Ex Parte Durham

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 22, 2018

13788116 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/788,116 03/07/2013
114977 7590 10/22/2018
James Edward Shultz Jr.
16656 Pine Dunes Court
Grand Haven, MI 49417
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Daniel L. Durham
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.
Durham 144011-0002 8054
EXAMINER
MAGUIRE, LINDSAY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3693
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/22/2018 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 L. DURHAM
Appeal2017-007865 1
Application 13/788,116
Technology Center 3600
Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The real party in interest is identified as the inventor, Daniel L. Durham.
Appeal Brief 1, filed November 2, 2016 (herein, "Br.").
Appeal2017-007865
Application 13/788,116
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to a "sports equipment rack that is easily
transported by hand, and which facilitates washing and drying of a full set of
sporting equipment and clothing, including headgear, trousers, jersey,
footwear, gloves, pads, etc., at a remote location." Spec. ,r 8. Claims 1-15
are pending. See App. Br. 1-2. Claims 1 and 8 are independent, and are
reproduced below for reference (emphases added):
1. A sports equipment rack, comprising:
a frame including a main vertical member;
a hanger supported by the main vertical member for
draping an article of clothing, the hanger having opposite ends
on opposite sides of the main vertical member;
a pair of extensions projecting laterally from the main
vertical member in opposite directions, each of the laterally
projecting extensions positioned below a respective one of the
ends of the hanger, the main vertical member and the pair of
extensions compnsmg hollow metal tubing defining
communicating conduit and each extension having a plurality of
apertures to facilitate forced air flow through the conduit,
wherein at least a portion of the apertures are oriented toward
the hanger such that air flow exits out of at least a portion of the
apertures onto an article supported on the hanger; and
a blower in fluid communication with the conduit defined
by the tubular members to force air outwardly through the
apertures to dry an article supported on the hanger.
8. A sports equipment rack, comprising:
an air blower;
a main vertical member having a lower section adjustably
connected to an upper section in a telescopic manner, wherein
the main vertical member defines at least one of a leak-resistant
conduit or a leak-proof conduit; and
2
Appeal2017-007865
Application 13/788,116
a plurality of horizontally members, extending from the
main vertical member, that including apertures, wherein the main
vertical member is configured to communicate air flow from the
air blower to the apertures.
References and Re} ections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Ketchum
Collier
Lurie
us 3,645,009
US 2003/0222038 Al
US 2004/0068888 Al
Feb.29, 1972
Dec. 4, 2003
Apr. 15, 2004
Claims 8-10 and 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as
being anticipated by Lurie. Final Act. 2.
Claims 1-5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Collier and Ketchum. Final Act. 5.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Collier, Ketchum, and Lurie. Final Act. 8.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Lurie and Ketchum. Final Act. 9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments. We address Appellant's arguments with respect to each ground
of rejection, below.
3
Appeal2017-007865
Application 13/788,116
A. Anticipation Rejection
Appellant argues "Lurie does not disclose or suggest a main
vertical member having a lower section adjustably connected to an
upper section in a telescopic manner, wherein the main vertical member
defines at least one of: a leak-resistant conduit or a leak-proof conduit,
as recited in claim 8," because "the combination of the first hanging
member, the telescoping interconnection, and the second hanging
member of Lurie includes several drying holes." Br. 5.
We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments. The Examiner
relies on Lurie' s connecting section in combination with either of
Lurie' s disclosures of an access door or a fixture valve for defining the
"leak-resistant or [] leak-proof conduit" as claimed. Ans. 11 (citing
Lurie ,r,r 14, 55). The access door of Lurie is used to control "access to
the scenting chamber." Lurie ,r 14. The fixture valve of Lurie is used
to "close and prevent air flow to a drying fixture." Lurie ,r 55. That is,
these features of Lurie' s device will prevent air flow from entering the
drying fixture; neither the access door nor the fixture valve are used to
define a conduit, let alone a leak-resistant or leak-proof conduit as
claimed. See, e.g., Lurie Figs. 1-2; see also Br. 5; Spec. ,r 27 ("a
substantially leak proof or leak resistant conduit for conveying air from
blower 64 to apertures 54 regardless of the height adjustment."). Thus,
we agree with Appellant that Lurie does not disclose all limitations of
independent claim 8.
Based on the record before us, we do not sustain the Examiner's
anticipation rejection of independent claim 8, or of claims 9, 10, and
12-15 which depend therefrom. See Br. 6. The Examiner relies on
4
Appeal2017-007865
Application 13/788,116
Lurie for the limitations of dependent claim 11 that are inherited from
parent claim 8; thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim
11 for the same reasons discussed herein.
B. Obviousness Rejection
Appellant argues the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 is in
error, because "Collier does not disclose or suggest ... each of the laterally
projecting extensions positioned below a respective one end of the hanger ..
. and each extension having a plurality of apertures ... oriented toward the
hanger." Br. 7. Particularly, Appellant contends "if the pair of arms (26)
and the appendages (16) extending from the torso (18) of the storage rack of
Collier were considered to be a hanger, as asserted by the Examiner, Collier
would not have laterally projecting extensions positioned below a respective
one end of the hanger," as claimed. Br. 7-8.
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner relies on Collier for teaching
the hanger and extension limitations recited by independent claim 1:
Collier '038 discloses a sports equipment rack, comprising: a
frame including a main vertical member (90); a hanger
supported by the main vertical member for draping an article of
clothing (88), the hanger having opposite ends on opposite sides
of the main vertical member; a pair of extensions projecting
laterally from the main vertical member in opposite directions,
each of the laterally projecting extensions positioned below a
respective one of the ends of the hanger (34), the main vertical
member and the pair of extensions being hollow defining
communicating conduit and each extension having a plurality of
apertures to facilitate forced air flow through the conduit (56),
wherein at least a portion of the apertures are oriented toward the
hanger such that air flow exits out of at least a portion of the
apertures onto an article supported on the hanger (Figure 1 ); a
blower in fluid communication with the conduit defined by the
5
Appeal2017-007865
Application 13/788,116
hollow members to force air outwardly through the apertures to
dry an article supported on the hanger (Figure 4 ).
Final Act. 6 ( emphases added). Collier's extensions 34, which the Examiner
relies on for teaching the "laterally projecting extensions positioned below a
respective one of the ends of the hanger," are part of Collier's top member
88 (which the Examiner maps to the recited hanger). See Collier Fig. 1,
,r 18. These extensions are not "projecting laterally," are not "projecting ...
from the main vertical member," and do not include a portion of apertures
which "are oriented toward the hanger," all as required by claim 1. See
Collier Fig. 1, ,r 14 ("respective vertically projecting hand or distal portion
34 of the arms 26.").
We agree with Appellant that Collier does not teach or suggest the
"extensions" limitations of independent claim 1. The Examiner does not
rely on Ketchum for these limitations. See Final Act. 6-7. Accordingly, we
are persuaded the Examiner errs in finding the cited references teach or
suggest the limitations of claim 1. We do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 1, or the obviousness rejections of the claims dependent
thereon.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15 is reversed.
REVERSED
6