Ex Parte Cheney

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 13, 2009

10021267 (B.P.A.I. May. 13, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte DALE S. CHENEY
__________

Appeal 2008-3058
Application 10/021,267
Technology Center 3700
__________

Decided:1 May 13, 2009
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, LORA M. GREEN, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2008-3058
Application 10/021,267

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 27, 28, 30, 34-36, 38, 39, 43-49, and
53.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to a vehicle storage box. Claims 27, 35, 43,
and 53 are representative of the claims on appeal, and read as follows:
27. A vehicle storage box, comprising:
a) a base structure;
b) a lid, pivotally connected to the base structure, shaped to enclose
the base structure; and
c) a lid coupler comprising a first and second adjustable lid actuator
and a first and second lid latch, connected to the lid and the base structure,
shaped to releasably couple the lid to the base structure, the lid coupler
having a first coupling position occurring when the lid is in an opened
position;
d) the lid actuator including a hooking cam to engage the lid latch
while the lid is in an opened position such that, as the lid actuator is rotated,
the lid latch tracks along the hooking cam of the lid actuator while the lid is
pulled down; and
e) the first and second lid actuators being coupled together by a cable
and pulley system wherein a pulley is coupled to each of the lid actuators
and connected by a cable for simultaneous operation of the first and second
lid actuators.

35. A storage box for use with vehicles comprising:
a) a base structure;
b) a lid, pivotally connected to the base structure, shaped to enclose a
portion of the base structure; and

2 Claims 29, 34-36, and 50-52 are also pending, but have been indicated as
having allowable subject matter (App. Br. 2).
2
Appeal 2008-3058
Application 10/021,267

c) lid coupling means, connected to the lid and the base structure, for
releasably coupling the lid to the base structure, and having a first coupling
position occurring when the lid is in an opened position; and
d) the lid coupling means including a lid latch coupled to the lid, and
means, rotably coupled to the base structure, for engaging and latching the
lid latch while in the first coupling position; and
e) the means for engaging and latching the lid latch including a
hooking cam for facilitating closing and securing the lid to the base
structure, the hooking cam on a lid actuator engages the lid latch while the
lid is in an opened position such that, as the lid actuator is rotated, the lid
latch tracks along the hooking cam of the lid actuator wherein the lid is
pulled down, the lid being securely closed upon complete travel of the lid
latch along the hooking cam; wherein the lid actuator rotates substantially
180 degrees along the hooking cam such that the lid latch is forced through
cam action.

43. A vehicle storage box, comprising:
a) a base structure;
b) a lid, pivotally connected to the base structure, shaped to enclose
the base structure; and
c) a lid coupler, connected to the lid and the base structure, shaped to
releasably couple the lid to the base structure, the lid coupler having a first
coupling position occurring when the lid is in an opened position, the lid
coupler including an adjustable lid actuator and an adjustable lid latch, each
rotatable in a common plane substantially parallel to a front of the base
structure.

53. A vehicle storage box, comprising:
a base structure;
a lid, pivotally connected to the base structure; and
a lid coupler configured to releasably couple the lid to the base
structure, the lid coupler having a first coupling position in which the lid
coupler engages the lid when the lid is in an opened position.

The Examiner relies on the following evidence:
Grove US 460,437 Sep. 29, 1891
Howe US 532,067 Jan. 8, 1895
3
Appeal 2008-3058
Application 10/021,267

Saunders US 1,155,447 Oct. 5, 1915
Luce Re 16,643 May 31, 1927
Wilkirson US 2,708,302 May 17, 1955
Remington US 4,363,226 Dec. 14, 1982

The following grounds of rejection are before us for review:
I. Claims 27, 28, 30, 34, and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Remington;
II. Claims 35 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Saunders;
III Claim 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being rendered obvious
by Howe;
IV Claim 53 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Wilkinson;
V Claim 53 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Luce;
VI Claims 35, 36, 38, 39, 43-49, and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Grove; and
VII Claim 49 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being rendered
obvious by the combination of Grove and Howe.
We reverse all grounds of rejection.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The interpretation of terms in a claim is a matter of law. In re
American Academy Of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir.
2004). During prosecution before the Office, claims are to be given their
4
Appeal 2008-3058
Application 10/021,267

broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 1364
To anticipate, every element and limitation of the claimed invention
must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the claim.
Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383, (Fed. Cir.
2001).
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
(2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; (3) the differences between the
claimed invention and the prior art; and (4) secondary considerations of
nonobviousness, if any. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966).
The Supreme Court has recently emphasized that “the [obviousness] analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR
Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “The combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416. Moreover, an
“[e]xpress suggestion to substitute one equivalent for another need not be
present to render such substitution obvious.” In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301
(CCPA 1982).

ISSUE
The Examiner finds that claims 27, 28, 30, 34, and 53 are anticipated
by Remington.
5
Appeal 2008-3058
Application 10/021,267

Appellant contends that Remington does not teach or suggest a lid
coupler having a first coupling position in which the lid coupler engages the
lid when the lid is in an opened position.
Thus, the issue on appeal is: Has Appellant established that the
Examiner erred in finding that Remington anticipates a storage box having a
lid coupler that has a first coupling position in which the lid coupler engages
the lid when the lid is in an opened position?

FINDINGS OF FACT
FF1 The Specification teaches that an advantage of the invention is to
provide a vehicle storage box that “has a dual actuating cam latching design,
which catches when the lid is still open.” (Spec. 4, ll. 11-13.)
FF2 An advantage of the invention is “to provide a vehicle storage box
which facilitates closing and locking of an overfilled box.” (Id. at ll. 14-15.)
FF3 Figure 2 on the instant Specification is reproduced below.

6
Appeal 2008-3058
Application 10/021,267

Figure 2 is a front view of the lid actuator means (id. at 6, l. 15).
FF4 According to the Specification:
Lid actuator 22 is constructed to rotate substantially 180
degrees about bolt 36. The need to rotate substantially 180
degrees is a function of hooking cam 45. To enable the user to
hook lid latch 24 while lid 14 is still in an opened position, and
to then rotate lid actuator 22 to its final position wherein lid
latch 24 completely tracks withing cam 47 pulling lid 14 to a
closed and secured position, lid actuator must rotate
substantially 180 degrees. The range of motion hooking can
travels from the first coupling position to the final coupling
position is substantially 180 degrees. This allows the
relationship between lid actuator and hooking cam 45 to
function as intended.

(Id. at 10, ll. 11-19.)
FF5 “Engage3” may be defined as “[t]o be in gear, as two cogwheels
working together.”
FF6 The Examiner rejects claims 27, 28, 30, 34, and 53 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Remington (Ans. 3).
FF7 The Examiner relies on Figure 3 of Remington, reproduced below.

3 engage. Dictionary.com. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary.
MICRA, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/engage (accessed:
April 22, 2009).
7
Appeal 2008-3058
Application 10/021,267

Figure 3 is “a front elevational view of a section of the [latching] console
which attaches interiorly of the luggage case” of Remington (Remington,
col. 3, ll. 12-13).
FF8 The Examiner finds that Remington teaches a base structure and a lid,
and “a lid coupler comprising hooking cams 38, 40 and lid latches 16 with
protrusions 42 configured to releasably couple the lid to the base structure.”
(Ans. 3.)
FF9 As to the limitation that “‘the lid coupler engages the lid when the lid
is in an open position,’” the Examiner points to hooking cams 38 and 40
which rotate to engage the lid latch at protrusions 42. The Examiner notes
that Figure 3 does not show the moment that hooking cams 38 would engage
latch protrusions 42, but finds that “hooking cams 38 and 40 would engage
first at the slanted edges (note the slanted edge adjacent numeral 38 in Fig.
5),” and that “[a]s the locks rotate the slanted edges would force the latch
protrusions 42 into the lock position in Fig. 3.” (Id.)
FF10 Remington teaches “a latching system suitable for use on a luggage
article, particularly in a latching console which may be attached to one
section of a luggage article . . . for releasably securing that section to another
section of the article.” (Remington, col. 1, ll. 5-9)
FF11 According to Remington,
Latch-carrying section 18 of the latching console carries
spaced swivelling latches 34, 36 adapted to swivel in planes
parallel to the general plane of wall portion 26 and a drive
mechanism . . . for providing swiveling movement of the
latches in unison. The latches have hook portions 38 and 40
adapted to engage posts 42 of the respective hasps. The lock
and actuator assembly 20 includes a manual actuator 44 for
effecting swiveling movement of latch 34 (and through the
8
Appeal 2008-3058
Application 10/021,267

