Ex Parte 7,277,294 B2 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 3, 2016

90013354 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
90/013,354 09/25/2014 7,277,294 B2
31671 7590 05/03/2016
STEVEN C. SCHNEDLER
Luedeka Neely Group, P.C.
P.O. Box 1871
Knoxville, TN 37901
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
70166.99 8221
EXAMINER
SAADAT, CAMERON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2016 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 Electro-Mechanical Corp.,
Appellant
Appeal2016-003185
Reexamination Control 90/013,354
Patent 7,277,294 B2
Technology Center 3900
Before MARC S. HOFF, ANDREW J. DILLON, and IRVINE. BRANCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arose out of a request by Becker Mining America,
Inc., SMC Electrical Products, Inc., and Power Distribution Products, Inc.,
("Requesters") for ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,277,294 B2
("the '294 patent") to Kurt Nels Carlson, entitled Contactor Draw Out Tray,
issued October 2, 2007, and assigned to Electro-Mechanical Corp. ("Owner"
or "Patent Owner").
Owner appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 306 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 2, 23-26, and 28. Original claims 1-3, 13, 19-21, and
Appeal2016-003185
Reexamination Control 90/013,354
Patent 7 ,277 ,294 B2
23-26 are subject to reexamination. Order Granting Ex Parte
Reexamination, Oct. 24, 2014, p. 2. Claims 1, 3, 13, 19-21 are canceled.
Claim 28 has been added, and claims 2 and 28 have been amended. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
The disclosed invention relates generally to "a modularized feeder
circuit control panel for a power distribution center for underground mining
activities." Spec 1:5-10.
Independent claim 23 is representative of the issues on appeal and
reads as follows:
23. A feeder circuit comprising a movable frame
supporting one or more main bus input connectors, one or more
power output connectors and one or more electrical contactors
positioned between and providing selective electrical conduction
between each said main bus input connector and each said power
output connector, said movable frame carried on a stationary
frame adapted for slidably receiving said movable frame, said
stationaf'J frame having one or more main bus input terminals and
one or more power output terminals aligned for mating
engagement with said main bus input connectors and said power
output connectors; a disconnect mechanism mounted to said
movable frame, said disconnect mechanism selectable between an
open position and a closed position and in said closed position,
said disconnect mechanism permits electrical conduction between
said main bus input connector and said power output connector.
Claims 23-25 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
anticipated by Rossman (US 2,218,555; issued Oct. 22, 1940) (Final Rej. 7-
13 (mailed May 19, 2015)); claims 2 and 26 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rossman, Saito (US 4,482,936;
issued Nov. 13, 1984), and MSHA (30 C.F.R. 75.815 Disconnect Devices)
2
Appeal2016-003185
Reexamination Control 90/013,354
Patent 7 ,277 ,294 B2
(id. 13-14); and claim 28 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Rossman and MSHA (30 C.F.R. 75.815 Disconnect
Devices) (id. 14--15). 1
ANALYSIS
Claims 23-25
The Examiner finds that Rossman describes each and every element
of claim 23. Final Rej. 8-11; Ans. 4--6 (mailed Nov. 3, 2015).
Owner argues that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claim 23
because "the Examiner incorrectly takes the position that the Rossman
contacts 110 and 115 are somehow a separate element." Reply Br. 6 (filed
Dec. 2, 2015). According to Owner, claim 23 requires "three actual and
different structural elements which operate independently." App. Br. 15
(filed Oct. 16, 2015).
We are unpersuaded of error because Owner's arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. We agree with the Examiner that
"none of the claims require any of the claim elements to operate
independently, by itself, or to be the only element to break the circuit." Ans.
5. We find no error in the Examiner's mapping of the elements of claim 23
to Rossman. Final Rej. 11.
Owner does not argue claims 24 and 25 separately. Accordingly, we
affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 23-25.
1 The Examiner withdrew an appealed rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 (Ans. 2) in view of Owner's After Final Amendment (July 21, 2015).
3
Appeal2016-003185
Reexamination Control 90/013,354
Patent 7 ,277 ,294 B2
Claim 28
With respect to the Examiner's rejection of claim 28, Owner makes
essentially the same argument presented with respect to claim 23, namely
that the claim requires three distinct elements and only two are taught. App.
Br. 16-17. We therefore sustain the rejection for reasons similar to those
discussed above.
Claim 2
The relevant portion of claim 2 recites a "disconnect mechanism[,
which] electrically connects said power supply output connector to a ground,
when said disconnect mechanism is in said open position." Owner argues
error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 2 over Rossman, Saito, and
MSHA because "[t]he modification to Rossman which the Examiner in
effect proposes would require somehow grounding the stationary contact
finger 237 of Rossman FIG. 35." 1A .. pp. Br. 18. Ov,rner argues that "it is not
apparent how the grounding structure of Saito might be applied to Rossman,
nor does the Examiner offer any suggestion." Id. 19.
The Examiner's rejection is based on it having been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of Owner's invention "to combine the
grounding concept of Saito with Rossman according to known methods,
where the combination yields predictable results of complying with safety
regulations set forth by MSHA 30 C.F.R. 75.815." Ans. 8. Owner's
argument, on the other hand, argues against a bodily incorporation of Saito
into Rossman. Patent Owner's argument is unpersuasive because "[t]he test
for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the
4
Appeal2016-003185
Reexamination Control 90/013,354
Patent 7 ,277 ,294 B2
test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested
to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is
not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable
to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d
965, 968 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not
involve an ability to combine their specific structures."). Rather, "if a
technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
beyond his or her skill." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007).
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection
of claim 2.
Claim 26
Owner argues error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 26 for
reasons similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 23. We,
therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 26 for the foregoing reasons.
SUMMARY
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 2, 23-26, and 28.
5
Appeal2016-003185
Reexamination Control 90/013,354
Patent 7 ,277 ,294 B2
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6