Ex parte Alchin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 12, 1998

08132380 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 12, 1998)

Application for patent filed October 6, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written for
publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte MICHAEL ALCHIN
__________
Appeal No. 96-0873
Application 08/132,3801
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before ABRAMS, FRANKFORT and STAAB, Administrative Patent Judges.
STAAB, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 and 10-17, all the
claims currently pending in the application.
Appeal No. 96-0873
Application 08/132,380
2
Appellant’s invention pertains to a spring balance mechanism to provide a balance
force for a vertically sliding window. Independent claim 10, a copy of which is appended to
appellant’s brief, is illustrative of the appealed subject matter.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner in support of a rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103 are:
De Vries et al (De Vries) 2,577,953 Dec. 11, 1951
Maynard 2,729,418 Jan. 3, 1956
Claims 1 and 10-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over De Vries in view of Maynard.
Independent claim 10 is directed to a balance mechanism for a window panel
comprising telescoping tubes and an elongated spring within the tubes. The claim
requires that, in use, a combination of friction force between the telescoping tubes and the
spring force of the elongated spring provides the balance force that maintains the window
panel at a desired height relative to a window jamb. Independent claim 1 contains similar
limitations.
De Vries pertains to a balance mechanism for a window sash. The Figure 2
embodiment comprises telescoping tubes 1, 2, an elongated spring 3, 4, a pair of spiral
strips 9, and a tube member 7 having slotted ends. The elongated spring is located within
the tubes for applying a spring force to the tubes. Each of the spiral strips 9 have one end
secured to a respective telescoping tube and another end received in one of the slotted
Appeal No. 96-0873
Application 08/132,380
3
ends of the tube member 7. In addition, the elongated spring is secured to tube member 7
by a pin 6 located intermediate the ends of the tube member. One of De Vries’s
telescoping tubes is secured to the window sash and the other is secured to the window
jamb. In use, as the window sash is lowered, the elongated spring is compressed. At the
same time, the cooperation between the slotted ends of the tube member 7 and the spiral
strips 9 causes the tube member to rotate and wind up the elongated spring. A balancing
force is thus provided by a combination of (1) the axial compression of the elongated
spring; and (2) the vertical components of forces acting on the spiral strips as a result of
winding up the elongated spring (column 2, line 27 through column 3). The mechanism is
designed such that the net effect of forces (1) and (2) remains constant (column 3, lines 4-
16).
Maynard pertains to a retractable anchor for mounting in the floor of a compartment
of an aircraft or the like for providing an anchoring point for a structure such as a chair. The
anchor comprises an outer tubular member 1 mounted in the floor of the compartment, and
an attachment member 4 slidably received therein. A compression spring 6 is provided to
bias the attachment member to a projected position, see Figure 2, whereby aperture 11 in
the attachment member may be utilized as an anchor point. Bayonet connection means 8,
9 is provided between the members 1 and 4 such that when engaged, the attachment
member 4 is held in a retracted position, see Figure 1, flush with the floor.
Appeal No. 96-0873
Application 08/132,380
Appellant strenuously argues on pages 4-7 of the brief that Maynard is nonanalogous art with2
respect to the claimed invention.
4
In rejecting the claims as being unpatentable over De Vries in view of Maynard, the
examiner concedes that De Vries does not disclose the use of frictional forces between
the telescoping tubes to inhibit relative movement therebetween, or the use of such forces
in conjunction with spring forces to maintain the window panel at a desired height. The
examiner contends, however, that (1) the members 1, 4 of Maynard are in contact with one
another; (2) this contact results in a frictional force between members 1 and 4; (3) in view
of this circumstance it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
provided a “contacting fit” between the tubes of De Vries “to provide a more solid
connection” (answer, page 3); and (4) the thus modified De Vries device would
correspond to the claimed subject matter.
We cannot accept this position. Assuming arguendo that the examiner is correct in
his position that Maynard is analogous art ; a proposition which we find to be questionable,2
it is our view that the collective teachings of the applied references would not have
suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art. With respect to De
Vries, the examiner does not contend, and it is not apparent to us, that the telescoping
tubes 1, 2 cooperate with each other to generate frictional forces of any meaningful
Appeal No. 96-0873
Application 08/132,380
On pages 8 and 9 of the brief, appellant appears to concede that in De Vries frictional forces3
result from the engagement of the spiral member with the slot of element 14 (Figure 2) or the slotted
ends of tube member 7 (Figure 1), and that these forces, to a minor extent, act to provide a balance
force. We note, however, that the appealed claims require that frictional forces resulting from an
engagement between the telescoping tubes act in combination with spring forces to provide the
balance force.
5
magnitude. As to Maynard, it is our opinion that the examiner’s determinations regarding3
the scope and content of this reference are based on a hindsight reading of the disclosure
thereof rather than on anything fairly taught by the reference. As aptly noted by appellant on
page 10 of the brief, Maynard is designed to ensure that the tubular member 4 moves to its
outwardly extended position irrespective of any frictional forces between members 1 and
4. Accordingly, even if the examiner is correct that members 1 and 4 of Maynard are in
frictional contact, Maynard’s silence as to utilizing any such frictional forces that may exist
to inhibit relative movement between members 1 and 4 undermines the examiner’s
position that Maynard would have suggested the kind of modification of De Vries required
to arrive at the claimed subject matter. In this regard, Maynard is no better than De Vries,
which the examiner concedes is devoid of any teaching of using frictional forces to inhibit
relative movement of the telescoping tubes.
On page 3 of the answer, the examiner has taken the position that “[e]ven with
negligible frictional force, the combinational [sic] of the spring force and friction force would
provide a balance force as claimed since in numerous cases the spring force alone would
Appeal No. 96-0873
Application 08/132,380
6
be sufficient to provide a balance force to hold a window at a desired placement.” This
position is without merit. In the absence of any supporting evidence or logical reasoning to
support the examiner’s position, it is not clear why the combination of only the spring force
and the frictional force between the telescoping tubes of De Vries would necessarily be
sufficient to provide a balance force to hold the window in place.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
Reversed
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge )
LJS/pgg
Appeal No. 96-0873
Application 08/132,380
7
Ladas & Parry
26 West 61st Street
New York, nY 10023