Ex Parte Ceron et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2013

10972741 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2013)

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.
10/972,741 10/25/2004 Daniel Ceron P/3428-5 1012
2352 7590 03/28/2013
OSTROLENK FABER LLP
1180 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
NEW YORK, NY 10036-8403
EXAMINER
BOSWELL, CHRISTOPHER J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3673
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DANIEL CERON, PASCAL BALON
and CHRISTOPHE GRANDJEAN
____________

Appeal 2011-000355
Application 10/972,741
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, ANNETTE R. REIMERS and
CARL M. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000355
Application 10/972,741

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Daniel Ceron et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 109, 113, 115, 116, 118-131, 148,
150 and 151 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Blohm (US
2,580,882; issued Jan. 1, 1952). Claims 1-108, 110-112, 114, 117, 132-147
and 149 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to “a rotor for a locking device that is at
least opened or unlocked by the operation of a key.” Spec.1, ll. 6-7; figs. 1-
2.
Claim 109 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as
follows:
109. A rotor-type locking device that is at least opened
with a first key having at least a face provided with a
channel designed to act on tumbler nibs of a rotor, said
locking device having at least one housing cooperating
with the rotor;
whereby the housing features a receptacle designed
to receive the rotor and adapted to allow the rotor to
rotate between a locked position of the rotor with respect
to the housing for preventing any rotation of the rotor and
an unlocked position of the rotor with respect to the
housing,
the rotor including:
a central chamber with at least one aperture
adapted for the introduction of at least one portion of the
first key into the chamber, said chamber being defined at
least between two inner faces located at least partly one
in front of the other;
Appeal 2011-000355
Application 10/972,741

3
a series of slots which communicate with the
central chamber;
locking tumblers which respectively slide in a slot
under the action of a return means, each tumbler
presenting a control nib designed to cooperate with the
first key introduced into the chamber, so as to bring each
tumbler from a tumbler locking position into a tumbler
unlocking position against the action of the return means,
whereby at least a first tumbler is brought into the
tumbler unlocking position by a displacement in a first
direction while at least a second and a third tumbler are
brought respectively into their tumbler unlocking
position by a displacement in a second direction different
from the first direction,
whereby the nibs of said at least first, second and
third tumblers in their locking position extend at least
partially into the chamber along one of said inner faces
located one in front of the other and are adapted to
cooperate with the channel of said face of the key for
bringing said at least first, second and third tumblers in
their unlocking position,
whereby the rotor features at least one retainer
operable to retain the rotor in the housing of the rotor-
type locking device, said housing presenting an annular
groove designed to receive a broad end of the retainer for
retaining the rotor in the housing, and at least one further
groove at least partially open onto the annular groove,
whereby said retainer is selected among the group
consisting of open retainer, closed retainer, open staple,
closed staple and combinations thereof, the retainer being
slidably mounted in a slot of the rotor so as to move
between a retaining position of the rotor in the housing
and a non retaining position of the rotor in the housing by
the action of a second key being a removal key
introduced in the central chamber of the rotor on an
element of said retainer, so as to remove the rotor from
its housing without damaging the rotor and its housing,
and wherein in which the element designed to cooperate
Appeal 2011-000355
Application 10/972,741

4
with the removal key is selected among the group
consisting of a nib mounted on at least one leg of the
open retainer, a spigot mounted on at least one leg of the
open retainer, a nib mounted on the closed retainer, a
spigot mounted on the closed retainer, and combinations
thereof, and
whereby the retainer is adapted so that in its
retaining position, the broad end remains in the annular
groove so as to retain the rotor in the housing with the
locking tumblers in the rotor in both the tumbler locking
position and in the tumbler unlocking position.

ANALYSIS
Each of independent claims 109, 115, 116 and 151 requires that the
action of the second (removal) key removes the rotor from its housing. Br.,
Claims Appendix. The Examiner found that Blohm teaches that the rotor
(plug 11) “move[s] between a retaining position (figure 6) and a non-
retaining position (figure 8) by action of a second key being a removal key
(13) so as to remove the rotor from the housing.” Ans. 5, 16. In addition,
the Examiner took the position that (1) nut 43 of Blohm “must be removed
from the rotor [plug 11] as well as the retainers [the last two tumblers in the
rotor (plug 11)] must be in the non-retaining position before removal of the
rotor [plug 11] from the housing [barrel 10]” (Ans. 16); and (2) the rotor
(plug 11) and housing (barrel 10) of Blohm “are not of a unitary
construction, and thus the components are independent and discrete to
function properly, though it is not explicitly disclosed that the plug is
removable, it is inherent that the plug is capable of being removed from the
housing” (Ans. 16-17).
Appellants argue that “[t]here is no disclosure anywhere in Blohm that
Appeal 2011-000355
Application 10/972,741

5
the plug 11 is removed from the barrel 10 at all.” Br. 10. Specifically,
according to Appellants, (1) “[a]n external screw thread 41 is provided on
the end of the plug 11 [of Blohm] to allow a nut 43 to fasten the plug 11 to
the [lock-element 14];” (2) “[r]otating the plug [11 of Blohm] 90 degrees
with the small key 12 releases the box from the article, however the plug 11
remains in the barrel 10 and in the coin box;” and (3) “[r]otating the
plug [11 of Blohm] 180 degrees with the long key [13] allows the box to be
unlocked. However, the plug 11 remains in the barrel 10 and in the box as
well.” Id. As such, Appellants take the position that “[n]o key can be used
to separate the plug 11 from the barrel 10. Indeed, the plug 11 cannot be
removed from the barrel 10 unless the nut 43 is removed, and there is no key
that can be used to do this.” Id.
Blohm teaches that (1) when the plug 11 is in its locked position, the
lock element 14 locks the coin box in place with respect to the article with
which the box is associated; (2) when the plug 11 is rotated a quarter turn or
90° from its locked position by the small key 12, the locking element 14
releases the box for removal from the article; and (3) when the plug 11 is
turned or rotated 180° by the long key 13, the lock element 14 unlocks the
box. Blohm, col. 6, ll. 53-62. Blohm further teaches that (1) after the plug
11 is turned 180° by the long key 13 that “the [long] key [13] may be
removed” (Blohm, col. 6, ll. 26-27); and (2) after removal of the coins from
the unlocked box, the agent “by use of the long key 13 will either return the
plug [11] to its locked position or to its quarter turn position” (Blohm, col. 6,
ll. 37-40).
Blohm fails to teach that the action of the second (removal) key 13
removes the rotor (plug) 11 from its housing (barrel) 10. In addition, the
Appeal 2011-000355
Application 10/972,741

6
Examiner does not articulate sufficient technical reasoning to establish a
reasonable basis for belief that the action of Blohm’s second (removal) key
13 necessarily removes the rotor (plug) 11 from its housing (barrel) 10. See
Ans. 16-17. Hence, the Examiner has failed to establish that Blohm teaches
a rotor-type locking device, wherein the action of the second (removal) key
13 removes the rotor 11 from its housing 10. Accordingly, Blohm does not
teach all the limitations of independent claims 109, 115, 116 and 151 or their
respective, dependent claims 113, 118-131, 148 and 150. Therefore, the
rejection of claims 109, 113, 115, 116, 118-131, 148, 150 and 151 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Blohm cannot be sustained.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed as to claims 109, 113, 115,
116, 118-131, 148, 150 and 151.

REVERSED

mls