must undergo deformation to correspond to the “head” of claim 1
implies a construction of the claim that is not commensurate with the claim’s
scope.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 as
anticipated by Jeal. Claims 2–12, 14, 16, and 18–20 fall with claim 1. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

The rejections of claim 13 as unpatentable over Jeal and Wright and
claim 17 as unpatentable over Jeal and Davies
The Appellant does not separately argue the rejections of dependent
claim 13 as unpatentable over Jeal and Wright, and dependent claim 17 as
unpatentable over Jeal and Davies. We likewise sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of dependent claims 13 and 17.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–14, 16, 17 112(a) Written Description

1–14, 16, 17
1–12, 14, 16,
18–20
102(a)(1) Jeal 1–12, 14, 16,
18–20

13 103 Jeal, Wright 13
17 103 Jeal, Davies 17
Overall
Outcome
1–14, 16–20

Appeal 2021-002607
Application 15/884,808

7

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED