Charles Casagrande

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 13, 2021

2020005262 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 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.
14/111,716 10/14/2013 Charles L. Casagrande CACH D852W1 8641
1688 7590 04/13/2021
Sandberg Phoenix & von Gontard, PC
120 S. Central Ave.
Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63105
EXAMINER
LARSON, JUSTIN MATTHEW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3734
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/13/2021 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):
USPTO@sandbergphoenix.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHARLES L. CASAGRANDE

Appeal 2020-005262
Application 14/111,716
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
JILL D. HILL, 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 1–5, 7–9, and 11–19, which constitute
all of the claims pending in this application. See Appeal Br. 3. However, as
per Appellant, “only the rejection of Claim 18 has been appealed.”
Amendments to Appellant’s Brief dated October 30, 2019, title page; see

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, Charles L. Casagrande.” Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-005262
Application 14/111,716

2
also Appellant’s Brief dated July 10, 2019, 3 (“The claim on appeal is: claim
18”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates to a vacuum system that
detachably secures portable electronic devices, such as, tablet computers,
flat screens, and cell phones to various locations, including, but not limited
to vehicle dash boards, windows, desks, table tops, walls, counter tops,
airplane seat trays, and sunroofs.” Spec. 1:9–13. Apparatus claims 1, 9, and
18 are independent. Claim 18 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is
reproduced below.
18. A vacuum mount system for a vehicle, comprising:
a vehicle headrest;
a first vacuum device having a pad shaped and sized to
detachably seat an electronic device to form a vacuum cavity, a
plunger attached to the pad and in fluid communication with the
vacuum cavity, and an indicator positioned on the plunger to
indicate the level of vacuum pressure within the vacuum cavity;
and
a flexible connector configured for attachment to the
vehicle headrest, the flexible connector being comprised of a
flexible material that deforms arcuately along its length
between a generally linear position and multiple simultaneously
held curved positions.
EVIDENCE
Name Reference Date
Won US 6,149,116 Nov. 21, 2000
Twyford US 6,386,413 B1 May 14, 2002
Lambert US 6,619,605 B2 Sept. 16, 2003
Appeal 2020-005262
Application 14/111,716

3
Name Reference Date
Casagrande US 2007/0216154 A1 Sept. 20, 2007
Carnevali US 7,320,450 B2 Jan. 22, 2008
Sanchez US 2013/0037672 A1 Feb. 14, 2013
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–5, 7–9, and 11–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-
AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
Claims 1–5, 7–9, and 11–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-
AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point
out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the
invention.
Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 9, 12–16, and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Carnevali and Casagrande.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Carnevali, Casagrande, and Twyford.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Carnevali, Casagrande, and Won.
Claim 18 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Carnevali, Casagrande, Sanchez, and Lambert.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1–5, 7–9, and 11–17
under 35 U.S.C. § 112 first and second paragraphs
Appellant does not present any argument rebutting the Examiner’s
rejections of these claims as lacking written description support and as being
indefinite. There is also no indication that any of these rejections, or these
Appeal 2020-005262
Application 14/111,716

4
claims, have been withdrawn. Consequently, we summarily sustain their
rejections.
The rejection of (a) claims 1, 3–5, 7, 9, 12–16, and 19 as unpatentable over
Carnevali and Casagrande; (b) claims 2 and 11 as unpatentable over
Carnevali, Casagrande, and Twyford; and, (c) claims 8 and 17 as
unpatentable over Carnevali, Casagrande, and Won
Appellant does not present any argument rebutting the Examiner’s
rejections of these claims as being obvious in view of the referenced prior
art. There is also no indication that any of these rejections, or these claims,
have been withdrawn. Consequently, we summarily sustain their rejections.
The rejection of claim 18
as unpatentable over Carnevali, Casagrande, Sanchez, and Lambert
As previously expressed, Appellant has elected to only appeal the
rejection of independent claim 18. Claim 18 recites a vehicle headrest, a
vacuum device having a plunger and an indicator to indicate the level of
vacuum pressure within the vacuum device, and a flexible connector for
attachment to the headrest.2
The Examiner primarily relies on Carnevali for teaching the
limitations of claim 18, but acknowledges that Carnevali fails to disclose the
vacuum device having a plunger and an indicator, and Carnevali also fails to
disclose a head rest or attachment of the vacuum device thereto. See Final
Act. 7. The Examiner relies on (a) Casagrande for teaching a vacuum device
having the recited plunger and indicator; (b) Lambert for teaching that it was
known to attach an electronic device to a head rest; and, (c) Sanchez for

2 It will be presumed that the flexible connector interconnects the vacuum
device and the headrest, but claim 18 is silent on this point, stating only that
the flexible connector be deformable. See Fig. 23.
Appeal 2020-005262
Application 14/111,716

