Ex Parte 5,763,831 et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 1, 2011

90008823 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 1, 2011)

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.
90/008,823 08/27/2007 5,763,831 1001.169 1891
54434 7590 11/01/2011
BOOTH UDALL, PLC
1155 W. Rio Salado Pkwy.
Suite 101
Tempe, AZ 85281
EXAMINER
GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte TayMac Corporation
____________________

Appeal 2011-010682
Reexamination Control 90/008,823
Patent 5,763,8311
Technology Center 3900
____________________

Before RICHARD E. SCHAFER, DANIEL S. SONG, and
JOSIAH C. COCKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The patent under reexamination (hereinafter “the ‘831 Patent”) issued
to Shotey et al. on June 9, 1998 from Application 450,559 filed on May 25,
1995. An Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for the ‘831 Patent issued on
Mar. 1, 2005 from merged reexamination requests 90/006,005 and
90/006,497 filed, respectively, May 11, 2001 and December 27, 2002.
Appeal 2011-010682
Reexamination Control 90/008,823
Patent 5,763,831

2
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This reexamination proceeding arose from a request for ex parte
reexamination filed on August 27, 2007 by William F. Prendergast of
Brinks, Hofer, Gilson, & Lione. TayMac Corporation (“TayMac”) is said to
be the real party in interest and appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306
from a final rejection of claims 14-16, 26-34, 41-43, and 44-47. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306.
We affirm.

References Relied on by the Examiner
Hirsch 2,916,733 Dec. 8, 1959
Algotsson 3,654,663 Apr. 11, 1972
Müller 4,921,148 May 1, 1990
Berlin et al. 5,280,135 Jan. 18, 1994

Müller-DE2 DE 35 00 865 Jan. 22, 1987

The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 44-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
The Examiner rejected claims 14 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Müller or Müller-DE.
The Examiner rejected claims 14-16, 26-34, and 41-47 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hirsch taken with Müller or Müller-
DE.

2 Müller-DE is a German patent which issued from a German patent
application and from which Müller claims foreign priority.
App
Reex
Paten

§ 10
§ 10

cove
conf
assem
base
an em

eal 2011-0
amination
t 5,763,83
The Exa
2(b) as ant
The Exa
3(a) as unp
The inve
ring electr
igured wit
bly is cap
. (‘831 Pa
bodimen
Fi
lid
10682
Control 9
1
miner reje
icipated by
miner reje
atentable
ntion relat
ical outlet
h multiple
able of op
tent Abstr
t of the ‘83
gures 5 an
(Fig. 5) a
0/008,823
cted claim
Algotsso
cted claim
over Hirsc
The
es to a cov
s, wherein
hinge mem
ening alon
act.) Figur
1 Patent’s
d 6 depic
nd base (

3
s 14, 15, 4
n.
s 14-16, 2
h and Alg
Invention
er plate a
portions o
bers such
g more th
es 5 and 6
invention
t a cover
Fig. 6) po
1, and 42
6-34, 41-4
otsson.

ssembly u
f the cove
that a cov
an one ax
(reproduc
.
plate asse
rtions.
under 35 U
7 under 35
sed, for ins
r plate ass
er or lid o
is with res
ed below)
mbly with
.S.C.
U.S.C.
tance, in
embly are
f the
pect to a
illustrate

Appeal 2011-010682
Reexamination Control 90/008,823
Patent 5,763,831

4
As shown in the figures above, lid 50 (not numbered in the figures)
includes hinge pairs 51 and 52 and base 10 includes base hinges 65 and 66.
(‘831 Patent 2:47-3:21.) Hinge pair 51 along the shorter side of lid 50 may
be joined to base hinge 65, and hinge pair 52 along the longer side of lid 50
may be joined to base hinges 66 such that the lid may pivot along either its
shorter or long side with respect to base 10. (See id. at 2:10-14.)
Claim 14 is reproduced below (App. Br. Claims App’x. A1):
14. A cover plate assembly comprising:

a base having a first side and a second side substantially
nonparallel to the first base side, the base including at least one
detachable hinge member on the first base side, and at least one
detachable hinge member on the second base side;

a cover having first and second sides corresponding
respectively to the first and second base sides, the second cover side
being substantially nonparallel to the first base side, the cover
including at least one detachable hinge member on the first cover side
that mates to the at least one hinge member on the first base side and
at least one detachable hinge member on a second cover side that
mates to the at least one hinge member on the second base side.
B. ISSUES
1. Does the record adequately support the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 44-47 as failing to comply with the written description requirement?
2. Did the Examiner correctly determine that the combined
teachings of Hirsch and Algotsson teach a cover plate assembly
incorporating hinge members on non-parallel sides of a cover of the
assembly?
Appeal 2011-010682
Reexamination Control 90/008,823
Patent 5,763,831

5
3. Did the Examiner correctly determine that the combined
teachings of Hirsch and Algotsson teach a cover plate assembly formed as a
“single gang” electrical cover plate?
C. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
To satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, it is
not necessary that the exact terms which appear in the claim must also
appear in the specification. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d
1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Obviousness is determined from the vantage point of a hypothetical
person having ordinary skill in the art to which the patent pertains. In re
Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
A prior art reference must be considered for everything it teaches by
way of technology and is not limited to the particular invention it is
describing and attempting to protect. EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc.,
755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise teachings
in the prior art directed to the specific subject matter claimed because
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ can be taken into account. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007).
D. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejected claims 44-47 as failing to comply with the
written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. The
Examiner rejected claims 14-16, 26-34, 41-43, and 44-47 over the prior art.
Appeal 2011-010682
Reexamination Control 90/008,823
Patent 5,763,831

6
Claim Construction
At the outset, there is a dispute between the Examiner and TayMac as
to the meaning of the term “detachable” as it appears in the claims in
connection with the recitation of “hinge members.” We have considered the
conflicting views of TayMac (App. Br. 39-45; Reply Br. 14-18) and the
Examiner (Ans. 16-23.) In essence, the Examiner’s position is that the term
“detachable” must have the “same exact meaning” as the term “removable.”
(Id. at 20:26-28.) In particular, the Examiner views each of those terms as
identically describing a hinge member that may only be permanently
removed from a cover plate assembly. (Ans. 23:1-10.) TayMac is of the
view that the specification of the ‘831 patent and prosecution history
establish that the terms do not have identical meanings but instead have
meanings distinguishable from one another. TayMac summarizes its view as
(App. Br. 30:3-8):
Throughout the specification and original claims, two separate aspects
of the hinge members are referenced. [T]he “removable” nature of the
hinge members, i.e. removable from the base by “prying, sawing, or
cutting” (col. 2, lines 3, claim 8), and the “detachable” nature of the
hinge members, i.e. one hinge member being detachable (or
separable) from another hinge member (col. 3, lines 10-15, claim 14).

Both the Examiner and TayMac agree that during a prior
reexamination proceeding involving the ‘831 Patent (merged reexaminations
90/006,005 and 90/006,497), agreement was reached between TayMac and
the Examiner of that prior proceeding that the term “detachable” and the
term “removable” have meanings which are not identical. (App. Br. 37-38;
Ans. 21-22.) The current Examiner evidently recognizes that the meaning of
Appeal 2011-010682
Reexamination Control 90/008,823
Patent 5,763,831

7
the term “detachable” previously established in the prior reexamination
proceeding is consistent with the meaning advanced now by TayMac. (Ans.
23:1-10.) In an apparent effort to harmonize the previously established and
distinguished meanings of the terms “detachable” and “removable” with the
meaning of “detachable” as now advanced by the Examiner, i.e., giving the
terms “detachable” and “removable” the same meaning, the Examiner
proceeds to give the term “detachable” one meaning in connection with
some existing patent claims and yet another meaning in connection with
other newly added claims. (Id.)
On our review of the record, we do not agree that the meaning of the
term “detachable” here should be applied inconsistently between claims, as
has been done by the Examiner. Nor do we agree with the Examiner’s
assessment that the term “detachable” is required to have identical meaning
with the term “removable.” The meaning of the term “detachable” in
connection with hinge members that is advanced by TayMac is not
inconsistent with the specification of the ‘831 patent and is supported by the
prosecution history of the prior reexamination proceedings.
Moreover, we note that although the Examiner disagreed with
TayMac as to the meaning of the term “detachable,” that disagreement is not
pertinent in resolving the prior art rejections at hand. The Examiner submits
that the meaning of detachable has “no real bearing” on the prior art
rejections because (Ans. 52:11-16):
the cited art teaches both removable hinge member (i.e., those that
may be removed by prying, sawing or cutting) and separable hinge
assemblies (i.e., hinges wherein one hinge member may be separated
from the other hinge member). As such the rejection would be
maintained regardless of the issues discussed under this section.
Appeal 2011-010682
Reexamination Control 90/008,823
Patent 5,763,831

8

We proceed to review of the rejections that have been applied by the
Examiner.
The Written Description Rejection
Claims 44-47 are new claims added during the course of this
reexamination proceeding. The Examiner rejected claims 44-47 as failing to
comply with the written description requirement of § 112, first paragraph, on
the theory that those “claims include a plethora of terms and phrases that are
not supported by the original disclosure.” (Ans. 13:12-15.) In particular, the
Examiner identifies the allegedly new terms and phrases as (id. at 13:13-15):
“configured for changing,” “is configurable to,” “attaching the
detachable,” “to attach to and detach from,” “configured for
alternatively,” and “attachable to and separable from.”

