Ex Parte Anvick

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 10, 2005

09942199 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 10, 2005)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MARK S. ANVICK
____________
Appeal No. 2005-0540
Application No. 09/942,199
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before FRANKFORT, McQUADE, and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
NASE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1 to 17,
which are all of the claims pending in this application.
We AFFIRM.
Appeal No. 2005-0540
Application No. 09/942,199
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a puzzle joint system for use in joining wood
products such as a chair and table components (specification, p. 1). A copy of the
claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellant's brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Pontikas 4,809,755 Mar. 7, 1989
Grisley 5,114,265 May 19, 1992
Claims 1 to 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Grisley in view of Pontikas.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the final
rejection (mailed May 2, 2003) and the answer (mailed December 12, 2003) for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the brief (filed
November 6, 2003) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
Appeal No. 2005-0540
Application No. 09/942,199
Page 3
1 After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences between the prior art
and the claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591,
18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Moreover, in evaluating such references it is proper to take into
account not only the specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which
one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401
F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
In the rejection before us in this appeal (final rejection, pp. 2-6; answer, pp. 3-5),
the examiner (1) made explicit findings as to the teachings of Grisley and Pontikas;
(2) ascertained1 the differences between Grisley and each of the independent claims
Appeal No. 2005-0540
Application No. 09/942,199
Page 4
under appeal (i.e., claims 1, 6 and 12); and (3) concluded that based on the combined
teachings of Grisley and Pontikas that it would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Grisley so as
to arrive at the subject matter of claims 1, 6 and 12.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 2-7) that the subject matter of claims 1, 6 and 12
would not have been obvious in view of the Grisley or Pontikas patents, taken singly or
together. With respect to Grisley, the appellant submitted that:
the Grisley patent does not disclose or suggest that ''the first and second flat
members, when joined, lie in the same plane and are disposed at a
predetermined noncollinear angle with respect to each other". The Grisley patent
discloses or suggests right-angled and collinear joints and articles constructed
using such joints which does not produce a frame structure or a flat, coplanar,
frame structure having flat members, that when joined, lie in the same plane and
are disposed at a predetermined noncollinear angle with respect to each other. .
. .
. . .
With regard to the Grisley patent, it is respectfully submitted that none of
the joints disclosed therein have a structure wherein a cavity is formed in a first
flat member that has a depth that extends a predetermined distance below the
first flat surface, and wherein a second flat member has a tab formed therein that
has a thickness that substantially matches the depth of the cavity formed in the
first flat member. In the present invention, the cavity is formed in the first
member that is about one half the thickness of the first member, and the mating,
interlocking tab has a thickness that is about one half the thickness of the second
member so at to fit in the cavity in the first member.
Appeal No. 2005-0540
Application No. 09/942,199
Page 5
With respect to Pontikas, the appellant submitted that:
none of the joints disclosed therein have a structure wherein a cavity is formed in
a first flat member that has a depth that extends a predetermined distance below
the first flat surface, and wherein a second flat member has a tab formed therein
that has a thickness that substantially matches the depth of the cavity formed in
the flrst flat member. The only joint structures relating to the formation of planar
structures (shown in Fig. 20) uses a plurality of dovetail joints wherein the
protrusions and cutouts are the entire thickness of the respective wood pieces.
There is no disclosure or suggestion in the Grisley patent regarding the use of
interlocking joints wherein the indents and protrusions are a portion of the
thickness of the respective wood pieces, as is employed in the present invention.
The appellant then concludes that with specific regard to independent claim 1,
that:
the Grisley and Pontikas patents, taken singly or together, do not disclose or
suggest ajoint system comprising ''a cavity formed in the first flat member . . . that
has a depth that extends a predetennined distance below the first flat surface,
and wherein the depth of the cavity is a predetermined portion of the thickness of
the flrst flat member'' and ''a second flat member ... having a tab ... that ... fits
within the cavity, which tab has a thickness that substantially matches the depth
of the cavity formed in the first flat member.'' [Emphasis in original] Thus, in the
invention recited in claim 1, the tab and the cavity have a thickness and depth
that are a portion of the overall thickness of the first and second flat members.
This is not the case with the joints disclosed in the Grisley and Pontikas patents.
With regard to independent claim 6, the appellant makes the same argument as
raised with respect to claim 1. In addition, the appellant argues that the recitations that
first flat member "comprises a single cavity" and the second flat member "comprises a
Appeal No. 2005-0540
Application No. 09/942,199
Page 6
single tab" further define over the teachings of the Grisley and Pontikas patents since
these patents teach the use of multiple cavities and tabs.
