13943048 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2018)

Ex Parte Ehrgott

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 10, 2018

13943048 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/943,048 07/16/2013 Glenn A. EHRGOTT TUP14516 1430 62439 7590 SINORICA, LLC 20251 Century Blvd. Suite 140 Germantown, MD 20874 EXAMINER GONZALEZ, HIRAM E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2848 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/12/2018 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): SINORICA@GMAIL.COM sinorica@outlook.com pair @ sinorica.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GLENN A. EHRGOTT Appeal 2017-000506 Application 13/943,048 Technology Center 2800 Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 13, and 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.2 1 Appellant is the Applicant, Glenn A. Ehrgott, who, according to the Brief, is the real party in interest (Br. 2). 2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed July 16, 2013, the Examiner’s Final Office Action (Final) dated July 8, 2015, Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Br.) filed February 15, 2016, and the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) dated October 4, 2016. Appeal 2017-000506 Application 13/943,048 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention relates to a “self contained prewired device which allows electrical wirings or data cables to connect through a structural wall” (Spec. 1:7-8). Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A self contained pre-wired device comprises: a housing; at least one input port; at least one access port; the housing comprises a mounting plate, a lateral wall, and an insertion wall; the mounting plate comprises at least one wall attachment; the mounting plate and the insertion wall being concentrically connected with the lateral wall; the mounting plate and the insertion wall being oppositely positioned from each other along the lateral wall; the at least one input port traversing through the mounting plate and being attached onto the mounting plate; the at least one access port traversing through the insertion wall and being attached onto the insertion wall; the at least one input port and the at least one access port being electrically connected to each other within the housing; the at least one input port comprises a female socket with male electrical connectors, a protective cap, and an attachment plate; the at least one access port comprises a first access port and a second access port; 2 Appeal 2017-000506 Application 13/943,048 the attachment plate being adjacently attached with the mounting plate opposite from the lateral wall; the female socket with male electrical connectors being concentrically positioned on the attachment plate; the female socket with male electrical connectors traversing into the housing through the mounting plate; the protective cap being attached onto the attachment plate; the protective cap being positioned atop the female socket with male electrical connectors; the first access port and the second access port being traversing into the housing through the insertion wall; the female socket with male electrical connectors being electrically connected with the first access port and the second access port; the at least one input port comprises a first female socket, a second female socket, a protective cap, and an attachment plate; the at least one access port comprises a first access port and a second access port; the attachment plate being adjacently attached with the mounting plate; the first female socket and the second female socket being positioned on the attachment plate; the first female socket and the second female socket traversing into the housing through the mounting plate; the protective cap being pivotally connected onto the attachment plate; the protective cap being positioned atop the first female socket and the second female socket; the first access port and the second access port being traversing into the housing through the insertion 3 Appeal 2017-000506 Application 13/943,048 wall; the first female socket being electronically connected with the first access port; and the second female socket being electronically connected with the second access port. Independent claim 7 similarly recites a self contained pre wired device, wherein the lateral wall comprises telescoping inner and outer portions. Independent claim 13 similarly recites a self contained pre-wired device with a lateral wall comprising telescoping inner and outer portions, wherein the insertion wall has a parameter (perimeter) larger than a parameter (perimeter) of the inner portion and the mounting plate has a perimeter larger than the perimeter of the outer portion. REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains every ground of rejection set forth in the Final Office Action of July 8, 2015, as no rejections have been listed as withdrawn (Ans. 2). These rejections are listed below. Appellant requests our review of rejections 2 and 3 only (Br. 2 and 6). 1. Claims 1, 7, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as indefinite; 2. Claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable 4 Appeal 2017-000506 Application 13/943,048 over Strayer3 and DeBartolo;4 and 3. Claims 7, 11, 13, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Strayer in view of DeBartolo, Gretz,5 and Rosenblum.6 ANALYSIS Rejection 1: Indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) The Examiner maintains every ground of rejection set forth in the Final Office Action of July 8, 2015, as no rejections have been listed as withdrawn (Ans. 2). Appellant fails to respond to or otherwise request our review of this rejection. Accordingly, we summarily affirm this rejection. Rejections 2 and 3: Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 Appellant’s arguments are directed against claim 1 only (Br. 6-11). Accordingly, claims 2, 7, 11, 13, and 18 stand or fall with claim 1. The dispositive issue before us is whether Appellant has identified reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that Strayer teaches a mounting plate and an insertion wall oppositely positioned from each other along a lateral wall, the mounting 3 Strayer, US 7,074,091 B2, issued July 11, 2006. 4 DeBartolo, Jr. et al., US 6,483,028 B2, issued November 19, 2002 (“DeBartolo”). 5 Gretz, US 7,462,775 Bl, issued December 9, 2008. 6 Rosenblum, US 8,740,627 Bl, issued June 3, 2014. 5 Appeal 2017-000506 Application 13/943,048 plate having at least one wall attachment.7 We answer this question in the negative and, therefore, will sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections based on the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments well expressed by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and the Answer, which we adopt as our own. The following comments are added for emphasis. Appellant contends that the Examiner has identified Strayer’s element 222 as corresponding to the mounting plate and Strayer’s element 228 as corresponding to the lateral wall (Br. 6— 8). Appellant argues that element 222 is not a mounting plate (id. at 9) and that element 222 is not oppositely positioned from element 228 along the lateral wall (id. at 8). However, as the Examiner notes (Final 4—5), Strayer teaches that first and second members 222, 228 are mechanically coupled together to form the housing 220 (Strayer 5:47—6:9—11). In addition, as the Examiner notes in annotated Figures 2 and 7 of Strayer (Ans. 3), member 222 includes a mounting plate for mounting against a surface and member 228 includes an insertion wall oppositely positioned from member 222 along a lateral wall. Appellant fails to direct our attention to any structural difference between Strayer’s members 7 Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s findings regarding DeBartolo, Gretz, and Rosenblum, nor the Examiner’s obviousness conclusions based on these findings. 6 Appeal 2017-000506 Application 13/943,048 222, 228 and the mounting plate, insertion wall, and lateral wall of claim 1. Appellant further contends that the Examiner has identified Strayer’s element 223 as a wall attachment (Br. 11). Appellant argues that element 223 is not a wall mount (id.). The Examiner finds that the recited wall attachment of claim 1 is not limited to an attachment hole, or peel and stick adhesive (Ans. 5). The Examiner, therefore, finds that Strayer’s element 223 cooperates with an abutment to attach the pre-wired device to a wall (Ans. 5; annotated Fig. 7 of Strayer). A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s findings. Indeed, Appellant discloses that “[t]he at least one wall attachment . . . can include, but is not limited to, at least one attachment hole, at least one peel and stick adhesive strip, adhesive materials applied by the installer” (Spec. 4:18-20 (emphasis added)). Thus, a wall attachment may be any structure that is part of the mounting plate that functions to facilitate attachment of the pre-wired device to a wall. As the Examiner finds, Strayer’s Figure 7 shows that stop portions 223 of mounting plate 222 cooperate with abutments 710 to attach the pre-wired device to wall 605 (Strayer Fig. 7, 6:20-24, and 7:51-58). Thus, stop portions 223 are wall attachments because they are part of the mounting plate and function to facilitate attachment of the pre-wired device to a wall. 7 Appeal 2017-000506 Application 13/943,048 Appellant next contends that Strayer’s device includes an electrical input cord that is hanging out of the device with a male plug at the end thereof, whereas the present invention has no cord extending from it (Br. 11). Appellant also urges that the recited male plug is recessed inside and covered with a water-resistant gasketed cover to protect it from the weather (id.). In this regard, Appellant asserts that while Strayer is intended for use in interior applications, the present invention is intended for use on the exterior of trailers, sheds, homes, and buildings (id.). According to Appellant, this is a key feature that Strayer does not teach (id.). These arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. As the Examiner notes (Ans. 5—6), the claims do not exclude a cord, nor do they require a water-resistant gasketed cover or use on an exterior of a trailer, shed, or home. In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“the name of the game is the claim”); In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“Many of appellant’s arguments fail from the outset because, as the solicitor has pointed out, they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”). Moreover, the Examiner specifically finds “telephone, Ethernet and USB sockets would have female sockets with male electrical connectors” (Final 5). Appellant fails to address or otherwise identify reversible error in this finding. 8 Appeal 2017-000506 Application 13/943,048 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected Basis Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed 1, 7, 13 § H2(b) 1, 7, 13 1,2 § 103 Strayer, DeBartolo 1,2 7, 11, 13, 18 § 103 Strayer, DeBartolo, Gretz, Rosenblum 7, 11, 13, 18 Summary 1, 2, 7, 11, 13, 18 DECISION Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and in the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 13, and 18 is affirmed. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED 9