drive mechanism corresponding movement of latch 36) and a
combination lock 46 for locking the actuator and latches in
position when the case is closed.

(Id. at col. 4, ll. 3-14, emphasis added)

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that “Remington does not teach or suggest the
claimed hooking cam that engages the lid latch while the lid is in an opened
position.” (App. Br. 8.) Remington, Appellant asserts, is drawn to a
latching system for luggage, as can be seen in Figure 3 of Remington, “the
lid latch (42) cannot be engaged by cam (38) unless the lid is in a closed
position.” (Id.) According to Appellant, “Remington clearly states that the
lid of the luggage is closed before the latches are engaged.” (Id.)
We find that Appellant has the better position. Starting with claim 53,
claim 53 requires that “the lid coupler having a first coupling position in
which the lid coupler engages the lid when the lid is in an opened position.”
We interpret “opened position” as there being some space between the base
and lid, and excluding a position where, the lid overlaps the base such that
there is no open space between the lid and the base, but where the lid and the
base are not in the final locked position. Such a position may occur when
the base has a section over which the lid fits, such as shown in Figure 3 of
Grove.
In addition, the Examiner appears to be interpreting “engaged” as
merely touching. However, “engage” is defined as “[t]o be in gear, as two
cogwheels working together.” (FF5.) In addition, the Specification teaches
a vehicle storage box that has a dual actuating cam latching design that
9
Appeal 2008-3058
Application 10/021,267

catches when the lid is still open (FF1). Thus, in view of the teachings of
the Specification and the dictionary definition, we interpret “engaged” as
requiring that the lid coupler catch the lid, such that the lid is held in position
by the lid coupler while the lid is an opened position.
The Examiner finds that that hooking cams 38 and 40 would engage
first at the slanted edges (note the slanted edge adjacent numeral 38 in Fig.
5), and that as the locks rotate the slanted edges would force the latch
protrusions into the lock position in Fig. 3 (FF9). As noted above, however,
the Examiner appears to be interpreting “engaged” as touching, and the
Examiner has provided no evidence or scientific reasoning that the hooking
cams would engage the latch protrusions such that the lid is held in position
by the hooking cams while the lid is an opened position. Moreover, as noted
by the Appellant, Remington specifically teaches that the actuator and
latches are locked into position when the case is closed (FF11). Thus we
find that the Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of
anticipation.
Claim 27, the other rejected independent claim, also requires the
limitation “the lid actuator including a hooking cam to engage the lid latch
while the lid is in an opened position,” and thus the Examiner has failed to
set forth a prima facie case of anticipation as to that claim, as well as the
claims dependent thereon, for the same reasons set forth with respect to
claim 53.

10
Appeal 2008-3058
Application 10/021,267

CONCLUSION(S) OF LAW
We find that Appellant established that the Examiner erred in finding
that Remington anticipates a storage box having a lid coupler that has a first
coupling position in which the lid coupler engages the lid when the lid is in
an opened position. We thus reverse the rejection of claims 27, 28, 30, 34,
and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Remington.

ISSUE
The Examiner finds that claims 35 and 36 are anticipated by Saunders.
Appellant contends that Saunders does not meet the limitation that the
lid actuator rotates 180 degrees to move the hooking cam.
Thus, the issue on appeal is: Has the Appellant established that the
Examiner erred in finding that Saunders meets the limitation that the lid
actuator rotates 180 degrees to move the hooking cam?

