Ex Parte Barron et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 9, 2016

12769417 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2016)

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.
12/769,417 04/28/2010 Traci J. Barron 20014/BstInrtUS 7598
34431 7590 12/13/2016
HANLEY, FLIGHT & ZIMMERMAN, LLC
150 S. WACKER DRIVE
SUITE 2200
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
HARE, DAVID R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3673
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2016 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):
mailroom @ hfzlaw. com
j flight @ hfzlaw. com
mhanley@hfzlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TRACI J. BARRON and MARISA A. WILLIAMS
Appeal 2015-0012871’2
Application 12/769,417
Technology Center 3600
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—4, 6—8, and 10—27. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed Apr. 28,
2010), and Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed June 17, 2014), as well as the
Final Office Action (“Final Action,” mailed Dec. 18, 2013) and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Sept. 2, 2014).
2 Under the Appeal Brief section titled Real Party in Interest, Appellants
indicate that the “application has been assigned to Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.”
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-001287
Application 12/769,417
According to Appellants, the invention is directed “to child seat
inserts and methods of manufacturing the same.” Spec. 12. Claims 1
and 25 are the only independent claims on appeal. See Appeal Br., Claims
App. We reproduce claim 1, below, as representative of the appealed
claims.
1. A seat insert comprising:
a fastener to removably couple the seat insert to a child
caretaking structure;
a first base panel having a first length, a first end and a
second end; and
a second base panel having a second length, a first end and
a second end, the second end of the first base panel being coupled
to the first end of the second base panel, wherein the first length
is longer than the second length so that the first base panel is
positioned at a first incline and the second base panel is
positioned at a second incline different than the first incline to
position a first child support surface of the first base panel at an
obtuse angle relative to a second child support surface of the
second base panel to cause a child occupant of the seat insert to
assume a semi-upright position.
Id.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. claims 1, 2, 6—8, 13, 14, 21, and 25 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over LaValle (US 6,708,356 Bl, iss. Mar. 23,
2004) and Mendes (US 2009/0077739 Al, pub. Mar. 26, 2009);
II. claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
LaValle, Mendes, and Hsia (US 6,539,563 Bl, iss. Apr. 1,
2003);
2
Appeal 2015-001287
Application 12/769,417
III. claims 10-12, 24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over LaValle, Mendes, and Hagerstrom
(US 5,096,260, iss. Mar. 17, 1992);
IV. claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
LaValle, Mendes, and Goldberg (US 3,311,934, iss. Apr. 4,
1967);
V. claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
LaValle, Mendes, Goldberg, and Davis (US 6,026,525, iss.
Feb. 22, 2000);
VI. claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
LaValle, Mendes, and Harvey (US 2,467,890, iss. Apr. 19,
1949);
VII. claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
LaValle, Mendes, and Myers (US 5,778,465, iss. July 14,
1998);
VIII. claims 20 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
LaValle, Mendes, and Warner, Jr. (US 6,192,535 Bl, iss.
Feb. 27, 2001);
IX. claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
LaValle, Mendes, and Burkholder (US 2008/0271243 Al, pub.
Nov. 6, 2008); and
X. claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
LaValle, Mendes, and Davis.
See Final Action 2—15.
3
Appeal 2015-001287
Application 12/769,417
ANALYSIS
With respect to Rejection I, independent claim 1, from which
claims 2, 6—8, 13, 14, and 21 depend, recites
a first base panel having a first length, a first end and a
second end; and
a second base panel having a second length, a first end and
a second end, the second end of the first base panel being coupled
to the first end of the second base panel, wherein the first length
is longer than the second length so that the first base panel is
positioned at a first incline and the second base panel is
positioned at a second incline different than the first incline to
position a first child support surface of the first base panel at an
obtuse angle relative to a second child support surface of the
second base panel to cause a child occupant of the seat insert to
assume a semi-upright position.
Appeal Br., Claims App. In the Appeal Brief, Appellants argue, among
other things, that the Examiner erroneously relies on Mendes to disclose “the
second end of the first base panel being coupled to the first end of the second
base panel, wherein the first length [of the first base panel] is longer than the
second length” of the second base panel, as claimed. See Appeal Br. 8—11.
In the Response to Arguments section of the Answer, the Examiner
finds that Mendes discloses both the first and second base panels,
determining that
[w]hile Mendes’[s] [FJigures 13 and 14 show the second base
panel (inclinable flap [104]) attached to the first base panel (floor
[102]) at a medial portion of the floor, the [E]xaminer again
points to the suggestion above that “the length of the flap may be
substantially less than or equal to the length of the bassinet floor
[102]).” In the case where the length of the flap is equal to the
length of the bassinet floor, it would be attached to the end or
nearly the end of the floor [102] and thus meet the instant
invention’s claim language.
4
Appeal 2015-001287
Application 12/769,417
Answer 5—6 (emphasis added). We note, however, that even if the Examiner
is correct that “[i]n the case where the length of the flap is equal to the
length of the bassinet floor, [the flap] would be attached to the end or nearly
the end of the floor . . . and thus meet the instant invention’s claim
language” (id. at 6) (emphasis added) “the second end of the first base panel
[is] coupled to the first end of the second base panel” as required by the
claim (Appeal Br., Claims App.), claim 1 additionally requires that “the first
length [of the first base panel] is longer than the second length” (id.), which
is contrary to the Examiner’s first statement we reproduce at the beginning
of this sentence.
The Examiner sets forth what we characterize as an alternative finding
with respect to Mendes. Specifically, the Examiner explains
[l]ooking again at [Mendes’s] Figure 13, one may also consider
the left-hand portion of the floor corresponding to [102a] as the
first base panel and the [104] as the second base panel. In this
case, second end of the first base panel (left-hand portion [102a])
is clearly attached to first end of the second base panel (flap
[104]) and an edge [112]).
Answer 6. We determine, however, that Mendes’s first half 102a of floor
102 is, as the name suggests, a portion (i.e., half) of what appears to be
continuous floor 102, while flap 114 appears to be the entire component that
includes the portion connected to first half 102a and the inclined portion that
is not connected to floor 102. See, e.g., Mendes Figs. 13, 14. We do not
agree with the Examiner that attaching a portion of flap 114 to a portion of
floor 102 results in an end of a first base panel (i.e., the end of the non-
connected portion of flap 114) being connected to an end of a second base
panel (i.e., the end of the connected portion of floor 102), inasmuch as we
5
Appeal 2015-001287
Application 12/769,417
recognize that it is the middle portions of flap 114 and floor 102 that are, in
fact, being connected to one another.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1, or of claims 2, 6—8, 13, 14, and 21 that depend from
claim 1. Inasmuch as independent claim 25 recites a similar limitation, and
is rejected from similar reasons as claim 1, we also do not sustain the
rejection of claim 25. See Appeal Br., Claims App.; see also Final
Action 5—6. With respect to Rejections 11—X, inasmuch as the Examiner
does not establish that any other reference remedies the deficiency in the
rejections of any of the remaining claims, we do not sustain any of the
rejections of claim 10-12, 15—20, 22—24, 26, and 27 that depend from
claims 1 and 25.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—4,
6—8, and 10-27.
REVERSED
6