Ex Parte Caveney et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2016

12467870 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/467,870
32915 7590
PANDUIT CORP.
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
05/18/2009 Jack E. Caveney
06/23/2016
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.
LCB484-CON-2 8849
EXAMINER
18900 Panduit Drive KUE, KA YING
TINLEY PARK, IL 60487
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3729
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):
patents@panduit.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JACK E. CA VENEY, SCOTT R. HARTMAN, and
DAVID R. DA VIS
Appeal2014-000576
Application 12/467,870
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
CHARLES N. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jack E. Caveney et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 1 and 2.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Panduit Corp. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 3 and 4 have been cancelled, and claims 5-12 withdrawn from
consideration.
Appeal2014-000576
Application 12/467,870
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A tool for facilitating insertion and removal of a push-pull
plug, the tool comprising:
a handle; and
a stem extending from the handle, the stem including a clip
at an end thereof, the clip having opposing clip arms at each end
of the clip, each clip arm including an inwardly-directed clip
ridge;
wherein the clip ridges are adapted to engage retention
notches on an outer housing of the plug from above or below the
plug and wherein a plane defined by the clip is substantially
perpendicular to an axis defined by the stem.
REJECTION
Claims 1and2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Denny (US 6,146,179, issued Nov. 14, 2000).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found Denny discloses a tool for facilitating insertion
and removal of a push-pull plug, comprising handle 132, stem 102, and a
clip including clip arms 108, 110. Final Act. 2 (citing Denny, Figs. 1--4).
Appellants contend Denny does not disclose a "tool," as claimed, but
merely discloses a plug or connector with a tab to facilitate insertion and
removal of the plug. Appeal Br. 4.
We agree with Appellants. Denny discloses connector 100 including
movable latches 108, 110 adapted to cooperate with catch members 124,
122, respectively, provided on connector part 120. Denny, col. 2, 11. 52----67;
Figs. 1-3. The Examiner found connector 100 and connector part 120
correspond to the claimed "tool" and "push-pull plug," respectively.
2
Appeal2014-000576
Application 12/467,870
However, Denny also refers to these elements as a "first movable connector
part" and a "second fixedly positioned connector part." See, e.g., id. at col.
1, 11. 46-63, col. 2, 11. 12-15. That is, connector 100 and connector part 120
are component parts of a connector that includes latches on one part that
releasably engage catch members on the other part to allow the connector to
be latched and unlatched using one hand. See id. at col. 1, 11. 41--43.
Connector part 120 is located on printed circuit board 126. Id. at col. 2, 11.
65----67; Figs. 1-3. Connector 100 is designed to facilitate releasable
engagement of itself from connector part 120, the other part of the
connector, by a user using one hand. In contrast, the claimed tool is adapted
to engage elements of a push-pull plug, and is for facilitating insertion and
removal of that push-pull plug. This language implies that the plug is
distinct from the tool. This construction is consistent with Figures 10-12 of
Appellants' application, showing tool 52 separately (Fig. 10) and tool 52
gripping separate plug 110 (Figs. 11 and 12).
Claim 1 also recites "a plane defined by the clip is substantially
perpendicular to an axis defined by the stem." Appellants contend Denny
does not disclose a plane defined by the clip (i.e., clip arms 108, 110)
perpendicular to an axis defined by the stem (i.e., main body 102). Appeal
Br. 5.
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner provided an annotated
version of Figure 1 of Denny, which the Examiner asserted shows a "plane"
perpendicular to an "axis." Final Act. 3. In the annotated figure, it appears
the horizontal line represents "an axis defined by the stem" and the vertical
line extending along latch 110 represents "a plane defined by the clip." Id.
3
Appeal2014-000576
Application 12/467,870
In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner responded to Appellants'
contention by indicating that main body 102 includes linking bar 130, and
linking bar 130 is considered a "stem," as claimed. Ans. 2-3. The
Examiner stated that "a plane passing through each of the clips (i.e. latches
108 and 110) is perpendicular to the main body (102), particularly, the
linking bar (130) as illustrated in Fig. 2." Ans. 4.
Appellants respond that "any plane that passes through both of the
alleged clip latches (elements 108, 110) in Denny, is clearly parallel to the
linking bar (the element the examiner equates to a stem)." Reply Br. 4.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner did not establish Denny
discloses "a plane defined by the clip [that] is substantially perpendicular to
an axis defined by the stem," as claimed. In the Examiner's Answer, the
Examiner did not adequately identify or explain the location of an axis
defined by linking bar 130, or a plane that passes through each latch 108,
110 and is perpendicular to the axis, in Denny's connector. Perpendicularity
with the vertical lines in the Examiner's annotated Figure 1 (Final Act. 3)
does not equate to perpendicularity with the plane in which those lines lie.
Consequently, the Examiner did not show by a preponderance of the
evidence that Denny discloses the disputed limitation.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1,
and claim 2 depending therefrom, as anticipated by Denny.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 2 is reversed.
REVERSED
4