Ex Parte Blonden et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201613057199 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/057,199 02/02/2011 Sam John Blonden 713-2184 (22114) 1662 33712 7590 12/27/2016 HAUPTMAN HAM, LLP (ITW) 2318 Mill Rd Suite 1400 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER ATTEL, NINA KAY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3782 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/27/2016 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): itw @ ipfirm. com docketing @ ipfirm. com pair_lhhb @ firsttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SAM JOHN BLONDEN and CHRIS BENNING Appeal 2014-007864 Application 13/057,199 Technology Center 3700 Before: JOHN C. KERINS, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was conducted on December 14, 2016. We affirm-in-part. Appeal 2014-007864 Application 13/057,199 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a sealed container. Claims 1 and 10, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1 A container, comprising a first part, a second part, and a breakable and disposable seal having a head, the second part having a first opening and a second opening, the first opening for receiving the first part, the container being closed by the first part locating within the opening of the second part, the second opening for receiving the head of the breakable and disposable seal, the head locking the first part within the second part when the first part and head are inserted in the second part, wherein the first part is not removable from the second part without breaking the seal, wherein the second part includes a chamber which communicates between the first and second openings, and wherein said first part has an open recess shaped to receive the head of the seal, the chamber defining a path for the head of the seal such that on breaking of the seal the head remains in the first part as the first part is removed from the second part out of the first opening, the open recess allowing removal of the head from the first part. 10. A container according claim 1, wherein the first opening defines a first seat, and the second opening defines a second seat, wherein the first seat and second seat are offset such that the first seat is positioned at an elevation between the second seat and a surface of the container. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims appeal is: Norris US 1,807,049 Feb. 10, 1914 De Lima Castro Netto US 4,512,599 Apr. 23, 1985 Collingham US 7,370,892 B2 May 13, 2008 2 Appeal 2014-007864 Application 13/057,199 REJECTIONS Claims 1—3, 5—7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by De Lima Castro Netto (“Netto”). Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over De Lima Castro Netto and Collingham. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over De Lima Castro Netto and Norris. OPINION Claims 1 and 10 are the only claims for which Appellants seek review. App. Br. 9. Appellants recognize and acknowledge in their Appeal Brief (p. 7) and in oral arguments that claim 1 is anticipated by Netto. Appellants contend, however, that although there are areas in Netto reasonably regarded as openings for purposes of claim 1 itself, those same areas cannot also satisfy the limitations of claim 10 because claim 10 calls for the openings to further define respective offset seats. App. Br. 15—19. Appellants argue that the only reasonable interpretation of an opening according to claims 1 and 10 is an area, as viewed in Figure 1 of the present application, like the region near the exact location of the arrowheads for the lead lines of reference numerals 3 and 4—the openings according to the Specification. Appellants’ proposed interpretation would result in the openings being located precisely at the transition or gateway between the respective regions of the lock unit 2 that surround seats 13 and 16, which are exposed as viewed in Figure 1, and the internal region of lock unit 2 that is covered by a preferably opaque material to discourage tampering with the 3 Appeal 2014-007864 Application 13/057,199 seal 5 barbs 6. See Spec. 5, para. 34. The problem with Appellants’ interpretation, as the Examiner correctly points out (Ans. 8—11), is that it does not appear possible for such openings to define respective first and second seats as is required by claim 10. The openings Appellants point to, at most, share a common boundary with the seats. That relationship is insufficient to “define” them. Appellants’ proposed construction may be consistent with one ordinary meaning of “opening”1 and areas that Netto identifies as openings. See, e.g., Netto col. 2,11. 60-62. However, the ordinary meaning and the usage of a term in the prior-art references, although instructive, is not necessarily dispositive.2 Claims must be interpreted in light of the Specification of which they form a part. A skilled artisan may reasonably regard other unmentioned areas of Netto as “opening[s]” in light of Appellants’ Specification. According to the Specification, “[t]he opening 4 of the lock unit also defines a seat 16 for the body 7 of the seal” (Spec. p. 4, para. 28) and “the seat 16 defines the bottom of the opening 4” (Spec. p. 5, para. 33). In order for the opening to define a seat and a seat to define the opening, the term opening, as used in claim 10 and the Specification, must, 1 Neither of the areas identified by Appellants or the Examiner concerning the “second opening” appear to be precluded by the definition entered by Appellants. See Reply Br. 14 (“a void in solid matter; a gap, hole or aperture.”). The Examiner points to an area that is a void in solid matter or a gap, whereas Appellants point to an area that is more like a hole or aperture. We accept Appellants definition as an ordinary meaning. 2 See, e.g., Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2003)(“Where there are several common meanings for a claim term, the patent disclosure serves to point away from the improper meanings and toward the proper meanings.”)(citations omitted) 4 Appeal 2014-007864 Application 13/057,199 contrary to Appellants’ argument, refer to a gap or void like that of a trough or channel, rather than simply an aperture or gateway. Notwithstanding the precise location of the arrowheads3 on the lead lines from reference numerals 3 and 4 in Figure 1 of the Application, it is consistent with claim 10 and the Specification for the Examiner to consider the trough or channel formed between guide walls 105a, and bordered by the surface including ribs 105b, of Netto (Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 5), as the recited “opening.” The problem then, insofar as the Examiner’s rejection is concerned, is that there is only one such region identified in Netto, which the Examiner regards as corresponding to the “second opening.” See Ans. 5. The Examiner does not identify a similar trough or channel on the end of Netto’s tunnel opposite guide walls 105a, and no such region appears to exist in Netto. See Ans. 5. Not having similar boundaries like those formed by guide walls 105a, the area above Netto’s flange 2/102 located outwardly from the tunnel on the drawer-receiving side (proximate drawer 8/108 in Figs. 1—3) cannot reasonably be regarded as an opening because it is not a void in, or gap between, anything. Regarding the opening that forms the gateway or access aperture on the drawer-side of Netto’s tunnel (Ans. 4—5 (citing Netto col. 1,11. 60-62; col. 2,11. 43—48; col. 3,11. 18—23)), as Appellant acknowledges, this area suffices to satisfy the requirements related to the opening described by claim 1, but as the Examiner seems to recognize in discussing the second opening (Ans. 8—11), an opening of this nature does not appear to be able to “define a first seat” as required by claim 10. 3 Arrowheads of the type illustrated typically refer to a section. 37 CFR 1.84(r)(l) 5 Appeal 2014-007864 Application 13/057,199 Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claim 1 and of those claims not separately argued, and reverse the rejection of claim 10. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—9 are affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 is reversed. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation