11544675 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 18, 2009)

Ex Parte Belokin

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 18, 2009

11544675 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 18, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte PAUL BELOKIN ____________ Appeal 2009-001628 Application 11/544,675 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Decided: September 18, 2009 ____________ Before LINDA E. HORNER, MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, and STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL Paul Belokin (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We REVERSE. Appeal 2009-001628 Application 11/544,675 2 Appellant’s claimed invention is to a suction cup with a non-circular peripheral edge which uniformly adheres to a mounting surface. Spec. 4, para. 006. In order to insure uniform edge sealing in suction cups having non-circular geometries, the edge thickness of the suction cup is relatively constant around the periphery of the cup regardless of the radial distance of the edge from the center of the cup. Spec. 6, para. 015. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A suction cup having a substantially disc-shaped body defined by relatively convex outer surfaces and relatively concave inner surfaces joined at the lateral periphery of the body to define a non-circular peripheral edge wherein the thickness of said body at said non-circular edge is substantially constant along the entire periphery of said body. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 and 5-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,964,437 to Belokin, issued October 12, 1999, and rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Belokin. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Belokin discloses a suction cup having a non-circular peripheral edge of substantially constant thickness, as called for in claims 1 and 7. App. Br. 11. The issue presented by this appeal is whether Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in finding that Belokin discloses a suction cup having a non- circular peripheral edge wherein the thickness of the body at the edge is substantially constant along the entire periphery of the body.1 1 Independent claim 7 similarly calls for “a peripheral edge of non-circular Appeal 2009-001628 Application 11/544,675 3 “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). To establish anticipation, every element and limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). As noted by Appellant, Figures 3 and 4 of Belokin are the only two embodiments disclosed having non-circular peripheral edges. Belokin, Fig. 3 (showing square peripheral edge) and Fig. 4 (showing triangular peripheral edge). We agree with Appellant (App. Br. 11) that Belokin does not disclose any detail about the thickness of the peripheral edge of the embodiments shown in Figures 3 and 4. See Belokin, col. 2, l. 66 – col. 3, l. 14 (describing Figs. 3 & 4). We further agree with Appellant (App. Br. 11) that the peripheral edges depicted in the Figures 3 and 4 appear thinner as the distance from the center of the body increases, e.g., at the corners. As such, Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in finding that Belokin discloses a suction cup having a non-circular peripheral edge wherein the thickness of the body at the edge is substantially constant along the entire periphery of the body. As such, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 7, or their dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9, geometry wherein the thickness of said peripheral edge is relatively constant regardless of the radial distance of said peripheral edge from said central portion.” Appeal 2009-001628 Application 11/544,675 4 as being anticipated by Belokin. Further, the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness of claim 4 over Belokin is based on the same erroneous finding that Belokin discloses a suction cup having a non-circular peripheral edge wherein the thickness of the body at the edge is substantially constant along the entire periphery of the body. As such, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 for the same reasons provided in our analysis of claim 1. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-9 is REVERSED. REVERSED Vsh JACK A. KANZ 502 SOUTH COTTONWOOD DRIVE RICHARDSON TX 75080