5
teaching the use of a flexible connector wrapped around a head rest to
support articles therefrom. See Final Act. 7, 8. The Examiner also provides
reasons for combining Casagrande, Lambert, and Sanchez with Carnevali.
See Final Act. 7, 8.
Appellant contends that the “prior art fails to provide any
motivation” for the Examiner’s proposed combination. Appeal Br. 10.
Appellant quotes the MPEP, which states that the Examiner must present
reasoning “in light of the teachings of the references” (referencing MPEP §
2142) and that the fact that elements can be combined is not sufficient
“unless the prior art also suggests the desirability for the combination”
(referencing MPEP §2143.01). Appeal Br. 11 (underlining added by
Appellant).
There are problems with both of these citations relied on by
Appellant. First, the quote in MPEP § 2142 directed to reasoning found in
the references is credited to Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. Pat.
App. & Inter. 1985), which is not binding on this panel. Further, this quote
only tells part of the story since the more recent case of KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) broadens that which the Examiner may
rely upon when reaching a conclusion of obviousness. To be clear, KSR
states:
The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic
conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation,
or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and
the explicit content of issued patents. [Instead,] there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
Appeal 2020-005262
Application 14/111,716

6
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 419. Hence, unlike Appellant’s reliance above, the
Examiner is not bound only to “the teachings of the references” to support a
conclusion of obviousness, as Appellant asserts. Appeal Br. 11.
Regarding the underlined portion credited by Appellant to MPEP
§ 2143.01, we note that this underlined portion is not the same as that which
is actually expressed in MPEP § 2143.01(III). To be clear, MPEP
§ 2143.01(III) actually states: “The mere fact that references can be
combined or modified does not render the resultant combination obvious
unless the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the
art.” Emphasis added. Note that the actual quote does not restrict the
suggestion to only “the prior art” as Appellant states above. See Appeal Br.
11.
Accordingly, Appellant’s contentions are based upon a faulty premise,
i.e., a requirement that the references themselves must provide the basis for
the combination. Hence, Appellant’s contention that “when no prior art
reference or references of record convey or suggest that knowledge,” the
Examiner’s rejection is faulty and should be reversed (Appeal Br. 11), is not
a correct understanding of the law. In other words, Appellant’s contention
that “[t]here simply is no demonstration of the prior art’s motivation to
combine Sanchez,” or that Carnevali cannot be combined with Casagrande
because “[t]he cited prior art does not provide any real motivation to
combine the references” (Appeal Br. 12), is not persuasive of Examiner
error.
Appellant also contends that there was no “reasonable expectation of
success” at the time of the invention “for the modifications and
combinations” relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting claim 18. Appeal
Appeal 2020-005262
Application 14/111,716

7
Br. 12. Appellant references case law and MPEP § 2141 contending that
“both the suggestion and the expectation of success must be founded in the
prior art.” Appeal Br. 12. More specifically, Appellant contends that
Appellant “was the first inventor” to secure a device as recited and that “[i]t
is unreasonable to suggest that . . . Sanchez’s flexible headrest ‘hat rack’
would have led those skilled in the vacuum securement art to think this
could be a successful combination/modification.” Appeal Br. 13.
Appellant’s understanding of the Examiner’s rejection, and
particularly the role Sanchez plays therein, is misguided. The Examiner did
not combine or employ “Sanchez’s flexible headrest ‘hat rack’” as asserted.
Appeal Br. 13. Instead, the Examiner stated that in view of Sanchez’s
teachings, it would have been obvious “to have bent or twisted the Carnevali
connector around a vehicle head rest in the manner shown by Sanchez.”
Final Act. 8 (emphasis added). Thus, the Examiner did not rely on
Sanchez’s structure, but instead on Sanchez’s teachings as a way to employ
Carnevali’s structure. Appellant does not dispute this or otherwise explain
how Carnevali’s use in this manner would not be expected to support the
device in the manner recited.3 Appellant, instead, focuses upon employing
“Sanchez’s flexible headrest ‘hat rack’” to secure an electronic device to a
head rest, which is not a proper reading of the Examiner’s rejection.

3 A party asserting unexpected results as evidence of nonobviousness has the
burden of proving that the results are unexpected. See In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1469–70 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339,
1344 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appeal 2020-005262
Application 14/111,716

8
Accordingly, and based upon the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 as being unpatentable in view of the
combination of Carnevali, Casagrande, Sanchez, and Lambert.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–9,
11–17
112 Written Description 1–5, 7–9,
11–17

1–5, 7–9,
11–17
112 Indefinite 1–5, 7–9,
11–17

1, 3–5, 7, 9,
12–16, 19
103 Carnevali, Casagrande 1, 3–5, 7, 9,
12–16, 19

2, 11 103 Carnevali,
Casagrande, Twyford
2, 11
8, 17 103 Carnevali,
Casagrande, Won
8, 17
18 103 Carnevali,
Casagrande, Sanchez,
Lambert
18
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7–9,
11–19

TIME PERIOD FOR 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