Ex Parte Boyes

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2016

12621770 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/621,770 11/19/2009
107681 7590 06/23/2016
NCR Corporation
3097 Satelite Boulevard
Building 700, 2nd Floor, Law Department
Duluth, GA 30096
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James A. Boyes
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
09-876 3104
EXAMINER
BOSWELL, CHRISTOPHER J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3673
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2016 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):
PTOMail.Law@ncr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES A. BOYES
Appeal2014-005747 1
Application 12/621,770
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JILL D. HILL, and LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
James A. Boyes ("Appellant") appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as NCR Corporation. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal2014-005747
Application 12/621,770
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 92 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A secure enclosure comprising:
a pair of opposing sidewalls;
an upper wall coupled to the pair of opposing sidewalls;
lower wall opposite the upper wall and also coupled to the pair
of opposing sidewalls;
an end wall coupled to the upper and lower walls and the
opposing sidewalls, so that the pair of opposing sidewalls, the
upper wall, the lower wall, and the end wall together form a body
defining an opening; and
a door leaf hingeably coupled to one of the opposing sidewalls
for securely closing the opening, the door leaf being arranged to
engage with the pair of opposing sidewalls and including an
overlapping portion so that when the door leaf is in the closed
position, the overlapping portion extends towards the end wall
and covers an outer portion of a sidewall abutting the door leaf.
THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-7 and 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Gauger (US 3,709,169; iss. Jan. 9, 1973).
II. Claims 8 and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gauger and Meilink (US 2,030,219; iss. Feb. 11, 1936).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Regarding independent claims 1 and 9, the Examiner finds, inter alia,
that Gauger discloses a door leaf "including an overlapping portion so that
2 Claim 9 is written as an independent claim, incorporating the limitations
of independent claim 1.
2
Appeal2014-005747
Application 12/621,770
when the door leaf is in a closed position, the overlapping portion extends
towards the end wall and covers an outer portion of a sidewall abutting the
door leaf." Final Act. 2. The Examiner identifies lid 20 of Gauger as the
door leaf and the outer portion of the lid as the overlapping portion. Id.
(citing Gauger, Fig. 3). The Examiner explains that when lid 20 is in a
closed position, the outer portion of lid 20 covers an outer portion of the
sidewall and lid 20 "has a substantial depth that extends towards the wall
opposed to the door leaf." Ans. 3.
Appellant argues that the claim language requires the overlapping
portion to both extend towards the end wall and cover an outer portion of the
sidewall. Reply Br. 2. Appellant further argues that the portion of lid 20 of
Gauger that the Examiner relies to meet the claim limitation of an
overlapping portion extending towards the end wall is not the portion of lid
20 that also covers an outer portion of the sidewall, as required by
independent claims 1 and 9. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 2. Appellant explains
that the portion of the lid 20 that "the Examiner relies on in Gauger for
extending towards the end wall is recessed and is not an overlapping
portion." Reply Br. 2.
Appellant's argument is persuasive. Claims 1 and 9 require that "the
overlapping portion extends towards the end wall and covers an outer
portion of a sidewall abutting the door leaf." Appeal Br. 15-16, Claims
App. (emphasis added). Gauger's lid 20 includes a portion which covers an
outer portion of the sidewall. See Gauger, Figs. 1, 3. However, the portion
of lid 20 that covers the outer portion of the sidewall does not also extend
towards the end wall, as required by the claims. See id. As Appellant
correctly notes, the portion of lid 20 that extends towards the end wall
3
Appeal2014-005747
Application 12/621,770
covers the interior space of the container, i.e., the portion extending towards
the end wall does not cover an outer portion of the sidewall. See, e.g.,
Gauger, Fig. 3.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1 and 9, and claims 2-7, 10, and 11, depending
therefrom.
Rejection II
The Examiner's reliance on Meilink does not cure the deficiencies in
the Examiner's finding with respect Gauger, as discussed supra, as applied
to independent claim 1. Claims 8 and 12-14 depend from claim 1.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 8 and 12-14
for the reasons discussed supra.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-14 are reversed.
REVERSED
4