Ex Parte Bowers et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 26, 2011

10365088 (B.P.A.I. May. 26, 2011)

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.
10/365,088 02/12/2003 Scott D. Bowers GH001-100011 6170
26904 7590 05/27/2011
WM. CATES RAMBO
508 MERCANTILE LIBRARY BLDG.
414 WALNUT STREET
CINCINNATI, OH 45202-3913
EXAMINER
SILBERMANN, JOANNE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3611
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SCOTT D. BOWERS and RONALD L. FOGLE
____________

Appeal 2009-012411
Application 10/365,088
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, and
GAY ANN SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GAY ANN SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Scott D. Bowers and Ronald L. Fogle (Appellants) seek our review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 2-6, 10, 12-14, and 22-
27. Appellants cancelled claims 1, 7, and 8. The Examiner withdrew claims
15-20 from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention pursuant
to a restriction requirement. The Examiner objected to claims 9 and 11 as
Appeal 2009-012411
Application 10/365,088

2
being dependent upon a rejected base claim. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The claimed subject matter is to a display frame apparatus for
displaying at least one sign insert.
Claim 22, reproduced below, with emphasis added, is representative
of the subject matter on appeal.
22. A display frame apparatus for displaying
at least one sign insert, said display frame
apparatus comprising:
(a) a sign body having front and back faces;
upper, lower and opposite side edges and a
connector-receiving member opening away from
the front face of the sign body and adjacent to at
least one of said upper, lower and opposite side
edges, said front face extending across said sign
body;
(b) a transparent front cover lens releasably
attachable to the front face of the sign body for
removably receiving a first sign insert there
between; and
(c) a frame element releasably attachable to
the sign body in outlying relation to one of the
upper, lower and opposite side edges thereof, said
frame element having a connector member
projecting outwardly from only one side thereof
for releasably engaging the connector-receiving
member on the sign body.

The Rejections
The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review:
Claims 13-14, and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Dreyer (U.S. Patent No. 3,523,382, issued Aug. 11, 1970).
Appeal 2009-012411
Application 10/365,088

3
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Dreyer.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Dreyer and Erber (U.S. Patent No. 5,353,536, issued Oct. 11, 1994).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Dreyer and Ulysse (U.S. Patent No. 5,465,514, issued Nov. 14, 1995).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Dreyer and Lasurdo (U.S. Patent No. 4,450,636, issued May 29, 1984).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.

OPINION
Issue
The issue before us is as follows:
Whether the front face of Dreyer’s sign body A extends across the
sign body.
Analysis
Appellants contend that Dreyer fails to anticipate claim 22 because
“Dreyer does not disclose a front face that extends across the sign body.”
Br. 6. More particularly, Appellants interpret only the slanted surface at the
outer edges of the Dreyer’s hollow picture frame A to constitute the front
face of the sign body and Appellants allege that the slanted surfaces at the
outer edges of the hollow picture frame A do not extend across the sign
body. Br. 6 and 13. Appellants also allege that if Dreyer’s slanted surfaces
at the outer edges of the hollow picture frame A are considered to be the
Appeal 2009-012411
Application 10/365,088

4
front face, then Dreyer’s transparent cover lens (glass G) and sign insert
(photograph P) do not satisfy the claim language of being “releasably
attachable to the front face of the sign body for removably receiving a first
sign insert there between” because the glass G is set inwardly from and not
attached to the slanted surfaces at the outer edges of the hollow picture
frame A and the photograph P is not removably received between the slanted
surfaces at the outer edges of the hollow picture frame A and the glass G.
Br. 7.
The Examiner finds that Dreyer discloses a display frame assembly
including a sign body A, a connector receiving member 111 in the back face
of the sign body A, a transparent front cover lens G, a frame element 18, and
connector members 116 or 216 to anticipate claim 22. Ans. 3. In response
to Appellants’ arguments that Dreyer does not disclose a front face that
extends across the sign body, the Examiner asserts that “the front face of
sign body A is the front section A where the front cover lens is attached, in
Figure 8” and “[t]his front face extends across the sign body.” Ans. 5.
We agree with the Examiner that Dreyer anticipates claim 22. The
Appellants’ interpretation that only the slanted surfaces at the outer edges of
the individual frame A of Dreyer constitute the front face of the sign body A
is unreasonable. A person of ordinary skill in the art would consider
backing B to be a part of the sign body so that either the front face of
backing B alone, as suggested by the Examiner, constitutes the front face of
the sign body or the front face of the backing B together with the slanted
surfaces at the outer edges of the frame A constitute the front face of the sign
body. In either case, i.e., the front face of backing B alone or the front face
Appeal 2009-012411
Application 10/365,088

5
of the backing B together with the slanted surfaces at the outer edges of the
frame A, the claim language of extending across the sign body is met.
Moreover, Appellants’ Specification fails to particularly define what
constitutes the front face of the sign body 12. Appellants’ Figures 1 and 2
appear to show that the sign body 12 has an uneven or discontinuous
surface, i.e., a protruding frame-like perimeter set slightly inwardly from the
outermost edge and a protruding center area set slightly inwardly from the
protruding frame-like perimeter. Therefore, in view of Appellants’ Figures
1 and 2, it is not unreasonable to interpret Dreyer’s uneven or discontinuous
surface, i.e., the front face of the backing B together with the slanted surface
of the frame 10, as constituting the front face of the sign body.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 13, 14, and 22-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Dreyer.
Since Appellants have not separately argued the rejections of claims 2-6, 10,
12, and 27, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claim 27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dreyer, claims 2-6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Dreyer and Erber, claim 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Dreyer and Ulysse, and claim 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dreyer and Lasurdo.

CONCLUSION
The front face of Dreyer’s sign body A extends across the sign body.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of: claims 13, 14, and 22-26
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Dreyer; claim 27 under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal 2009-012411
Application 10/365,088

6
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Dreyer; claims 2-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Dreyer and Erber; claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dreyer and Ulysse; and claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Dreyer and Lasurdo.
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).

AFFIRMED

Klh