TayMac challenges the Examiner’s rejection on the basis that,
although claims 44-47 were newly added during reexamination, each of the
limitations referenced above by the Examiner are present in existing claims
of the ‘831 Patent. Citing to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(MPEP) § 2258, TayMac contends that the Examiner is precluded from
examining those limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112. (App. Br. 20:1-21:13
Reply Br. 6:1-7:6) TayMac also contends that the above-quoted terms are,
in fact, adequately supported by the written description of the ‘831 Patent.
(App. Br. 21-26; Reply Br. 7-12.)
With respect to TayMac’s first contention, the issue that TayMac
raises is not one that is properly resolved on appeal and should have been
addressed by the patent owner prior to taking this appeal. See 37 CFR
§ 41.31(c), relating to matters not affecting the merits of the invention. If
Appeal 2011-010682
Reexamination Control 90/008,823
Patent 5,763,831

9
TayMac believed that the Examiner took action in connection with rejecting
its claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph which was not in accord
with Director established reexamination procedures, i.e., those discussed in
MPEP § 2258, TayMac’s recourse was to seek supervisory review through
petition to the Director, not by appeal to this Board. We decline to decide a
matter that should have been addressed by petition.
TayMac also contends that there is adequate written description in the
‘831 Patent for the pertinent claim terms. (App. Br. 21-26; Reply Br. 7-12.).
The Examiner contends otherwise. (Ans. 13-15; 41-44). We have reviewed
the record, and, in particular, the content of the Examiner’s Answer as to the
alleged deficiencies of the written description of the ‘831 Patent as to the
particular relevant terminology of TayMac’s claims. The Examiner’s
rejection is based largely on the lack of certain language appearing in the
specification as it is set forth in the claims. That is evident from the
Examiner’s reference to particular individual terms of the claims,
disconnected from the remainder of the limitation in which they appear, as
not identically present in the specification of the ‘831 Patent. (E.g., see Ans.
13:12-15.) However, to satisfy the written description requirement of 35
U.S.C. § 112, it is not necessary that the exact terms which appear in the
claim must also appear in the specification. Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572.
As is well established, it is the Examiner who bears the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie basis to reject claims. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Here, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner’s general reliance on the lack of the certain specific terminology
appearing in the specification of the ‘831 Patent is sufficient to establish a
Appeal 2011-010682
Reexamination Control 90/008,823
Patent 5,763,831

10
prima facie basis for rejecting claims 44-47 as lacking written description
based on the ‘831 Patent taken as a whole.
On this record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
44-47 as failing to comply with the written description requirement of 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
The Prior Art Rejections
The Examiner advanced multiple prior art rejections for each of the
claims involved in this appeal, i.e., claims 14-16, 26-34, 41-43, and 44-47.
The rejection based on Hirsch and Algotsson
The Examiner rejected claims 14-16, 26-34, 41-43, and 44-47 as
unpatentable over the teachings of Hirsch and Algotsson. In connection
with that rejection, TayMac argues those claims in the following groupings:
(1) claims 14-16, 41-43, 46, and 47; (2) claims 26-31; (3) claims 32-34; and
(4) claims 44 and 45.
Claims 14-16, 41-43, 46, and 47
Claims 14 and 41 are independent claims. Claims 15, 16, 42, 43, 46,
and 47 are dependent on one of the independent claims. The patentability of
the dependent claims is not argued apart from the independent claims. Each
of claims 14 and 41 is directed to a cover plate assembly which includes a
base and a cover. Each claim requires first and second sides of the cover
which correspond to first and second base sides. The claims further require
“the second cover side being substantially nonparallel to the first base side”
(claim 14) and “the second cover side being substantially nonparallel to the
Appeal 2011-010682
Reexamination Control 90/008,823
Patent 5,763,831

11
first cover side” (claim 41). (App. Br. A1, A5.) The claims also each
require that (id.):
the cover including at least one detachable hinge member on the first
cover side that mates to the at least one hinge member on the first base
side and at least one detachable hinge member on a second cover side
that mates to the at least one hinge member on the second base sides.

