Crain Cutter Company, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 28, 202014742642 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/742,642 06/17/2015 Lance Darrell Crain 27090-29761/US 1758 758 7590 05/28/2020 FENWICK & WEST LLP SILICON VALLEY CENTER 801 CALIFORNIA STREET MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94041 EXAMINER FUQUA, SHAWNTINA T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3761 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/28/2020 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): PTOC@Fenwick.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LANCE DARRELL CRAIN, GREGORY JOSEPH CHAMBERS, and TAN DINH NGUYEN Appeal 2019-005317 Application 14/742,642 Technology Center 3700 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1,2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–13. See Appeal Br. 9; Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Crain Cutter Co., Inc. of Milpitas, California. Appeal Br. 2. 2 The pages of the Appeal Brief are not enumerated. We begin our page number references starting with the cover page containing the application bibliographic information as page 1. Appeal 2019-005317 Application 14/742,642 2 We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a carpet seaming iron. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A carpet seaming iron comprising: a bimetal thermostat configured to turn power on or off to a heating element by the motion of a bimetallic strip; a base assembly having a surface on which the bimetal thermostat is positioned; and a bimetal thermostat top cover coupled to the base assembly, the bimetal thermostat top cover securing the bimetal thermostat to the base assembly by applying a force onto the bimetal thermostat holding the bimetal thermostat against the base assembly. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Haller US 2,725,453 A Nov. 29, 1955 Goodrich US 6,172,335 B1 Jan. 9, 2001 REJECTIONS Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 2–3. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Act. 3. Claims 1–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haller and Goodrich. Final Act. 4. Appeal 2019-005317 Application 14/742,642 3 OPINION § 112 Appellant does not contest the rejections of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112. We therefore summarily sustain these rejections. In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (affirming the Board’s affirmance of an uncontested rejection, holding that the appellant had waived the right to contest the rejection by not presenting arguments on appeal to the Board); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“the applicant can waive appeal of a ground of rejection”). § 103(a) Appellant argues the claims subject to the rejection based on Haller and Goodrich as a group for which we select claim 1 as representative under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner relies on Haller as disclosing the basic structure of claim 1. Final Act. 4 (citing Haller col. 4, ll. 17–21; Fig. 1). Haller, and the Examiner’s references thereto, are unremarkable in that Haller’s teachings are essentially consistent with Appellant’s acknowledged prior art as depicted in Figure 1 of the present application. The Examiner recognizes Haller lacks the recited top cover structure, relying instead on Haller’s screw 16 to secure bimetal thermostat 14. Final Act. 4. The Examiner relies on Goodrich’s bracket 45 as satisfying the recited aspects of the top cover limitation, and concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Haller’s structure to include a bracket like that described in Goodrich to secure Haller’s thermostat. Final Act. 4 (citing Goodrich col. 7, ll. 21–28; Fig. 9). Appeal 2019-005317 Application 14/742,642 4 The first issue Appellant raises is an assertion that the Examiner erroneously “conflates the terms ‘bimetal thermostat’ and ‘thermistor.’” Appeal Br. 5; see, e.g., Final Act. 4 (referring to “thermostat 44” instead of a “thermistor” or “thermocouple” which Goodrich describes as exemplary embodiments of temperature sensor 44, contrasting their control responses with that of a conventional “thermostat” (col. 7, ll. 55–65)). We do not think this, perhaps inadvertent, label on the part of the Examiner undermines the Examiner’s rejection. Even if, assuming only for argument’s sake, as Appellant suggests, this demonstrates a lack of understanding on the part of the Examiner as to the differences between thermistors and thermostats, Appellant cites no authority, and we are not aware of any authority for the notion that demonstrating a technical misstatement or a lack of expertise on the part of the Examiner undermines an Examiner’s rejection. The standards associated with 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are objective ones. They are based on what the hypothetical person skilled in the art would understand, as opposed to any particular patent examiner. Here, the discussion in column 7 of Goodrich demonstrates that one skilled in the art would readily appreciate the differences between resistive temperature sensing elements and bimetallic thermostats. Absent from that discussion is any mention or implication that the mounting configurations therefor would bear significant structural differences as Appellant argues. Appeal Br. 6. Indeed, if such structural differences were truly necessary, the fact that Appellant’s own Specification discloses an embodiment with a bimetallic thermostat (paras. 9–49) and an embodiment where the bimetallic thermostat is replaced with a thermistor (paras. 50–54) would seem to provide Appellant ample opportunity to explain what specific differences Appeal 2019-005317 Application 14/742,642 5 between the two would make mounting arrangements for each incompatible with the other. Appellant has not done so either in Appellant’s briefing or Appellant’s Specification. Quite to the contrary, Appellant’s Specification describes the temperature sensor fastening arrangement as only “slightly different.” Para. 50; see also para 52 (“Element cover 16130 is similar to element cover 1030 (Fig. 3). . . . Bracket 16140 is similar to bracket 1040 (Fig. 3) except for that it is turned upside down.”). That some relatively minor structural modification might be made in order to make Goodrich’s bracket work to secure Haller’s thermocouple does not demonstrate nonobviousness of the combination. “It is well- established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The fact that judgment and mechanical skill may be required to arrive at a particular combination (Appeal Br. 8–9) does not necessarily mean that particular combination constitutes a nonobvious invention. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 10–12 (1966) (discussing Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 11 How. 248 (1851)). One of ordinary skill can use his or her ordinary skill, creativity, and common sense to make the necessary adjustments and further modifications to result in a properly functioning device. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for [an examiner] can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”). Appeal 2019-005317 Application 14/742,642 6 It is noted that Appellant makes the assertion that “the Office Action completely ignores the need for a reasoned explanation about why it would have been obvious to modify Goodrich’s top cover used to secure a thermistor to instead be used to secure Haller’s bimetal thermostat.” Appeal Br. 7. This is an argument that is essentially related to the existence of the Examiner’s articulated reasoning, as opposed to its merits. The Examiner clearly articulated reasoning in support of the proposed combination, “for the purpose of attaching [Haller’s] thermostat to the heading base assembly, thereby ensuring reliable operation of the iron and consistent performance between different irons of the same design.” Final Act. 4–5 (citing Goodrich col. 7, ll. 30–33). The merits of the Examiner’s reasoning in this regard stand uncontroverted. “Filing a Board appeal does not, unto itself, entitle an appellant to de novo review of all aspects of a rejection.” See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (citations omitted). “[T]he Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection.” Id. at 1075–76 (citations omitted). The Board will not advocate for Appellant by scouring the record to see if the Board can identify some flaw in the Examiner’s findings of fact, articulated reasoning, or legal conclusions. See, e.g., Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1250 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“A skeletal ‘argument’, really nothing more than an assertion, does not preserve a claim.”). For the foregoing reasons we sustain the Examiner’s rejections. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED. Appeal 2019-005317 Application 14/742,642 7 DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 3 112 first paragraph Written Description 3 3 112, second paragraph Indefiniteness 3 1–13 103(a) Haller, Goodrich 1–13 Overall Outcome 1–13 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation