Ex Parte Booker et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 27, 2008

10844888 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 27, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TODD BOOKER and GEORG DOMENIG
____________

Appeal 2008-1810
Application 10/844,888
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: June 27, 2008
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and JOHN C. KERINS
Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Todd Booker et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5 and 7-10. Claim 6 has been
canceled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (2002).
Appeal 2008-1810
Application 10/844,888
2
THE INVENTION
The Appellant’s invention is directed towards a device that provides
means for releasing a drawer from a drawer slide (Spec. 1, ¶ 2). The device
of the Appellants’ invention includes a catch insert or means 20 having a
plurality of “grooves and rails [sic: ridges] ”22 (Spec. 7, ¶ 30 and fig. 2b), a
locking lever 30 having a plurality of teeth 32 and mounted to the drawer 2
so as to pivot about screw 38 (Spec. 8, ¶ ¶32, 33 and fig. 2a), and spring
means 40 for urging at least one tooth 32 of the locking lever 30 to engage
with the grooves 22 of the catch means 20 (Spec. 8, ¶ 35 and fig. 2a). By
compressing the spring 40, the rear part of the locking lever 30 pivots and
disengages the at least one tooth 32 from the catch means 20, thereby
permitting the drawer to be removed from the drawer slide system (Spec. 8,
¶ 37 and fig. 2a).

Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention and reads as
follows:

1. A front locking device for releasably securing a drawer to
a drawer slide comprising:

a drawer slide comprising catch means having a plurality
of alternating ridges and grooves longitudinally spaced
and horizontally aligned in a direction parallel to a
sliding direction of the drawer;

a drawer;

a locking lever comprising a plurality of teeth
corresponding to the plurality of ridges and grooves of
the catch means, said plurality of teeth of the locking
lever being longitudinally spaced and horizontally
aligned in a direction parallel to the sliding direction of
Appeal 2008-1810
Application 10/844,888

3
the drawer, and said locking lever being pivotably
mounted to the drawer; and,

spring means urging the plurality of teeth of the locking
lever into contact with the plurality of ridges and grooves
of the catch means with at least one tooth of the locking
lever being engagingly received within a corresponding
groove of the catch means.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Vander Ley US 4,423,914 Jan. 3, 1984
Lautenschläger US 5,039,181 Aug. 13, 1991
Lautenschläger US 5,302,016 Apr. 12, 1994
Krivec US 5,542,759 Aug. 6, 1996

The following rejections are before us for review:

Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Vander Ley in view of Lautenschläger (hereafter
“Lautenschläger (‘181)”).
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Vander Ley in view of Lautenschläger (‘181) and further
in view of Krivec.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Vander Ley in view of Lautenschläger (‘181) and further in view of
Lautenschläger (hereafter “Lautenschläger (‘016)”).
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejections in the
Answer (mailed May 18, 2007). The Appellants present opposing
Appeal 2008-1810
Application 10/844,888

4
arguments in the Appeal Brief (filed January 26, 2007). A Reply Brief has
not been filed.
OPINION
The obviousness rejection under Vander Ley in view of
Lautenschläger (‘181)
The Appellants argue the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 9 under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) together as a group. Therefore, in accordance with
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have selected claim 1 as the representative
claim to decide the appeal, with claims 2, 5, 7, and 9 standing or falling
with claim 1. In view of the Appellants’ arguments claim 10 will be
discussed separately.
The issue presented in the instant appeal of the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Vander Ley and
Lautenschläger (‘181) is whether the Appellants have demonstrated that the
Examiner erred in determining that the subject matter of claim 1 is
unpatentable over Vander Ley and Lautenschläger (‘181). The issue turns
on whether it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to
provide the interlocking mechanism of Lautenschläger (‘181) in the drawer
slide assembly of Vander Ley.
Vander Ley discloses a drawer slide assembly 12 having an
interlocking mechanism for readily removing a drawer from a cabinet. The
drawer slide assembly 12 includes a drawer 10, a cabinet rail 16 attached to
the interior of a cabinet, a drawer rail 18, a mounting strip 14 attached to the
drawer 10, and a locking lever 24 that is pivotally mounted to the mounting
strip 14 (col. 2, ll. 39-44 and 51-52 and fig. 1). The locking lever 24
includes a locking end 26 with a generally x-shaped locking element 64,
Appeal 2008-1810
Application 10/844,888

5
made up of a stop surface and projecting tab 68, and a spring end 28 with an
integral leaf spring 32 and an actuator arm 70 (col. 3, ll. 45-58 and fig. 3).
In an interlocked position, the leaf spring 32 biases the spring end 28
upwardly and the locking end 26 downwardly, such that the projecting tab
68 of the locking lever 24 simultaneously engages a slot 60 in the mounting
strip 14 and a slot 31 in the drawer rail 18 (col. 3, l. 68 through col. 4, l. 7
and figs. 1 and 2). The projecting tab 68 (tooth) of the locking lever 24 and
the slots 31 and 60 (catch means) form the interlocking mechanism that
locks together the mounting strip 14 and the drawer rail 18 (col. 4, ll. 7-10
and fig. 1). Upon depressing the actuator arm 70 the locking lever 24 is
disengaged from the slots 31 and 60 and the drawer 10 can be easily
removed from the cabinet (col. 5, ll. 17-21).
Lautenschläger (‘181) discloses a drawer assembly having an
interlocking mechanism for adjusting the position of a drawer within a
cabinet due to existing inaccuracies in the manufacture of the cabinet or later
distortions caused by humidity and other ambient influences (col. 1, ll. 35-
43; col. 5,ll. 36-40; and fig. 1). The interlocking mechanism includes a
tongue 20 (locking lever) having detent serrations 26 (plurality of teeth) and
a fitting 24 (catch means) having complementary serrations 28 (plurality of
ridges and grooves) which engage with the serrations 26 to lock the device at
selected positions (col. 5, ll. 41-57 and figs. 2 and 3).
The Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to identify any
motivation, suggestion or teaching of the desirability to combine Vander Ley
and Lautenschläger (‘181) to arrive at Appellants’ invention (Br. 4).
In determining whether the subject matter of a claim is obvious,
“neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the [applicant]
Appeal 2008-1810
Application 10/844,888

6
controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim.” If the claim
extends to what is obvious, it is unpatentable under § 103. KSR Int’l. Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741-42 (2007). Moreover, while there must
be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
the legal conclusion of obviousness, “the analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 1741.
When a work is available in one field of
endeavor, design incentives and other market
forces can prompt variations of it, either in the
same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable
variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.
For the same reason, if a technique has been
used to improve one device, and a person of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same
way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill.
Id. at 1740. We must ask whether the improvement is more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Id. In this case, replacement of the locking element of the locking lever 24
of Vander Ley with one having a serrated profile of alternating ridges and
grooves and the slot 31 in drawer rail 18 with a catch means having a
complementary serrated profile of alternating ridges and grooves as taught
by Lautenschläger (‘181), as proposed by the Examiner (Ans. 4), is nothing
more than the simple substitution of one known element for another. See id.
at 1740. Specifically, this would involve merely the substitution of one type
of interlocking interface with another known type of interlocking interface.
Appeal 2008-1810
Application 10/844,888

7
A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that the
complementary serrated surfaces taught by Lautenschläger (‘181), if
substituted for the projecting tab and rail slot arrangement of Vander Ley,
would, when engaged with one another, provide an interlocking interface to
prevent further relative movement between the drawer and the drawer rail, in
much the same manner that they secure the drawer and drawer rail in a
selected lateral position in Lautenschläger’s system. Moreover, the
Appellants have not provided any evidence to show that modification of
Vander Ley to provide a plurality of interlocking serrations as taught by
Lautenschläger (‘181) would have been beyond the technical grasp of a
person of ordinary skill in the art. We thus conclude that the substitution
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the Appellants’ invention.
The Appellants further argue that Vander Ley does not teach a locking
lever having a plurality of teeth and a catch means having a plurality of
ridges and grooves and neither Vander Ley nor Lautenschläger (‘181) teach
a spring means for urging the plurality of teeth of the locking lever into
contact with the plurality of ridges and grooves of the catch means (Br. 4-5).
While each of these assertions may individually be true, they do not take
into account the structure resulting from the combination of the teachings of
the references. The rejection is not based on Vander Ley or Lautenschläger
(‘181) alone, but rather, on the combination of Vander Ley and
Lautenschläger (‘181). 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 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appeal 2008-1810
Application 10/844,888

8
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Vander
Ley in view of Lautenschläger (‘181). The rejection of claim 1, and claims
2, 5, 7, and 9, standing or falling with claim 1, is sustained.
With regard to claim 10, the Appellants’ arguments (Br. 5-7) simply
rely on the arguments asserted as to claim 1 and are thus unpersuasive for
the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. We therefore affirm the
rejection of claim 10 as well for the reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 1. The rejection is sustained.

The obviousness rejection under Vander Ley in view of
Lautenschläger (‘181) and further in view of Krivec
The Appellants argue that Krivec does not teach a locking lever
having a plurality of teeth, a catch means having a plurality of ridges and
grooves, and a spring means for urging the plurality of teeth of the locking
lever into contact with the plurality of ridges and grooves of the catch means
(Br. 7-8). While this may be true, the rejection is not based on Krivec alone,
but rather, on the combination of Vander Ley, Lautenschläger (‘181), and
Krivec. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. It appears that the Appellants’
arguments in favor of patentability of claims 3 and 4 over Vander Ley in
view of Lautenschläger (‘181) and further in view of Krivec simply rely on
the arguments asserted as to claim 1, from which claims 3 and 4 depend, and
are thus unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim
Appeal 2008-1810
Application 10/844,888

9
1. We therefore affirm the rejection of claims 3 and 4 as well for the reasons
discussed above with respect to claim 1. The rejection is sustained.

The obviousness rejection under Vander Ley in view of
Lautenschläger (‘181) and further in view of Lautenschläger (‘016)

The Appellants argue that Lautenschläger (‘016) does not teach a
locking lever having a plurality of teeth, a catch means having a plurality of
ridges and grooves, and a spring means for urging the plurality of teeth of
the locking lever into contact with the plurality of ridges and grooves of the
catch means (Br. 9). While this may be true, the rejection is not based on
Lautenschläger (‘016) alone, but rather, on the combination of Vander Ley,
Lautenschläger (‘181), and Lautenschläger (‘016). Nonobviousness cannot
be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is
predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. Merck, 800 F.2d at
1097. It appears that the Appellants’ arguments in favor of patentability of
claim 8 over Vander Ley in view of Lautenschläger (‘181) and further in
view of Lautenschläger (‘016) simply rely on the arguments asserted as to
claim 1, from which claim 8 depends, and are thus unpersuasive for the
reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. We therefore affirm the
rejection of claim 8 as well for the reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 1. The rejection is sustained.

Appeal 2008-1810
Application 10/844,888

10
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, and 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Vander Ley in view of
Lautenschläger (‘181) is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Vander Ley in view of Lautenschläger (‘181)
and further in view of Krivec is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claim 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Vander Ley in view of Lautenschläger (‘181)
and further in view of Lautenschläger (‘016) 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)(1)(iv) (2007).

AFFIRMED

vsh

JOHN M. HARRINGTON
KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP
1001 WEST FOURTH STREET
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27101