Thus, the claims require detachable hinge members located on
nonparallel sides of the cover.
In rejecting claims 14 and 41 based on Hirsch and Algotsson, the
Examiner determined that Hirsch discloses a cover plate assembly with a
cover having all the features of claims 14 and 41 with the exception of hinge
members located on nonparallel sides of the cover. In Hirsch, the cover
plate assembly is hinged on only one side. (Hirsch Figs. 3, 4.) To make up
for that deficiency, the Examiner relied on Algotsson as teaching a cover
plate assembly which includes hinge members on multiple sides of the
cover, including nonparallel sides. (Ans. 32.) The Examiner reasoned that
in light of Algotsson’s teachings, one with ordinary skill in the art would
have appreciated that Hirsch’s cover plate assembly may incorporate hinge
members on nonparallel sides of the cover so as “to allow for a more
versatile cover plate assembly that can be altered to suit the needs of the
existing conditions.” (Ans. 34:1-4.)
TayMac contends that Algotsson is not properly viewed as teaching
the application of hinge members to multiple sides of a cover. (App. Br. 83-
84.) TayMac also challenges the Examiner’s proposed rationale for
combining the teachings of Hirsch and Algotsson as inadequate to establish
obviousness. (Id. at 83.) We do not agree with TayMac.
App
Reex
Paten

equip

eal 2011-0
amination
t 5,763,83
Algotsso
ment. (A

Algotsso
FIG. 1 s
its open
accordin
surround
5. In the
partition
the like

10682
Control 9
1
n disclose
lgotsson1
Figur
accor
n describe
hows a box
front lugs
g to the in
ed by a fr
frame 12
s 13, the c
extending
0/008,823
s a cover f
:1-4.) Alg
e 1 depict
ding to A
s its Figur
1 for enc
5 for susp
vention, c
ame 12 ha
are also cu
ut-outs 4 b
through th

12
or closing
otsson’s F
s a box an
lgotsson’s
e 1 as foll
losure of e
ension and
onsisting o
ving cut-o
t-outs 4 s
eing inden
e partition
a box con
igure 1 is r
d cover a
invention
ows (Algo
lectrical e
locking o
f a cover 2
uts 3 corre
eparated fr
ted to enc
s 13 into t
taining ele
eproduced
ssembly
.
tsson 1:62
quipment
f a closure
. The cov
sponding
om cut-ou
lose pins,
he cut-out
ctrical
below:

-69):
having at
device
er 2 is
to the lugs
ts 3 by
bolts 6 or
s 3.

Appeal 2011-010682
Reexamination Control 90/008,823
Patent 5,763,831

13
Algotsson also describes that hinging of the cover is accomplished by
operation of bolts 15 extending through holes in the partitions 13, 13’ which
engage lugs 5. (Id. at 2:1-4.) The Examiner found, and we agree, that the
cut-outs and partitions described as a part of Algotsson’s cover 2 constitute
hinge members of the cover. (See Ans. 32:8-20.) Although in Figure 1,
cover 2 is shown suspended and hinged to the right side of box 1, Algotsson
explains that the choice for the suspension side of the cover on the box is not
restricted and may be selected based on the conditions at the box’s
installation site. (Id. at 1:29-35.)
In light of the teachings of Algotsson, we conclude that the Examiner
reasonably determined that it would have been obvious to incorporate hinge
members on multiple sides, including non-parallel sides, of a cover plate
assembly, such as that of Hirsch. TayMac’s challenge to that determination
rests on the premise that the Examiner has misinterpreted the disclosure of
Algotsson. TayMac contends that Algotsson envisions incorporating hinge
members strictly on one side of its cover, i.e., the right side of the cover as
shown in Figure 1 reproduced above. (App. Br. 67-69.) According to
TayMac, the apparent lack of any holes illustrated in the partitions 13, 13’ at
the upper and lower sides of cover 2 indicates that Algotsson did not intend
that the cut-outs 3, 4 and the partitions 13, 13’ at those upper and lower sides
of the cover receive bolts 15 so as to operate as hinge members. (Id.)
TayMac urges that the only mechanism contemplated by Algotsson for
hinging cover 2 to other sides of the box is to remove the entire cover from
the box and rotate the cover such that the side of the cover shown in Figure 1
with bolts 15 is repositioned on another side of the box. (Id. at 70-71.)
Appeal 2011-010682
Reexamination Control 90/008,823
Patent 5,763,831

14
Thus, TayMac’s position is that Algotsson discloses a cover with
hinge members located on only one side of the cover rather than on two non-
parallel sides as set forth in the claims. In support of that position, TayMac
relies on the declaration testimony of inventor Algotsson in which he states
that he did not contemplate the use of hinge bolts on any side of cover 2
other than the side shown in Figure 1 of his patent. (App. Br. 70:11-19
citing to paragraphs 3-5 and 7-9 of the Algotsson Declaration filed May 30,
2009.)
We have reviewed the Algotsson Declaration but conclude that it
sheds little light on the question of the obviousness of TayMac’s claims.
Obviousness is not determined from the stand point of a particular inventor,
but rather from the vantage point of a hypothetical person having ordinary
skill in the art to which the patent pertains. See In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d at
1357. A prior art reference must also be considered for everything it teaches
by way of technology and is not limited to the particular invention it is
describing and attempting to protect. EWP Corp., 755 F.2d at 907.
Furthermore, in an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise
teachings in the prior art directed to the specific subject matter claimed
because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ can be taken into account. KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418.
Here, what inventor Algotsson viewed as the subject matter
encompassed by his invention does not end the inquiry into what a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated from the Algotsson
reference’s teachings as a whole. The obviousness inquiry does not turn on
whether inventor Algotsson intended to incorporate hinge bolts in only one
Appeal 2011-010682
Reexamination Control 90/008,823
Patent 5,763,831

15
side of a cover of a cover plate assembly. Rather, the question is whether in
view of the teachings of reference Algotsson, a skilled artisan would have
appreciated that cut-outs 3, 4, and partitions 13, 13’ shown on the various
sides of Algotsson’s cover 2, such as the upper and lower sides, could be
appropriately configured so as to receive bolts 15 and operate as hinge
members. The text of Algotsson makes clear that partitions 13 and 13’ may
be formed so as to receive bolts 15. (Algotsson 2:1-4.) Algotsson also
clearly illustrates that partitions 13 and 13’ are formed on all sides of cover
2, including on its top and bottom sides. (Id. at Fig. 1.) We conclude that
one with ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity,
KST Int’l, 550 US 398 at 421, would have readily appreciated from the
teachings of Algotsson that a cover plate assembly, such as that of Hirsch,
may be formed with hinge members on multiple sides of a cover to desirably
allow for hinging of the cover in a variety of configurations with respect to
an underlying box portion of the cover plate assembly.
We have reviewed TayMac’s arguments and evidence offered in
support of its position of non-obviousness. For the foregoing reasons,
however, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
TayMac’s claims 14-16, 41-43, 46, and 47 over Hirsch and Algotsson. The
Examiner’s rejection is reasonable and is sustained.
Claims 26-31
Claim 26 is an independent claim. Claims 27-31 are ultimately
dependent on, and argued collectively with, claim 26. Claim 26 is
reproduced below (App. Br. A2):
Appeal 2011-010682
Reexamination Control 90/008,823
Patent 5,763,831

16
26. (Original) A single gang electrical cover plate assembly
configured for changing between vertical and horizontal mounted
orientations, the assembly comprising:

a base having a first side having a first length and a second side
substantially nonparallel to the first base side and having a second
length longer than the first length, the base including at least one
detachable hinge member integral with the first base side, and at least
one detachable hinge member integral with the second base side; and

a cover having a first side having a third length and a second
side substantially nonparallel to the first cover side and having a
fourth length longer than the third length, the cover including at least
one detachable hinge member integral with the first cover side and
configurable to be hinged along the first sides of the base and cover
by attaching the detachable hinge member of the first cover side with
the detachable hinge member of the first base side, and configurable
to be hinged along the second sides of the base and cover by attaching
the detachable hinge member of the second cover side with the
detachable hinge member of the second base side.