FINDINGS OF FACT
FF12 The Examiner rejects claims 35 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Saunders (Ans. 4).
FF13 The Examiner finds that “Saunders teaches [a] storage box having a
base structure, . . . a lid coupler including a lid latch and a lid actuator.” (Id.)
FF14 As to the limitations that the lid actuator rotates 180 degrees, the
Examiner finds that the curve portion is about 180 degrees, and thus “portion
10 can travel substantially 180 degrees as claimed, depending on the rotating
closing force.” (Id.) According to the Examiner, “[t]here is nothing to limit
the traveling of portion 10 [to] the entire curved portion 14,” and that the
11
Appeal 2008-3058
Application 10/021,267

“functionality of the actuator rotating 180 degrees does not impart any
structure over the latch structure in Saunders.” (Id. at 4-5.)
FF15 Saunders is drawn to an air-tight shipping can for butter, lard, and
other fat containing products (Saunders ll. 8-19).
FF16 Figures 1 and 3 of Saunders are reproduced below:

Figure 1 shows a vertical central section of the container of Saunders, and
Figure 3 is a broken front elevation of the container, showing the latch for
securing the lid in a closed position (id. at ll. 25-30).
FF17 Saunders teaches:
Lid 6 is provided at a point diametrically opposite hinge
7 with a depending lip 9, having an inwardly extending lug 10
for engagement with an eccentric latch 11, pivotally secured to
the adjacent side of a cylinder 2 by a pivot 12. Latch 11 has a
handle 13, whereby it may be rocked on its pivot 12 to engage
or disengage the stud 10. By having the eccentric portion 14 of
the latch engage the stud 10 as shown in Fig. 3, said latch
firmly draws the lid 6 down upon the gasket 5, thereby making
the upper end of the container 1 air-tight.

(Id. at ll. 45-57.)

12
Appeal 2008-3058
Application 10/021,267

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Saunders does not meet the limitation that the
lid actuator rotates 180 degrees to move the hooking cam (App. Br. 10).
According to Appellant:
[L]ug (10) is part of the lid (6) and does not move except with
opening of the lid (6). Latch (11) rotates to move the eccentric
portion (14) around the lug (10) to seal the lid (6). However,
the latch (11) does not rotate 180 degrees. Rather, the lid (6) is
released if the latch (11) is move[d] only 90 degrees as is
evident from Saunders’ Fig. 3. Moreover, the lip (9) of the lid
(6) will prevent the latch (11) from moving a full 180 degrees.

(Id.at 11.)
Claim 35 recites the limitation of a “means for engaging and latching
the lid latch including a hooking cam for facilitating closing and securing the
lid to the base structure, . . . wherein the lid actuator rotates substantially
180 degrees along the hooking cam such that the lid latch is forced through
cam action.” As can be seen in Figure 3 of Saunders (FF16), when the lid is
in a closed position, we agree with Appellant that at most the lid latch has
been rotated 90 degrees.
The Examiner finds that the curve portion of the lid latch is about 180
degrees, and thus portion 10 can travel substantially 180 degrees as claimed,
depending on the rotating closing force, asserting that there is nothing to
limit the traveling portion 10 to the entire curved portion 14 (FF14).
However, the position shown in Figure 3 of Saunders is the closed position,
and the Examiner has not provided any evidence that the latch could travel
substantially 180 degrees without the lip of the lid interfering, or without
damaging the lid latch.
13
Appeal 2008-3058
Application 10/021,267

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We find that Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in
finding that Saunders meets the limitation that the lid actuator rotates 180
degrees to move the hooking cam.
We thus reverse the rejection of claims 35 and 36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Saunders.

ISSUE
The Examiner finds that claim 53 is anticipated by Howe, Wilkinson,
or Luce, or in the alternative, that claim 53 is rendered obvious by Howe.
Appellant contends that none of Howe, Wilkinson, or Luce teaches or
suggests that the claimed lid coupler having a first coupling position in
which the lid coupler engages the lid is in an opened position.
Thus, the issue on appeal is: Has Appellant established that the
Examiner erred in finding that any of Howe, Wilkinson, or Luce teaches or
suggests that the claimed lid coupler has a first coupling position in which
the lid coupler engages the lid is in an opened position?

