Blue Box Toy Factory Limited

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 11, 2020

2020003615 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 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.
15/841,800 12/14/2017 Maureen O'Connor Salazar BLUBX-297A 2738
7663 7590 12/11/2020
STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER
75 ENTERPRISE, SUITE 250
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656
EXAMINER
THEIS, MATTHEW T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3734
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/11/2020 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 MAUREEN O'CONNOR SALAZAR,
STACY ALYCIA THOMAS CASTRO,
and LESLIE ANN ROEDER
____________

Appeal 2020-003615
Application 15/841,800
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before DANIEL S. SONG, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision in the Final Office Action (dated Feb. 21, 2019, hereinafter “Final
Act.”) rejecting claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Blue Box Toy Factory Limited is identified as the real
party in interest in Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed Oct. 1, 2019, hereinafter
“Appeal Br.”). Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-003615
Application 15/841,800

2

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to “an infant carrier which is outfitted
with a selectively deployable flap arrangement to allow for adjustability to
the effective width of the seat portion of the carrier.” Spec. para. 4.
Claims 1, 10, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. An adjustable infant carrier wearable by a user for
carrying an infant, the infant carrier comprising:
a main body panel at least partially defining a seat
portion;
a bib panel disposed in at least partially overlapping
relation to the main bodypanel;
a pair of conversion flaps attached to and protruding from
the main body panel in opposed relation to each other;
a waist belt extensible about the waist of a wearer,
portions of the main body and bib panels being attached to the
waist belt so as to collectively define an infant carrying area of
the carrier; and
a pair of shoulder straps extensible over the shoulders of
the wearer and each operatively coupled to the main body and
bib panels;
the conversion flaps being selectively positionable in a
narrow configuration wherein they are releasably attached to
each other in overlapping relation to a portion of the main body
panel and to each other, and a wide configuration wherein they
are releasably attached to prescribed portions of the waist belt.

Appeal 2020-003615
Application 15/841,800

3

REJECTIONS
I. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–5, 10, 11, and 16–18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lundh2 and
Prieller.3
II. The Examiner rejects claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lundh, Prieller, and Bergkvist.4
III. The Examiner rejects claims 6–9, 12–15, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lundh, Prieller, and
Lindblom.5

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Each of independent claims 1, 10, and 16 requires, inter alia, “a pair
of conversion flaps . . . releasably attached to each other in overlapping
relation to a portion of the main body panel and to each other.” Appeal Br.
17, 19, 21, Claims App (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds Lundh discloses most of the limitations of
independent claims 1, 10, and 16 including, inter alia, a pair of conversion
flaps 119a, 119b that are “selectively positionable in a narrow
configuration.” Final Act. 2 (citing Lundh, Fig. 7). The Examiner further

2 Lundh, US 2018/0199730 Al, published July 19, 2018.
3 Prieller, EP 2 810 587 B1, published Dec. 23, 2015. We derive our
understanding of this reference from the English language translation
contained in the image file wrapper of this application. All references to the
text of this document are to portions of the translation.
4 Bergkvist et al., US 8,752,739 B2, issued June 17, 2014.
5 Lindblom, US 2010/0308088 Al, published Dec. 9, 2010.
Appeal 2020-003615
Application 15/841,800

4

finds Prieller discloses “conversion flaps (4) that are fixed to each other . . .
in an overlapping relation” via “bands 50 [that] overlap each other when
attached.” Id. at 3 (citing Prieller, para. 57, Fig. 9). According to the
Examiner, “the bands [50] are considered part of the conversion flaps.” Id.
Appellant argues that Prieller’s flaps 4 “are not releasably attached to
each other in overlapping relation to a portion of the body panel and each
other,” as required by each of independent claims 1, 10, and 16. Appeal Br.
13. According to Appellant, the Examiner’s position that “bands 50 are
simply considered to be part of the flaps 4, 4' ignores the fact that the bands
50 are assigned their own independent reference numbers in the
specification and drawings of the Prieller reference,” and, thus, “appears to
be based on nothing more than a reliance on disfavored hindsight.” Id.
In response, the Examiner states that “[p]ortions 4, 4', and 50 are
considered to be subcomponents of what is considered the conversion flaps”
and “Fig. 9 of Prieller demonstrates that portions 50 are a functionally
required part of the conversion flaps as they connect extension portions (4
and 4') to the belt and each other.” Examiner’s Answer (dated Jan. 9, 2020,
hereinafter “Ans.”) 8 (emphasis added). The Examiner explains “that the
conversion flaps [4, 4'] of the embodiment of Fig. 9 are incapable of
functioning without the connector 50.” Id. at 9.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s position because the correct
inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light
of the Specification is not whether the Specification proscribes or precludes
some broad reading of the claim term adopted by the Examiner, but rather, it
is an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor
describes his invention in the Specification, i.e., an interpretation that is
Appeal 2020-003615
Application 15/841,800

5

“consistent with the specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, we
agree with the Examiner’s finding that Prieller’s portions 4, 4' constitute
“flaps.” Compare Prieller, Fig. 4 with, Appellant’s Figure 1. However, we
do not agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably
construe Prieller’s bands 50 to be a part, i.e., a “subcomponent,” of flaps 4,
4'. In contrast to Appellant’s fasteners 94, which are located directly on
flaps 90, Prieller’s bands 50 constitute separate elements that merely pass
through apertures in flaps 4, 4' to be ultimately tied together. See Spec. para.
39, Fig. 1; Prieller, para. 57, Fig. 9. Therefore, construing Prieller’s
separate bands 50 to be a part, i.e., a “subcomponent,” of flaps 4, 4' would
be inconsistent with Appellant’s Specification. As such, we do not agree
with the Examiner’s position that Prieller’s separate bands 50 are mere
“subcomponents” of “component” flaps 4, 4'. See Ans. 9.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we find that the Examiner’s
legal conclusion of obviousness, based upon the combined teachings of
Lundh and Prieller, is not supported by sufficient factual evidence, and thus,
cannot stand. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967)
(holding that “[t]he legal conclusion of obviousness must be supported by
facts. Where the legal conclusion is not supported by facts it cannot
stand.”). Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
of independent claims 1, 10, and 16, and their respective dependent claims
3–5, 11, 17, and 18, as unpatentable over Lundh and Prieller.

Appeal 2020-003615
Application 15/841,800

6

Rejections II and III
The Examiner’s use of the Bergkvist and Lindblom disclosures does
not remedy the deficiency of the Examiner’s combination of Lundh and
Prieller discussed supra. See Final Act. 4–6. Accordingly, for the same
reasons discussed above, we also do not sustain the rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 2 as unpatentable over Lundh, Prieller, and
Bergkvist, and of claims 6–9, 12–15, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over Lundh,
Prieller, and Lindblom.

CONCLUSION

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 10, 11,
16–18
103 Lundh, Prieller

1, 3–5, 10, 11,
16–18
2 103 Lundh,
Prieller,
Bergkvist

2
6–9, 12–15,
19, 20
103 Lundh,
Prieller,
Lindblom

6–9, 12–15, 19,
20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED