Ex Parte Duvekot et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 29, 201612993356 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/993,356 12/13/2010 127226 7590 08/31/2016 Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP P.O. Box 747 Falls Church, VA 22040-0747 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Joost Cornelis Duvekot 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. 6106-0102PUS1 5293 EXAMINER CHA VCHA V ADZE, COLLEEN MARGARET ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3634 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): mailroom@bskb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOOST CORNELIS DUVEKOT and MARTIN MASTENBROEK Appeal2014-008406 Application 12/993,356 Technology Center 3600 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE J oost Comelis Duvekot and Martin Mastenbroek (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. Appeal2014-008406 Application 12/993,356 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants' claimed subject matter "relates to a mounting device for mounting on an object." Spec. 1, 1. 3. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim and is reproduced below. 1. Mounting device for mounting on an object, comprising a form-retaining base part with at least one mounting member and comprising a flexible flap which extends laterally relative to the base part with a free distal part, and which is intended and adapted to be attached to a surface of the object, wherein the base part comprises an integrally formed, form-retaining body with a solid core, and a proximal part of the flexible flap is incorporated tightly in the core of the body and the distal part of the flexible flap extends laterally from the base part. EVIDENCE The Examiner relied upon the following evidence: Sutton Mastenbroek US 5,894, 705 Apr. 20, 1999 US 2007/0144830 Al June 28; 2007 REJECTIONS Appellants appeal from the Final Action, dated April 12, 2013, which includes the following rejections: 1. Claims 1, 2, 4--6, and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Mastenbroek. 2. Claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mastenbroek. 3. Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mastenbroek and Sutton. 2 Appeal2014-008406 Application 12/993,356 ANALYSIS First Ground of Rejection: Anticipation The Examiner found that Mastenbroek discloses a mounting device as called for in claim 1, including "an integrally formed, form-retaining body with a solid core." Final Act. 2 (citing Mastenbroek, paras. 26, 29, Figs. 1- 9). Appellants argue that, "[b ]ecause the mounting device of Mastenbroek is formed from separate parts (flange-like bodies 21,22), Mastenbroek cannot teach or suggest a body that is integrally formed." Br. 6. In response, the Examiner refers to two definitions for the term "integral," including: "1. of or belonging as an essential part of the whole; necessary to completeness; constituent: an integral part" and "2. composed of parts that together constitute a whole." Ans. 7 (emphasis omitted) (citing Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary (2010)). The Examiner explains that "something that is 'integrally formed' does not have to be limited to a single molded part, but rather the integrally formed body can be made up of a plurality of parts that together form the whole." Id. According to the Examiner, "the body of Mastenbroek is integrally formed in the sense that the components 21 & 22 are parts that together constitute the whole body." Id. Appellants' Specification describes "a mounting device ... [wherein] the base part comprises an at least substantially integrally formed, form- retaining body with an at least substantially solid core." Spec. 2, 11. 5-7. The Specification describes that "the body comprises a core material which is cast around the proximal part of [a] flap." Id., 11. 16-18; see id. at 7, 1. 31- 8, 1. 1 (describing that "material for the base part can advantageously be cast 3 Appeal2014-008406 Application 12/993,356 [a ]round the flap from both sides during manufacture in order to achieve an adequate mould filling and encapsulation"). The Specification also describes that "the mounting device according to the invention has the feature that the mounting member is formed monolithically, i.e. as one whole, with the body." Id. at 4, 11. 18-20.; see also id. at 5, 11. 20-21 (describing that "base part 20 is cast wholly"). As such, in light of the Specification, we understand the "integrally formed, form-retaining body with a solid core" of the claimed mounting device to be a singular solid- formed piece (i.e., cast as one whole part). Mastenbroek discloses a mounting device that includes a flexible fastening flap 11 connected to two flange- like metal bodies 21, 22. Mastenbroek, paras. 26-27. Specifically, Mastenbroek discloses that "[f]astening flap 11 is clamped between the two flange-like bodies 21,22 by tightening the nut onto the screw bolt." Id., para. 27; see id., Fig. 2. We agree with Appellants that "[e]ven if both of Mastenbroek's flange-like bodies 21,22 were taken together as forming 'the body' in which the fastening flap 11 is incorporated, such would not be an 'integrally formed body' since the flange-like bodies 21,22 are clearly separate parts." Br. 6 (citing Mastenbroek, Fig. 2). Additionally, the Specification distinguishes the singular solid-formed piece of Appellants' integrally formed solid core body from a multi-part body having two flanges and a bolt, as disclosed by Mastenbroek. See Spec. 1, 1. 10-2, 1. 14; id. at 2, 11. 12-14 (describing that "[a] relatively heavy clamping construction as in the known device can thus be dispensed with" and that "[t]he structure according to the invention moreover allows relatively low production costs and a relatively light weight 4 Appeal2014-008406 Application 12/993,356 of the whole"). Thus, the Examiner's finding that Mastenbroek anticipates a mounting device including "an integrally formed, form-retaining body with a solid core," as recited in claim 1, is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and its dependent claims 2, 4---6, and 9-12, as anticipated by Mastenbroek. Likewisei we do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 3, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), which suffer from the same above-noted deficiencies. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-12 is REVERSED. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation