Ex Parte BuchhalterDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 7, 201713989862 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2017) 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. 13/989,862 05/28/2013 Thomas Buchhalter 01710054US 1297 62008 7590 11/09/2017 MAIER & MAIER, PLLC 345 South Patrick Street ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER BATTISTI, DEREK J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3782 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/09/2017 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): patent @ maierandmaier. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THOMAS BUCHHALTER1 Appeal 2016-008216 Application 13/989,862 Technology Center 3700 Before JOHN C. KERINS, DANIEL S. SONG, and JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office Action rejecting claims 1—6. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2016-008216 Application 13/989,862 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below. 1. Holder for use in motor vehicles for receiving a mobile device, with a housing and with clamping jaws for clamping the mobile device, wherein the housing is equipped with a dedicated power supply for the clamping operation, the clamping jaws having respective free ends with a distance therebetween and being movable electromechanically for opening or closing purposes, wherein the electronic unit stores a clamping position for a particular mobile apparatus, wherein the opening position of the clamping jaws is obtained by the free ends of the clamping jaws moving apart by a short predetermined distance beyond a distance of the free ends in the clamping position. REJECTION Claims 1—6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Salenbauch (US 6,758,452 Bl, iss. July 6, 2004) and Pawusch (US 2006/ 0131088 Al, pub. June 22, 2006). ANALYSIS Appellant argues claims 1—6 as a group. Br. 4—5. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, with claims 2—6 standing or falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that Salenbauch discloses a holder for receiving a mobile device in a motor vehicle, as claimed, except for an electronic unit that stores a clamping position for a particular mobile device. Final Act. 2— 3. The Examiner finds that Pawusch teaches a vehicle mounted holder with an electronic unit that stores positions for a mobile apparatus. Id. at 3. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to have the electronic unit of Salenbauch store positions in this manner to fit various devices. Id. 2 Appeal 2016-008216 Application 13/989,862 Appellant argues that Salenbauch teaches a support for a drink holder with a receiving opening, but it cannot be used for clamping a mobile device because the opening is round and the mobile device won’t be seen when it is inserted in the opening. Br. 4. Appellant also argues that the clamping jaws must have respective free ends with a distance therebetween and must move apart by a short predetermined distance beyond a distance of the free ends in the clamping position to reach the opening position and Salenbauch does not teach these features. Id. Appellant further argues that Salenbauch lacks an electronic unit that stores a clamping position for a particular device. Id. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons. First, claim 1 does not recite a particular configuration of the mobile device, the holder, or the clamping jaws that distinguishes over Salenbauch’s holder. Indeed, claim 1 recites a “[h]older for use in motor vehicles for receiving a mobile device.” This statement of intended use does not recite any structure or function of the holder beyond the features recited in the body of claim 1. Moreover, Salenbauch’s holder can receive and hold a mobile device, as the Examiner finds (Ans. 2), and Appellant’s argument that Salenbauch’s holder does not allow a mobile device held therein to be seen (see Br. 4) is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1 and therefore is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that Salenbauch teaches clamping jaws with “free ends” as lamellae 3 in Figure 7. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. Figure 8 of Salenbauch shows how free ends of lamellae 3 close to reduce the opening to a smaller diameter “d” whereas Figure 7 shows the free ends of lamellae 3 moving apart to increase the opening of the holder to a larger diameter “D.” Salenbauch, 2:49—60. Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of error in these findings of the Examiner. See Br. 4. 3 Appeal 2016-008216 Application 13/989,862 Appellant’s argument that Salenbauch does not disclose an electronic unit that stores a clamping position for a particular apparatus (Br. 4) is not persuasive because the Examiner relies on Pawusch for this feature. Final Act. 3. Similarly, Appellant’s argument that Pawusch does not disclose clamping jaws with free ends that clamp a mobile device (Br. 4—5) is not persuasive because the Examiner relies on Salenbauch to teach this feature. Id. at 2—3. Appellant’s arguments attack the references individually where the Examiner relies on their combined teachings to render obvious claim 1. The Examiner’s rejection modifies Salenbauch with Pawusch’s electronic unit that stores various positions so Salenbauch can “fit various devices.” Id. at 3. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2—6 fall with claim 1. DECISION We affirm the rejection of claims 1—6. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation