Ex Parte Carnevali

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2016

11977812 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111977,812
24692 7590
Charles J. Rupnick
4742 - 42nd Ave. SW
Suite 494
10/26/2007
02/26/2016
Seatlle, WA 98116-4553
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeffrey D. Carnevali
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.
NPI-081 3531
EXAMINER
SMITH, NKEISHA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2016 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):
rupnick@comcast.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY D. CARNEY ALI
Appeal2014-000862
Application 11/977 ,812
Technology Center 3600
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jeffrey D. Camevali (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's Final decision to reject claims 1-10, 12, 13 and 15-20. 1
App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Claim 11 has been canceled. App. Br. 5. Claim 14 has been withdrawn.
Id. at 6.
Appeal2014-000862
Application 11/977 ,812
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The subject matter of Appellants' claimed invention relates to
"mounting platforms for attachment of suction cups, and in particular to
universal vehicle mountable suction cup attachment platforms structured for
compatibility with custom vehicle specific mounts designed for mounting
cradles designed for handheld accessories." Spec. 1, 11. 16-19. Claims 1,
10, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter, and recites:
1. A suction cup mounting platform, the mounting platform
compnsmg:
a rigid plate having first and second opposing faces;
a suction cup mounting surface formed on the first face;
and
a connector interface formed adjacent to the second face
and compatible with a first predetermined standard four-
hole AMPS hole pattern which is defined as a common
hole pattern currently adopted by electronics
manufacturers for mounting cradles designed for
handheld electronics accessories.
REJECTION2
The Examiner rejects claims 1-10, 12, 13, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Richter (US 5,187,744, iss. Feb. 16,
1993) and Leyden (US 6,371,345 Bl, iss. Apr. 16, 2002).
2 Subsequent to the Final Action, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of
claims 1-10, 12, 13, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, i-f 2. Adv. Act. 1
(7/27/2011).
2
Appeal2014-000862
Application 11/977 ,812
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues claims 1-10, 12, 13, and 15-20 as a group. App. Br.
19. We treat claim 1 as representative and claims 2-10, 12, 13, and 15-20
stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
Appellant raises two challenges to the Examiner's rejection of claim 1
for us to review. First, Appellant challenges whether the Examiner properly
cites the body 16 of Richter for disclosing "a suction cup mounting surface
formed on the first face," as required by claim 1. Second, Appellant
challenges whether the Examiner properly determines whether it would have
been obvious to modify the threaded mount apertures 38 of the body 16
disclosed in Richter to have a "standard four-hole AMPS hole pattern," also
required by claim 1. After considering Appellant's arguments for why the
Examiner's decisions on those issues are erroneous, we are not persuaded.
For the reasons discussed below, Appellant has failed to demonstrate the
Examiner performed an improper obviousness analysis.
Turning to the first challenge, Appellant argues that "Richter has no
teaching of a suction cup mounting surface being formed on first face (82) of
rigid plate (16)." Appeal Br. 10. As support, Appellant points to the
absence in the Specification of Richter of any words used to describe the
first face (82) of the rigid body (16) as a substantially smooth and planar
surface of a type useful as a suction cup mounting surface. Id. Richter
instead simply describes the first face (82) as "the upper surface 82 of the
body 16." Id. (quoting Richter col. 5, 11. 10-13). Appellant repeatedly
redirects us to the Richter Specification and never addresses what the figures
in the Specification clearly show a skilled artisan. See id. at 10, 12; see also
Reply Br. 3.
3
Appeal2014-000862
Application 11/977 ,812
It is important to remember Supreme Court precedent instructs that an
Examiner is not required to "seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim" because there is latitude to
"take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would employ." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007). While an Examiner must identify support from the prior art to
properly establish a reason with a rational underpinning for why a particular
combination would have been obvious, the Examiner's consideration of the
prior art is not so limited that it presumes the ordinarily skilled person
cannot see beyond exactly what the express words of each reference teaches.
Id. at 421. This is because the ordinarily skilled person "is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id.
An Examiner is likewise not required to presume a skilled artisan's
understanding of a figure or illustration is limited to only what is written
about them. Evidence that something is old and within the knowledge of the
skilled artisan can be established by what is clearly shown in patent
drawings, even as to features unexplained by the specification. In re Mraz,
455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972). A drawing is evaluated on the basis of
what it reasonably discloses and suggests to a person of ordinary skill in the
art. In re Aslanian, 590 F .2d 911, 914 (CCP A 1979). Of course, there is the
exception that patent drawings cannot be relied upon to disclose the precise
proportions of elements if they are not designated in some way as being
drawn to scale. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'!, Inc., 222
F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000). That exception, however, is not implicated
in this case.
4
Appeal2014-000862
Application 11/977 ,812
We will adopt for purposes of our decision the Appellant's claim
construction that a "suction cup mounting surface" is properly understood as
requiring a substantially smooth and planar surface to enable a seal and
vacuum to occur between the suction cup and the surface. See Appeal Br. 2,
10; Ans. 14; Reply Br. 2. Even so, we agree with the Examiner's
explanation for why Richter discloses a "suction cup surface," as required by
claim 1. Specifically, the Examiner states,
Further, even if applicant claimed a "substantially smooth and
planar surface" as the suction cup mounting surface, it is the
Examiner's position that Richter teaches a substantially smooth
and planar surface. Figs. 3 and 4 show a surface (82) that is
substantially smooth and planar. The smooth and planar nature
of member (82) is further shown in Fig. 5. There, the drawing
depicts member (82) as smooth, flat and planar. Noticeably
absent are any ridges, bumps or protrusions that could create an
ineffective seal between the suction cup and the mounting
surface.
Ans. 14--15. Figure 4 of Richter is reproduced below.
5
Appeal2014-000862
Application 11/977 ,812
Figure 4 depicts an exploded view of the Richter holder device and shows a
smooth, flat and planar surface on the top side of the holder. Richter col. 3,
11. 14--15, Fig. 4. Figure 4, therefore, provides evidentiary support for the
Examiner's determination that the Richter holder device shows it was known
to have a suction cup mounting surface formed on a first face (82) of a rigid
plate (16), even though that face is not expressly described as smooth, flat
and planar in Richter. See In re Mraz, 455 F.2d at 1072. Appellant's
reliance solely on the description in the Richter Specification and failure to
address what the Examiner actually relies upon as being shown in the
figures, does not properly address the Examiner's rejection or illuminate any
defects in the evidence cited. As such, Appellant has not demonstrated any
error with the Examiner's conclusion.
Turning now to the second challenge, Appellant argues the Examiner
improperly determines it would have been obvious to modify the connector
interface (38) formed adjacent to the second face of the Richter rigid plate
(16) to have a standard four-hole AMPS hole pattern disclosed by Leyden.
Appeal Br. 11, 13, and 15-19. As support, Appellant alleges,
At least because Richter only teaches a specific hole mounting
pattern (mount apertures 38 of body 16) matched to another
specific hole mounting pattern (apertures 78) that is designed to
mate only with exactly that specific hole mounting pattern
(mount apertures 38 of body 16), while Leyden, et al. teaches
plate 68 itself should include AMPS []apertures 144 (FIG. 8)
whereby plate 68 itself "forms a second mounting platform to
which can couple numerous AMPS-compatible objects," there
is no suggestion or motivation in the references to substitute the
mount plate 40 of Richter to instead by formed with the AMPS
hole pattern 144 of Leyden, et al.
Id. at 16 (original emphasis). Leyden "only results in the mount plate 40
having AMPS hole pattern 144 all the way through, but does not result in the
6
Appeal2014-000862
Application 11/977 ,812
mount plate 40 having AMPS hole pattern interface formed on one surface,
and a suction sup mounting surface on a second opposing face." Id.
The Examiner properly viewed the prior art from the vantage point of
an ordinarily skilled artisan of ordinary creativity, and not an automaton.
KSR Int'! Co., 550 U.S. at 421. A proper analysis, in this case, does not
require the Examiner to find specific statements in either Richter or Leyden
instructing the placement of an AMPS hole pattern on the backside of a
suction cup mounting surface. Id. at 418. The proper question answered by
the Examiner is whether an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the
invention, facing the wide range of needs created by developments in the
field of endeavor, would have seen a benefit to rearranging the connector
interface (38) formed adjacent to the second face of the Richter rigid plate
(16) to have a standard AMPS four-hole pattern disclosed by Leyden. See
id. at 424. The Examiner concluded yes, which is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Explaining how the Examiner reached the conclusion that it would
have been obvious to rearrange the hole configuration of the connector
interface (38) to have an AMPS hole pattern, the Examiner states,
The AMPS hole pattern is a standard hole pattern. It is a
common hole pattern. It is so widely used that the applicant
refers to the hole pattern as "standard."[] Thus, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of
the invention was made, to change the hole pattern of Richter
and construct the hole pattern in the shape of the standard
AMPS hole pattern of Leyden in order to attach to a supporting
device or structure having an AMPS hole pattern, since the
AMPS hole pattern is commonly and widely used in the
industry, in order to attach the platform to a wide variety of
mounting devices in various cars.
Ans. 16. The Examiner's reasoning is firmly rooted by a rational
7
Appeal2014-000862
Application 11/977 ,812
underpinning, which this record supports, and Appellant has not offered any
rebuttal evidence that overcomes the facts and reasoning supporting the
Examiner's conclusion. Simply because Richter discloses a particular hole
configuration for the connector interface does not demonstrate changing that
configuration would render the holes unsatisfactory for their intended
purpose. To the contrary, the change would make the connector interface
more acceptable because it could be connected to a wider variety of base
structures.
Therefore, because we are not convinced the Examiner made either a
legal or factual error in reaching the conclusion claim 1 is obvious in view of
Richter and Leyden, we sustain the Examiner's rejection. As a result, claims
2-10, 12, 13, and 15-20 fall with claim 1 and we also sustain the Examiner's
rejection of those claims.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-10, 12, 13,
and 15-20.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8