UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte EDWARD DZIEDZIC
_____________
Appeal 2007-3461
Application 09/348,742
Technology Center 3600
____________
Decided: January 30, 2008
_______________
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and
DAVID B. WALKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant appeals from a rejection of claims 2-6 and 8, which are
all of the pending claims.
THE INVENTION
The Appellant claims a stabilizer wire mount for attaching a mounting
surface on a pole by attachment bands. Claim 8 is illustrative:
Appeal 2007-3461
Application 09/348,742
8. A stabilizer wire mount for attachment to a mounting
surface on a pole by attachment bands comprising:
a singular base plate having a top surface and a bottom
surface, said bottom surface having front and back edges;
an integral boss position substantially centrally on the top
surface, and integrally extending substantially upwardly
therefrom;
a loop formed integrally in the boss, the loop defining an
opening therethrough for the attachment of the stabilizer wire;
at least one upwardly extending raised rib on the top
surface at an appropriate distance from the boss, thereby
defining a channel between the boss and the at least one raised
rib for the seating of an attachment band; and
a pair of depending serrated edges on the bottom surface of the
base plate, one of each pair extending downwardly proximate the front
and back edges of the bottom surface for the base plate, said
depending serrated edges disposed to engage the utility pole upon a
tightening of the band.
THE REFERENCE
Aldridge US 5,098,051 Mar. 24, 1992
THE REJECTION
Claims 2-6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Aldridge.
OPINION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection and remand the application to the
Examiner.
2
Appeal 2007-3461
Application 09/348,742
Aldridge discloses shaped extruded brackets to be bound tightly to a
structure such as a utility pole for supporting components such as electrical
wire, grounding wire and cable (col. 3, ll. 49-57). In one embodiment the
bracket (53) is a single piece having an upwardly projecting central base
member 62 (which corresponds to the Appellant’s integral boss), two
upwardly extending edges (56, 59) (either of which corresponds to the
Appellant’s at least one upwardly extending raised rib that defines a channel
between it and the boss for seating an attachment band) for disposition of a
band therein, and elongated triangular-shaped outward projections
(unnumbered, figs. 15, 16, 18, 19). Upwardly projecting base member 62
may include “various apertures, as at 63, therethrough so that various
fasteners as the bolt 64, may be accommodated for the attachment of other
components to the bracket after or during its installation high upon the utility
or other pole” (col. 9, ll. 11-15; fig. 18). With respect to the embodiment in
figure 13 having two upwardly and outwardly extending base members,
Aldridge discloses that those base members can have fasteners through them
that hold various components to the utility pole such as a wire guide (51)
(which corresponds to the Appellant’s loop formed integrally in the boss for
attachment of a stabilizing wire) and a clamp (52) (col. 8, ll. 53-59).1
1 Regarding the Appellant’s loop (20, 20A) formed integrally with the
boss (28), the Appellant’s Specification discloses: “It also will be
appreciated by those skilled in the art that the mounts 20 and 20A preferably
are cast as one piece from lightweight, durable, weather-resistant material
3
Appeal 2007-3461
Application 09/348,742
Claim 82
The Appellant argues that Aldridge’s wire guide 51 in figure 13 is not
centrally located but, rather, extends off at an angle (Br. 8). Aldridge
discloses that the integral, centrally-located base member 62 in figure 15
may accommodate fasteners for attachment of components to the bracket
(col. 9, ll. 8-15). That disclosure would have led one of ordinary skill in the
art, through no more than ordinary creativity, to fasten to base member 62
components known in the art to be fastened to similar base members for the
same purpose. See KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741
(2007) (In making the obviousness determination one “can take account of
the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ”). One such component is Aldridge’s wire guide 51 which is
disclosed as a component attached to an upwardly extending, albeit angled,
surface 48 of base portion 43 in figure 13 (col. 8, ll. 43-59).
The Appellant argues that Aldridge’s extending edges 56-59 in
figure 15 extend inwardly, not upwardly (Br. 8). Those edges extend
upwardly and then inwardly (fig. 15). The Appellant’s claim 8 does not
exclude an inwardly-extending rib, provided that it also extends upwardly.
The Appellant argues that Aldridge’s protrusions on the back of the
base member extend in a direction opposite to that of the Appellant’s
serrated edges (Br. 8). Considering the side of Aldridge’s bracket in figure
such as aluminum. However, the various elements could be manufactured
separately and appropriately joined by welding, bolts or the like” (Spec. 6).
4
Appeal 2007-3461
Application 09/348,742
15 having base member 62 and extending edges 56-59 to be the top surface,
the ridges shown on the opposite side are on the bottom surface as required
by the Appellant’s claim 8.
