Ex Parte Cleveland

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 18, 2012

11355511 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ANDREW J. CLEVELAND
____________

Appeal 2010-011144
Application 11/355,511
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, 14-17, 19-22, 24-30, 32-34, and 36-43. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2010-011144
Application 11/355,511

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is direct to ganged electrical outlet
devices in a power distribution unit for distributing power to separate
electrical control units (Spec. 1:5-11).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. An electrical ganged-outlet device of the type
mountable within an electrical equipment apparatus housing for
distributing power to electrical devices, the electrical ganged-
outlet device comprising in combination:

a plurality of electrical power outlets each comprising at
least first and second power connection elements electrically
couplable to a respective electrical device;

at least one common power line electrically
interconnecting the first power-connection elements among the
plurality of electrical power outlets;

a plurality of separate, dedicated control power lines each
electrically connected to the second power-connection element
of a respective one of the plurality of electrical power outlets;
and

a printed circuit board electrically connected to the
control power lines and electrically couplable to a power
source, wherein each of the plurality of separate, dedicated
control power lines is discretely coupled to the printed circuit
board such that the dedicated control power lines are
electrically connectable to and electrically disconnect able from
a power source via the printed circuit board;

wherein power is selectively and separately transmitted
to the second power connection elements of the respective
power outlets via a respective control power line of the plurality
of control power lines.
Appeal 2010-011144
Application 11/355,511

3
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, 14-17, 19-22, 24-30, 32-
34, 36, and 39-43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Yu
(U.S. Patent No. 6,045,399 (filed November 18, 1998) (issued April 4,
2000)), Lee (U.S. Patent No. 6,750,410 B2, (field June 25, 2002) (issued
June 15, 2004)), Peterson (U.S. Patent No. 4,930,047, (filed September 12,
1988) (issued May 29, 1990)), and Morrison (U.S. Patent No. 6,765,158 B1,
(filed May 8, 2003) (issued July 20, 2004)).
The Examiner rejected claims 37 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Yu, Lee, Peterson, and Morrison and further in
view of Rodolfo (U.S. Patent No. 5,430,598 (filed October 20, 1994) (issued
July 4, 1995)).

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner has not made a prima facie case of
obviousness (Br. 7-15), the references are in non-analogous art, and there is
no motivation to combine the references (Br. 12-13).1 We do not agree.
As the Examiner asserts, Appellant is arguing the non-obviousness of
the combination of references by attacking the references individually (See
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981)) (Ans. 14). The Examiner also
finds meritless Appellant’s argument that Yu does not suggest the ganged
outlets are connected in series and thus cannot be modified by Lee because
the complex bus bars of Yu are not required for a switch for each outlet as
taught by Lee (Br. 9). Appellant also asserts Yu would discourage including

1 The Appeal Brief filed January 19, 2010, is referenced throughout this
opinion.
Appeal 2010-011144
Application 11/355,511

4
separate switchable outlets as disclosed in Lee (Br. 9). As the Examiner
finds, and Appellant has not rebutted, Yu’s structure would only require
extending a connecting leg of a bus bar in a direction contacting a control
switch or printed circuit board (PCB) (Ans. 14-15). Appellant’s argument
that the power strips in Lee and Yu cannot be mounted, as they are for
residential use, is also without merit (Br. 10). As the Examiner finds, there
is nothing preventing the devices of Yu and Lee from being able to be
mounted to an equipment rack (Ans. 16). As to Peterson and Morrison, we
again concur with the Examiner’s findings (see Ans. 16-19). Thus, the
combination of Yu, Lee, Peterson, and Morrison suggests claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-
12, 14-17, 19-22, 24-30, 32-34, 36, and 39-43.
The rejection of the claims 37 and 38 is also maintained as Appellant
has merely stated these claims depend from claim 1 (Br. 16).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, 14-17, 19-22,
24-30, 32-34, and 36-43 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2010).

AFFIRMED

Pgc/llw