FINDINGS OF FACT
FF18 The Examiner rejects claim 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being
rendered obvious by Howe (Ans. 5).
FF19 The Examiner finds that as to the limitation that “‘the lid coupler
engages the lid when the lid is in an open position,’” that as shown in Figure
14
Appeal 2008-3058
Application 10/021,267

2 of Howe, that coupling position is achieved when the hooking cams at C2
start to engage by touching the lid latch C3 (id.).
FF20 As to obviousness, the Examiner concludes that “to the degree it is
argued that the two portions a and b are not pivotally connected,” the
Examiner takes “Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to provide a hinge to provide a pivotal connection.”
(Id.)
FF21 Howe teaches a clasp or fastening, which may be preferably used on a
violin box (Howe, ll. 10-13).
FF22 Figures 1 and 2 of Howe are reproduced below.

Figure 1 shows a violin box with two of the fastenings taught by Howe, and
Figure 2 shows an enlarged front elevation of one of the fastenings in its
unlocked position (id. at ll. 36-42).
FF23 According to Howe, the fastener consists of
15
Appeal 2008-3058
Application 10/021,267

a metallic circular disk or plate c, pivoted at c’ to the cover b,
near its lower edge, so that a segmental portion of said disk or
plate will project below the lower edge of the cover. A slot or
recess c2 is cut or otherwise formed in said lower projecting
portion of the disk or plate extending in a direction obliquely to
the radius of the disk, to receive the pin c3 secured to and
projecting outwardly from the box a. The side edges of said
slot c2 are or may be curved as shown on an axis eccentric to
the axis upon which the disk or plate turns, so that as the pin c3
enters the slot, and the disk or plate is turned, the parts a,b, of
the box will be drawn together. So also by curving the slot as
shown I find that by closing the parts a, b, of the box together,
as the pin c3 strikes the curved side at the entrance to the slot it
will cause the disk or plate c to turn on its axis sufficiently to
carry the pin c3 some distance into the slot or recess.

(Id. at ll. 50-70.)
FF24 The Examiner also rejects claim 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Wilkirson or Luce (Ans. 5).
FF25 The Examiner finds that as to Wilkirson, the limitation that “‘the lid
coupler engages the lid when the lid is in an open position’” is met when
hooking cams 51 first engage the groove 52, and that as the cams 51 rotate,
“the cams engage latches 54 along with the lid into the lock position in Fig.
13.” (Id.)
FF26 Wilkirson teaches a casket closing and sealing means (Wilkerson, col.
1, ll. 15-16).
FF27 Figure 3 of Wilkirson is reproduced below.
16
Appeal 2008-3058
Application 10/021,267

Figure 3 shows a “vertical sectional elevation showing . . . with its lids
closed but not locked.” (Id. at col. 2, ll. 7-8).
FF28 According to Wilkirson:
To lock both lids, a plurality of cam-action latches 50
[Fig. 3] are employed. Each latch 50 includes a curved
camming finger 51 defined by a curved slot 52 whose inner
wall 52a is circular, with its center on the axis of the latch pivot
pin 53, while its outer wall is arranged and extends outwardly
an increasing distance from said axis, so that slot 52 is wider at
its outer end than at its inner end. The camming finger 51 is
designed to engage a keeper pin 54 fixed in a keeper plate 55
secured in the edge of the lid, and due to the design of the parts,
the camming finger draws down the lid and pulls it even tighter
against the sealing gaskets until the keeper pin finally reaches
the inner end of slot 52.

(Id. at col. 2, ll. 51-63.)
FF29 With respect to Luce, the Examiner finds “that when the hooking
cams 22 engages the latch protrusion 18 along path 18” it is the same as the
claimed open position (Ans. 6).
FF30 Luce is drawn to a locking device for a trunk (Luce, ll. 1-2).
FF31 According to Luce,
17
Appeal 2008-3058
Application 10/021,267

The primary object of this invention is to provide
improved means whereby the motion of a movable member
associated with a key operated lock may be transmitted to one
or more distant locking members to automatically operate the
latter, whereby the closing and locking together of the parts of a
trunk at one point, will without any attention on the part of the
user result in a doweling, binding and locking together of trunk
parts at one or more other points.