The Appellant argues that Aldridge’s protrusions on the back of the
base member are simply ridges, not serrations (Br. 8). “Serrate” means
“notched or toothed on the edge: specif : having marginal teeth pointing
forward or toward the apex
.”3 The Appellant’s claim 8 requires
“a pair of depending serrated edges on the bottom surface of the base plate,
one of each pair extending downwardly proximate the front and back edges
of the bottom surface for the base plate”. In view of the Appellant’s figure
5, “one of each pair extending downwardly proximate the front and back
edges” appears to mean “one of each pair extending downwardly proximate
the front edge, and the other of each pair extending downwardly proximate
the back edge”.
The Examiner argues (Ans. 5):
Aldridge shows that the bottom of base plate having [sic, has] a pair
of serrated edges located on the front and back edges of the base plate.
Figure 15 shows that the serrated edges are located on the edge of the
bottom surface and that element 55 is considered as front edge and
element 54 is considered as back edge.
The Examiner’s view that Aldridge’s base members 54 and 55 are back and
front edges is unreasonable. Those base members, together with third base
2 Claim 8 is the sole independent claim.
3 Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 1059 (G. & C. Merriam 1973).
5
Appeal 2007-3461
Application 09/348,742
member 62, correspond to the Appellant’s base plate, and the ridges on each
of base members 54 and 55 extend from the front edge to the back edge of
the base member (fig. 19). The base members themselves, however, are not
edges, let alone front and back edges.
For that reason and because the Examiner has not explained how
Aldridge would have rendered the Appellant’s recited serrated edges prima
facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, we conclude that the
Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of the
Appellant’s claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, separately argued by the Appellant (Br. 9),
we note the following.
Claim 2, which depends from claim 8, requires that “the top surface
includes a second raised rib positioned an approximate distance from the
boss on a side of the boss opposite that of the at least one raised rib thereby
defining a channel between the boss and the second raised rib for the seating
of an attachment band.” The Appellant argues that “Aldridge may show
second ribs 57 and 58, extending inwardly, but not from the type of boss as
described in claim 8 of this application” (Br. 9). As discussed above,
Aldridge discloses the type of boss encompassed by the Appellant’s claim 8.
Moreover, if Aldridge’s extending edge 56 is considered to be the extending
edge corresponding to the Appellant’s at least one upwardly extending
raised rib in claim 8, Aldridge’s extending edge 59 corresponds to the
second raised rib in claim 2.
6
Appeal 2007-3461
Application 09/348,742
Claim 4 depends from claim 2 and requires that “the top surface
includes a third raised rib on [the] same side as the at least one raised rib and
positioned an appropriate distance from the at least one raised rib thereby
defining a channel between the at least one raised rib and the third raised rib
for the seating of an attachment band.”
The Appellant argues (Br. 9):
Claim 4 defines a third raised rib on each side of the mount, to
provide for another channel on each side thereof, for accommodating
double bands, on each side of the boss, for thoroughly adhering the
boss to a utility pole, generally in the manner as shown in Fig. 11 of
the drawings for this current application. This is not shown or
described in any manner in Aldridge.
The Appellant’s interpretation of claim 4 is incorrect. That claim does not
require a third rib on each side of the mount but, rather, requires a third rib
on the same side as the at least one raised rib in claim 8. Claim 4 does not
require a third rib on the same side of the mount as the second raised rib in
claim 2. Nor does claim 4 require thorough adhering of the boss or adhering
in the manner shown in figure 11. If Aldridge’s extending edge 56 is
considered to be the edge corresponding to the Appellant’s at least one
raised rib, then Aldridge’s extended edge 57 corresponds to the Appellant’s
third raised rib in claim 4.
Remand
We remand the application for the Examiner and the Appellant to
address on the record whether each end of Aldridge’s unnumbered ribs on
7
Appeal 2007-3461
Application 09/348,742
base members 54 and 55 is a serrated edge. If so, the two ends of each rib
are a pair of serrated edges, one extending downwardly from each of the
front and back edges (left and right sides in fig. 19) of the base member as
required by the Appellant’s claim 8.4 We further remand the application for
the Examiner to consider whether additional prior art discloses, or would
have rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the Appellant’s pair
of serrated edges.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 2-6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Aldridge is reversed. The application is remanded to the Examiner.
REVERSED and REMANDED
vsh
4 Because the projections are on the bottom surface of a bracket to be bound
tightly by a band to a pole such as a utility pole (col. 3, ll. 50-52), they
appear to be capable of engaging a utility pole upon the tightening of a band
as required by the Appellant’s claim 8.
8
Appeal 2007-3461
Application 09/348,742
PAUL M. DENK
763 SOUTH NEW BALLAS ROAD
ST LOUIS MO 63141
9
