11189672 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 2, 2010)

Ex Parte Damikolas

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 2, 2010

11189672 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 2, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte GERRY DAMIKOLAS ____________________ Appeal 2009-004703 Application 11/189,672 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Decided: March 2, 2010 ____________________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY and FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s 2 decision finally rejecting claims 1-10, 12-14 and 16-20. The Examiner has 3 allowed claims 21-23 and objected to claims 11 and 15 as dependent from 4 rejected base claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).5 Appeal 2009-004703 Application 11/189,672 2 We REVERSE. 1 Claim 1 recites: 2 3 1. A lock cylinder plug assembly comprising: 4 a plug body which defines a plug body 5 keyway portion along a longitudinal axis and a 6 plug insert opening; and 7 a plug insert mountable within said opening, 8 said plug insert defining a multitude of tumbler pin 9 chambers, each of said multitude of tumbler pin 10 chambers defining a complete circular opening 11 through an outer surface which corresponds with 12 an outer circumference of said plug body. 13 The only other independent claims on appeal are claims 14 and 17. Claim 14 14 recites a plug body which defines a plug insert opening and a plug insert 15 mountable within the plug insert opening. Claim 17 recites a method 16 including the steps of casting a plug body to form a plug insert opening and 17 assembling the plug insert into the plug insert opening to form a plug 18 assembly. 19 The Examiner rejects claims 1-10, 13, 14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 20 § 102(b) as being anticipated by Huang (US 6,666,057 B1, issued Dec. 23, 21 2003). Huang discloses a lock including a shell 1, an upper half core 2 and a 22 lower half core 3. (Huang, col. 1, ll. 54-57). Figure 1 of Huang depicts the 23 upper core 2 and lower core 3 as having complementary semi-cylindrical 24 shapes fitting together along axially-extending planes to form a cylindrical 25 core or plug. (See also Huang, col. 1, l. 62 – col. 2, l. 2). 26 The Examiner finds that Huang’s lower core 3 is a plug and that the 27 upper core 2 is a plug insert. (Ans. 3). The Appellant contends that Huang’s 28 Appeal 2009-004703 Application 11/189,672 3 upper core 2 is not mountable within a plug insert opening in the lower core 1 3. (App. Br. 7-8). 2 The Appellant does not define the term “within” in the Specification. 3 The Examiner finds that the ordinary meaning of the term “within” is “in the 4 compass or limits of; not beyond.” (Ans. 4, citing dictionary.com (8th 5 definition)). The Examiner finds that Huang’s lower core 3 includes a front 6 flange; that the front flange “delimits” the lower core 3; and that the front 7 flange creates a plug insert opening for receipt of Huang’s upper core 2. 8 (Id.) 9 Even assuming that the axially-extending surface and the front flange 10 of Huang’s lower core 3 define an opening, Huang’s upper core 2 is neither 11 encompassed by that opening nor mounted within meaningful limits of that 12 opening. 13 We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-10, 13, 14 and 16 under § 14 102(b) as being anticipated by Huang because Huang fails to disclose a plug 15 or plug body which defines a plug insert opening and a plug insert 16 mountable within the plug insert opening. 17 The Examiner rejects claims 12 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 18 as being unpatentable over Huang and Towne (US 234,630, issued Nov. 16, 19 1880). Each of claims 12 and 17-20 depends from either claim 1 or claim 20 14. Towne discloses fabricating semi-cylindrical parts of a lock plug by 21 casting. (Towne, ll. 31-39). The Appellant contends that Towne fails to 22 remedy the defects in the disclosure of Huang noted in the discussion of the 23 rejections of claims 1 and 14. (App. Br. 8). The Examiner provides no 24 reasoning which might suggest why one of ordinary skill in the art familiar 25 with the teachings of Huang and Towne might have had reason to modify 26 Appeal 2009-004703 Application 11/189,672 4 Huang’s upper and lower cores 2, 3 so as to mount Huang’s upper core 3 in 1 a plug insert opening in the lower core 2. Neither does the Examiner 2 provide reasoning which might suggest why one of ordinary skill in the art 3 familiar with the teachings of Huang and Towne might have had reason to 4 modify Huang’s upper and lower cores 2, 3 so as to assemble Huang’s upper 5 core 3 into a plug insert opening in the lower core 2 so as to meet the 6 limitations of claim 17. 7 We do not sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 17-20 under § 103(a) 8 as being unpatentable over Huang and Towne. 9 10 DECISION 11 We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-10, 12-14 12 and 16-20. 13 14 REVERSED 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 mls 22 23 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. 24 400 WEST MAPLE ROAD 25 SUITE 350 26 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 27