(Id. at ll. 13-23.)
FF32 Figures 6 of Luce are reproduced below.

Figure 6 is an elevational view of a trunk to which the invention of Luce has
been applied (id. at 2, ll. 7-9).
FF33 As can be seen in Figure 6, the “cover section is locked to the body
section by an ordinary key operated lock having a hasp 3a.” (Id. at ll. 126-
128.)

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that none of Howe, Wilkinson, or Luce teaches or
suggests that “the claimed lid coupler having a first coupling position in
which the lid coupler engages the lid is in an opened position.” (App. Br.
12.)
18
Appeal 2008-3058
Application 10/021,267

As to Howe, Appellant argues that “it is perfectly clear from Fig. 2 of
Howe, the latch C cannot engage unless the lid of the box is in a fully closed
position.” (Id.) Moreover, Appellant asserts, as “seen in Wilkinson’s Fig. 3,
the casket lid must be closed prior to the engagement of the latches (50),”
and in Luce, as can be seen from figures 6 and 7, “the lid of the trunk must
be closed before the latches for the lid are engaged.” (Id.)
With respect to Howe, Howe teaches that as the pin c3 enters the slot,
and the disk or plate is turned, the parts a,b, of the box will be drawn
together (FF23). While the Examiner finds that coupling position is
achieved when the hooking cams at C2 start to engage by touching the lid
latch C3 (FF19), that finding appears to be interpreting engage as touching,
and not as requiring the lid coupler catch the lid, such that the lid is held in
position by the lid coupler while the lid is an opened position. Moreover,
the Examiner has not provided any evidence or reasoning as to why it would
have been obvious to modify the hooking cams of Howe so that they engage
while the lid is in an open position.
With respect to Wilkirson, the Examiner finds that the limitation that
the lid coupler engages the lid when the lid is in an open position is met
when hooking cams 51 first engage the groove 52, and that as the cams 51
rotate, the cams engage latches 54 along with the lid into the lock (FF25).
Wilkirson, however specifically shows a closed casket, and states that the
“camming finger 51 is designed to engage a keeper pin 54 fixed in a keeper
plate 55 secured in the edge of the lid, and due to the design of the parts, the
camming finger draws down the lid and pulls it even tighter against the
sealing gaskets until the keeper pin finally reaches the inner end of slot 52.”
19
Appeal 2008-3058
Application 10/021,267

(FF28.) Thus, the actions of the hooking cams is to draw down the lid of the
casket “even tighter” against the sealing gaskets, and therefore engages the
keeper pin 54 when the lid is in a closed position.
With respect to Luce, the Examiner finds that when the hooking cams
22 engage the latch protrusion 18 along path 18, it is the same as the claimed
open position (FF29). However, the mechanism of Luce is activated by
turning a key in a lock (FF31), and as can be seen in Figure 6 of Luce
(FF32), the key cannot be placed in the lock unless the lid is in a closed
position.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We find Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in finding
that any of Howe, Wilkirson, or Luce teaches or suggests that the claimed lid
coupler has a first coupling position in which the lid coupler engages the lid
is in an opened position.
We thus reverse: the rejection of claim 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being
rendered obvious by Howe, as well as the rejection of claim 53 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wilkirson or Luce.

ISSUE
The Examiner finds that claims 35, 36, 38, 39, 43-49, and 53 are
anticipated by Grove; and concludes that claim 49 is rendered obvious by
the combination of Grove and Howe.
20
Appeal 2008-3058
Application 10/021,267

Appellant contends that Grove does not teach or suggest the claimed
lid coupling means having a first coupling position occurring when the lid is
in an opened position.
Thus, the issue on appeal is: Has Appellant established that the
Examiner erred in finding that Grove teaches or suggests the claimed lid
coupling means having a first coupling position occurring when the lid is in
an opened position?