TayMac’s challenge to the rejection of claim 26 is two-fold. First,
TayMac asserts that combination of the teachings of Hirsch and Algotsson
would result in a structure that is something other than a “single gang
electrical cover plate.” (App. Br. 88:8-9.) Second, TayMac contends that
the limitations of the cover with respect to hinge members that are located
on nonparallel sides of the cover are not met by the prior art. (Id. at 88:9-
16.) TayMac urges that the arguments it advanced in connection with claims
14 and 41 also apply to claim 26. (Id. at 87:8-88:7.)
With respect to TayMac’s first contention, TayMac states that its
Figures 5, 6, 8, and 11 illustrate examples of a “single gang” electrical cover
plate and that such a cover plate is well known to those of ordinary skill in
Appeal 2011-010682
Reexamination Control 90/008,823
Patent 5,763,831

17
the art. (App. Br. 21:20-22:6) Those figures illustrate a cover plate for
covering a single vertical row of electrical outlets. Hirsch, which was relied
on in rejecting claim 26, discloses a cover plate which covers a single row of
electrical outlets. (E.g., Hirsch Fig. 3.) TayMac does not contend that
Hirsch does not reasonably show a single gang electrical cover plate. The
Examiner applied Algotsson as a teaching in the art of incorporating hinge
members of multiple sides of a cover plate to allow hinging of the cover in
various directions with respect to a base. The combination of Hirsch and
Algotsson as proposed by the Examiner does not require a change in shape
or size of the cover plate shown in Hirsch. TayMac does not meaningfully
explain why the combination of Hirsch and Algotsson requires
reconfiguration of the cover electrical cover plate of Hirsch into a structure
that is something other than a “single gang” electrical cover plate.
In connection with TayMac’s second contention, for essentially the
same reasons given with respect to claims 14 and 41, we reject TayMac’s
assertion that the teachings of Hirsch and Algotsson do not adequately
account for the requirement in claim 26 of hinge members located on
nonparallel sides of a cover member.
We sustain the rejection of claims 26-31 over Hirsch and Algotsson.
Claims 32-34
Claims 32 is an independent claim. Claims 33 and 34 are dependent
on, and argued collectively with, claim 32. Claim 32 is drawn to a single
gang cover plate assembly and includes feature of a base and a cover with
hinge members located on nonparallel sides of the cover.
Appeal 2011-010682
Reexamination Control 90/008,823
Patent 5,763,831

18
TayMac’s arguments advanced in conjunction with claim 32 are
essentially the same as those provided for claim 26. For the same reasons
given above in connection with claim 26, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 32-34 over Hirsch and Algotsson.
Claims 44 and 45
Claims 44 and 45 are independent claims. Each claim is drawn to a
“single gang” cover plate assembly and includes features of a base and a
cover with hinge members located on nonparallel sides of the cover.
TayMac’s arguments advanced with respect to claims 44 and 45 are
essentially the same as those provided for claim 26. For the same reasons
given above in connection with claim 26, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 44 and 45 over Hirsch and Algotsson.
The alternative prior art rejections
The Examiner also applied the following prior art rejections to the
claims; (1) the rejection of claims 14 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Müller or Müller-DE; (2) the rejection of claims 14-16, 26-34,
and 41-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hirsch taken with
Müller or Müller-DE; and (3) the rejection of claims 14, 15, 41, and 42
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Algotsson.
Because all of claims 14-16, 26-34, and 41-47 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Hirsch and
Algotsson, we do not reach the merits of the Examiner’s alternative
rejections of those claims.
Appeal 2011-010682
Reexamination Control 90/008,823
Patent 5,763,831

19
E. CONCLUSION
1. The record does not adequately support the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 44-47 as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
2. The Examiner correctly determined that the combined teachings
of Hirsch and Algotsson teach a cover plate assembly incorporating hinge
members on non-parallel sides of a cover of the assembly.
3. The Examiner correctly determined that the combined teachings
of Hirsch and Algotsson teach a cover plate assembly formed as a “single
gang” electrical cover plate.
F. ORDER
The rejection of claims 44-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
is reversed.
The rejection of claims 14-16, 26-34, and 41-47 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hirsch and Algotsson is affirmed.
We do not reach the merits of the Examiner rejection of claims 14 and
41 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Müller or Müller-DE.
We do not reach the merits of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14-
16, 26-34, and 41-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hirsch
taken with Müller or Müller-DE.
We do not reach the merits of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14,
15, 41, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Algotsson.

Appeal 2011-010682
Reexamination Control 90/008,823
Patent 5,763,831

20
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

PATENT OWNER:

BOOTH UDALL, PLC
1155 W. Rio Salado Pkwy.
Suite 101
Tempe AZ 85281

THIRD PARTY REQUESTER:
WILLIAM F. PENDERGAST
BRINKS, HOFER, GILSON & LIONE
P.O. Box 10395
Chicago, IL 60610