Ex Parte Becklin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

13081171 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/081,171 04/06/2011 Dennis M. Becklin
25315 7590 10/03/2016
LOWE GRAHAM JONES, PLLC
701 FIFTH A VENUE
SUITE4800
SEATTLE, WA 98104
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.
ECSC-1-1013 3359
EXAMINER
ALLEN, JEFFREY R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3781
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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):
patentdocketing@lowegrahamjones.com
docketing-patent@lowegrahamjones.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DENNIS M. BECKLIN
Appeal2015-000355
Application 13/081, 171
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of
claims 1 and 1 7. Claims 2-16 and 18-22 have been cancelled. Br. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal2015-000355
Application 13/081,171
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to "lids or covers used on containers for
storing and transporting products, such as electronics equipment, and more
specifically, to stackable lids or covers." Spec. i-f 2. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A lid for a centerbody of a container, the lid comprising:
a molded exterior surface, a corresponding inner surface
and a contact surface configured to substantially contact a
corresponding surface of the centerbody;
an alignment guide having a first portion mounted to the
inner surface and a second portion extending below the contact
surface;
a ledge formed in the molded exterior surface, the ledge
arranged to support an alignment guide of a complementary lid
receivable by the lid; and
a pair of protuberances extending from the molded
exterior surface adjacent the ledge, the pair of protuberances
spaced apart sufficiently to receive the alignment guide of the
complementary lid and thus align the complementary lid with the
lid from the container, wherein the first portion is positioned
inwardly from the contact surface; and
wherein the alignment guide is a substantially planar
member and the pair of protuberances are arranged to receive the
alignment guide of the complementary lid and thus align the
complementary lid with the lid from the container by engaging
opposite edges of the planar member.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Asenbauer
Furlong
Sosnovsky
us 3,464,579
US 2009/0173656 Al
US 2011/0139777 Al
2
Sept. 2, 1969
July 9, 2009
June 16, 2011
Appeal2015-000355
Application 13/081,171
REJECTION
Claims 1 and 17 1 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sosnovsky, Asenbauer, and Furlong. Ans. 2.
OPINION
The Examiner asserts that, although claim 1 requires a "pair of
protuberances" and Furlong only depicts a single protuberance 550 in the
figures, Furlong nonetheless teaches the claimed pair by way of the
disclosure that "at least one protuberance could be provided on each of the
four sections of the lid." Ans. 5 (citing Furlong i-f 68). While it may be true
that Furlong allows for more than one protuberance, the mere presence of
another protuberance to comprise the claimed "pair" is not sufficient to meet
the claim language.
Claim 1 requires the "pair" to "engag[ e] opposite edges of the planar
member" and also "to receive the alignment guide of the complementary lid
and thus align the complementary lid with the lid from the container.''
Claim 1. As can be seen below, all that is disclosed in Furlong is contact by
a single protuberance 550, which Furlong refers to as a protrusion, with rib
552.
1 The Examiner entered an amendment after the issuance of the Final Action,
in which the Appellant amended claims 1 and 17 to incorporate certain
limitations from the dependent claims and cancelled all other pending
claims. See Br. 3. The Examiner stated in the Advisory Action dated March
7, 2014, that amended claims 1 and 17 "are rejected over Sosnovsky in view
of Asenbauer and Furlong, as applied in the [Final Action]." Adv. Act. 2.
3
Appeal2015-000355
Application 13/081,171
F1G 14
Shown above is Figure 14 from Furlong, depicting the interaction
between protrusion/protuberance 550 and rib 552.
There is no receiving of an alignment guide of the complementary lid,
nor is there any engagement on an edge of a planar member such that the
addition of an additional protuberance would reasonably be placed on an
opposite edge. The scant disclosure that there could be additional
protuberances in Furlong is insufficient to support the Examiner's allegation
that modifying Furlong amounts merely "to rearrang[ing] the protuberances
such that they uniformly engage with the planar member." Ans. 5. The only
basis for the details of the claimed structure is found in the Appellant's
disclosure, and the Examiner's assertion amounts to mere hindsight
reconstruction of the claimed relationship found in claim 1. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Although we agree with the Appellant that the Examiner erred in the
rejection of claim 1, we do not agree with the Appellant regarding claim 17.
4
Appeal2015-000355
Application 13/081,171
Claim 17 requires a "ledge arranged to support an alignment guide" and a
first portion of the alignment guide that "is positioned inwardly from the
contact surface." Claim 1 also contains similar language.
The Appellant first asserts that neither Asenbauer nor Sosnovsky
teaches the claimed ledge. Br. 8. The Examiner points out, however, that
"Furlong was relied on to teach an engagement structure including a ledge,
an alignment guide and protuberances." Ans. 6. As shown in Figure 14 of
Furlong above, the outer portion of the lid is to the right and the inner
portion of the lid is to the left. The claimed "contact surface" is the portion
of the lid that contacts the centerbody of a container. In Furlong, the
Examiner correctly finds this to be surface 532, with which the Appellant
agrees. Ans. 6; Br. 8. The claims require that the "first portion," which the
Examiner (Ans. 6) and the Appellant (Br. 8) agree is rib 552, be positioned
inwardly from the contact surface. We see no basis for the Appellant's
assertion that "ridge (552) is positioned outwardly from any 'contact'
surface of the lid," as ridge 552 is clearly shown pos1t10ned to the left, i.e.,
inwardly, of surface 532. Br. 8. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error
in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 7.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claim 1 is reversed and the rejection of
claim 1 7 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
5