FINDINGS OF FACT
FF34 The Examiner rejects claims 35, 36, 38, 39, 43-49, and 53 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Grove (Ans. 6).
FF35 The Examiner finds that Grove teaches a storage box that has a base
structure and a lid, with “a lid coupler connected to the lid and the base
structure.” (Id.)
FF36 The Examiner finds further that the “lid coupler comprises an actuator
B, and a lid latch B’,” wherein the lid actuator includes “a V shaped hooking
cam with one leg at b3 to engage the lid latch B’ while the lid is in an open
position as shown in Fig. 3.” (Id.) According to the Examiner, the “lid latch
B’ tracks along the hooking cam of the lid actuator such that the lid actuator
is rotated the lid latch tracks along the hooking cam and the lid actuator is
pulled down along the curve and into the notch at B2 (note point b3 in Fig.
1).” (Id.)
FF37 Grove teaches a box-fastener (Grove, ll. 2-7).
FF38 Figures 1 and 3 of Grove are reproduced below:
21
Appeal 2008-3058
Application 10/021,267

Figure 1 shows a box provided with fastener of Grove, and Figure 3 is a side
elevation of the box fastener (id. at ll. 26-32).
FF39 According to Grove:
Inspection of Figs. 1 and 3 of the drawings will show that
when the device is closed the upper section B’ will rest between
the arms b5 and the thumb piece b6 closer to the box than the
loops a2—that is, the said section B’ will be within the points of
pivotal support for the section B2—and therefore the device will
not open of itself, . . . but the fastener will only be released and
the box allowed to open by exerting pressure upon the arms b5
and turning the lower section B2 into the position shown in
Figs. 2 and 3.
22
Appeal 2008-3058
Application 10/021,267

(Id. at ll. 87-100)
FF40 The Examiner also rejects claim 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
rendered obvious by the combination of Grove and Howe (Ans. 6).

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that “Grove does not teach or suggest the claimed lid
coupling means having a first coupling position occurring when the lid is in
an opened position.” (App. Br. 13.) Pointing to Figures 1 and 3 of Grove,
Appellant contends that “the lid would have to be closed before the lower
section (B2) can be rotated downward to the position shown in Fig. 1 to
engage the upper section (B’) and secure the lid of the box.” (Id.)
Independent claim 35 requires a “lid coupling means including a lid
latch coupled to the lid, and means, rotably coupled to the base structure, for
engaging and latching the lid latch while in the first coupling position,”
independent claim 43 requires a “lid coupler, connected to the lid and the
base structure, shaped to releasably couple the lid to the base structure, the
lid coupler having a first coupling position occurring when the lid is in an
opened position,” and independent claim 53 requires a “lid coupler having a
first coupling position in which the lid coupler engages the lid when the lid
is in an opened position.” Thus, each of the rejected independent claims
requires a lid coupler which engages the lid while the lid is an opened
position.
The Examiner finds that the lid actuator of Grove includes a V shaped
hooking cam with one leg at b3 to engage the lid latch B’ while the lid is in
an open position as shown in Fig. 3 (FF36). Figure 3 (FF38), however, does
23
Appeal 2008-3058
Application 10/021,267

not support that finding of the Examiner, i.e., that the leg b3 of the V shaped
hooking cam would be able to engage the lid, such that the lid is held in
position by the leg b3 of the V shaped hooking cam while the lid is an
opened position, wherein there is some space between the base and lid, and
not where the lid is over a portion of the lip of the base of the box of Grove.
As noted by Grove, it is when the device is closed that the upper section B’
will rest between the arms b5 (FF39).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in
finding that Grove teaches or suggests the claimed lid coupling means
having a first coupling position occurring when the lid is in an opened
position.
We thus reverse the rejection of claims 35, 36, 38, 39, 43-49, and 53
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Grove.
In addition, as Howe does not remedy the deficiencies of Grove, we
also reverse the rejection of claim 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
rendered obvious by the combination of Grove and Howe.

REVERSED
Ssc:

STEVEN L. NICHOLS
RADAR, FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC
10653 S. RIVER FRONT PARKWAY
SUITE 150
SOUTH JORDAN, UT 84095
24