Ex Parte Bowers et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 26, 201110365088 (B.P.A.I. May. 26, 2011) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation