Ex Parte Dobler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

13694066 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/694,066
77083 7590
Paul M, Denk
763 South New Ballas
Ste. 305
St. Louis, MO 63141
10/25/2012
09/29/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sven Dobler
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.
7906 5176
EXAMINER
LEE, CHEE-CHONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 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 SVEN DOBLER and DALE BEAL
Appeal2014-009987
Application No. 13/694,066
Technology Center 3700
Before JILL D. HILL, LISA M. GUIJT, and ERIC C. JESCHKE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Sven Dobler and Dale Beal ("Appellants") 1 seek review, under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the Examiner's decision, as set forth in the Final
Office Action dated October 9, 2013 ("Final Act."), rejecting claims 1--4.2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Orlandi, Inc. as the real party in interest. Br. iv.
2 The Claims Appendix in the Appeal Brief includes a list of the
claims as set forth in an Amendment dated January 8, 2014. The record
does not, however, reflect the Examiner entering this Amendment. The
claims on appeal are thus those set forth in an Amendment dated July 1,
2013. The language of claim 1 is the same between those two claim sets.
Appeal2014-009987
Application No. 13/694,066
BACKGROUND
The disclosed subject matter "generally relates to air freshening
devices and more specifically to a blotter freshener separated from a printed
card." Spec. 2, 11. 11-12. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is
reproduced below, with emphasis added:
1. A device for dispensing a freshening scent
simultaneously with displaying a visual image,
compnsmg:
an air freshening card having an edge around
its perimeter and including an upper edge;
at least one printed card, having an edge
around its perimeter and including an upper edge,
said printed card being of the same size as said
freshener card and being arranged parallel to said air
freshener card;
a connector supporting said air freshener card
and said printed card at their upper edges in a spaced
apart relationship and generally vertically, said
connector including a clip portion, a stem integrally
extending from said clip portion, said stem being
recessed inwardly from both sides of the clip
portion, and said air freshener card and said
printed card being pinned to opposite sides of the
recessed stem of the connector; and
wherein one of said air freshener card and
said printed card faces a user of the device during
application.
REJECTION
Claims 1--4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kheder (US 6,367,184 Bl, issued Apr. 9, 2002) and Lukacs (US
1,744,560, issued Jan. 21, 1930).
2
Appeal2014-009987
Application No. 13/694,066
DISCUSSION
Independent claim 1 recites, among other limitations, "said connector
including a clip portion, a stem integrally extending from said clip portion,
said stem being recessed inwardly from both sides of the clip portion, and
said air freshener card and said printed card being pinned to opposite sides
of the recessed stem of the connector." Br. xiii (Claims App.). The
Examiner found that Lukacs teaches:
a fastening device for flat articles wherein said connector (111)
including a clip portion (lower portion of 111 ), a stem (limbs
113, 114 and 115) integrally extending from said clip portion,
said stem being recessed inwardly from both sides of the clip
portion (Figs. 2 and 3), and flat articles (card 112, which could
be an air freshener card and a printed card) being pinned (by 116,
117 and 118) to opposite sides of the recessed stem of the
connector.
Final Act. 3. The Examiner explains that "[u]sing the clip and stem of
Lukacs allows the opening of limbs 113, 114 and 115 which [sic] separating
pins (hooks 116, 117 and 118) to withdraw and replace the worn out scented
card of Kheder." Ans. 5.
Appellants argue:
It is not seen how Kheder could be modified to have its Sign
suspended from the singular or plurality of the hooks of Lukacs
and still provide a pair of air freshening card and printed card, in
a spaced relationship on opposite sides of the stem of its
connector, as shown for [Appellants'] invention and as set forth
in claim 1 of this current application.
Br. x-xi.
Appellants' argument is persuasive. As set forth above, the Examiner
proposes using limbs 113, 114, and 115 of Lukacs---collectively identified
as the recited "stem"-to hold the cards of Kheder. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 5.
3
Appeal2014-009987
Application No. 13/694,066
As described in Lukacs, limbs 113, 114, and 115 are alternately provided on
opposite sides of register card 112. See Lukacs 1, 11. 70-81 (discussing
Figures 1--4 as showing "a fastening device 111 ... , which clasps or
embraces the edge of a card 112 of a card index or register from both sides
with its limbs or members 113, 114, 115 alternately oppositely offset"
(emphasis added)). For example, Figure 4 of Lukacs shows limbs 113 and
115 on the front side of card 112 (in solid lines) and shows limb 114 on the
back side of card 112 (in dotted lines). See Lukacs 1, 11. 82-85 ("In the
embodiment illustrated in Fig. 4 the prongs 116, 118 (Fig. 1) of the limbs
113, 115 enter the perforations 120 from the front, the prongs 117 of the
limb 114 from the back.").
Limbs 113, 114, and 115 would be configured in the same manner
(i.e., alternating on opposite sides) when used to hold Kheder's cards in the
proposed modified device. See Final Act. 3 and Ans. 5 (relying on the "clip
and stem" of Lukacs). In such a configuration, however, the cards of
Kheder would not be "pinned to opposite sides of' the identified "stem"-
i.e., limbs 113, 114, and 115-as required by claim 1. Instead, the identified
"stem" would be connected to opposite sides of the cards of Kheder.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or the rejection of
claims 2--4, which depend from claim 1.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision to reject claims 1--4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
REVERSED
4