With regard to independent claim 12, the appellant makes the same argument as
raised with respect to claim 1. In addition, the appellant argues that
the Grisley and Pontikas patents, taken singly or together, do not disclose or
suggest a first flat member that ''comprises a cavity having ... a depth that
extends a first predetermined distance below the first flat surface'', a second flat
member that ''comprises a cavity'' that ''has a depth that extends a second
predetermined distance below the first flat surface'', and ''a third flat member ...
that comprises first and second tabs with outer partially curved contours that
substantially match the respective inner partially curved contours of the first and
second cavities and that fit within the respective first and second cavities, and
wherein the first, second and third flat members, when joined, lie in the same
plane and are disposed at a predetermined noncollinear angles with respect to
each other.''
In our view, the combined teachings of Grisley and Pontikas would have made it
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
have modified Grisley's flat, collinear, coplanar interlocking joint disclosed in the
embodiment shown in Figure 8 to be a flat, noncollinear, coplanar interlocking joint in
view of the following teachings of Grisley and Pontikas. Grisley teaches (column 2,
lines 66-68) various embodiments in which two board ends are joined together to form
an interlocking joint in either a 90° corner joint, a 180° straight in line joint, an obtuse
joint or an acute joint. Pontikas also teaches various embodiments in which two board
Appeal No. 2005-0540
Application No. 09/942,199
Page 7
2 But for the construction of the interlocking joint, Pontikas' 90° corner joint is similar to the 90°
corner joints shown in Figures 4-7 of Grisley.
3 On page 9 of the answer, the examiner refers to a reference of record that has not been applied
in the rejection under appeal. This reference has been given no consideration since it was not included in
the rejection under appeal. See Ex parte Raske, 28 USPQ2d 1304, 1305 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993).
ends are joined together to form an interlocking joint. Figures 18-19 of Pontikas
disclose a dovetail 90° corner joint.2 Figure 20 of Pontikas discloses a flat, noncollinear,
coplanar interlocking dovetail joint for connecting the edges of a frame. Figure 15 of
Pontikas discloses an angled box joint made from three flat members.
We find the appellant's arguments for patentability unpersuasive for the reasons
set forth by the examiner in the answer (pp. 5-8).3 While the appellant may be correct,
that neither Grisley or Pontikas teach (i.e., anticipate) the entire subject matter of claims
1, 6 and 12, nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures.
See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With regard to the appellant's argument that here is no disclosure or suggestion
in the Grisley patent regarding the use of interlocking joints wherein the indents and
protrusions are a portion of the thickness of the respective wood pieces, we note, as did
the examiner, the claims do not specifically recite that the protrusion is a portion of the
Appeal No. 2005-0540
Application No. 09/942,199
Page 8
4 The transitional phrase "comprises" is open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited
cavities and tabs.
thickness of its wood piece. Moreover, such is explicitly taught by the flat, collinear,
coplanar interlocking joint disclosed in the embodiment shown in Figure 8 of Grisley.
With regard to independent claim 6, it is our view that the recitations that the first
flat member "comprises a single cavity" and the second flat member "comprises a single
tab" do not restrict the claimed subject matter to only one cavity and only one tab due to
the use of comprising terminology.4 Thus, these recitations do not define over the
teachings of the Grisley and Pontikas patents which teach the use of multiple cavities
and tabs.
With regard to independent claim 12, it is our view that the combined teachings
of Grisley and Pontikas are suggestive of the claimed three flat members in view of the
teaching of Pontikas' Figure 20 which illustrates one corner of a flat, noncollinear,
coplanar interlocking dovetail joint for connecting the edges of a frame. From this
teaching of Pontikas, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Grisley to form a flat, noncollinear,
coplanar frame, with the frame having interlocking joints as taught by Grisley.
Appeal No. 2005-0540
Application No. 09/942,199
Page 9
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 6
and 12 is affirmed.
Claims 2 to 5, 7 to 11 and 13 to 17 which depend from claims 1, 6 and 12 have
not been separately argued by the appellant. Accordingly, we have determined that
these claims must be treated as falling with their respective independent claim. See In
re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and 37 CFR
§§ 1.192(c)(7) and 1.192(c)(8)(iv). Thus, it follows that the examiner's rejection of
claims 2 to 5, 7 to 11 and 13 to 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is also sustained.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Appeal No. 2005-0540
Application No. 09/942,199
Page 10
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. McQUADE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2005-0540
Application No. 09/942,199
Page 11
KENNETH W. FLOAT
THE LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. FLOAT
P.O. BOX 80790
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA 92688
JVN/jg