Ex Parte EvittDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 21, 201612515823 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2016) Copy Citation 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. A-2718 2944 EXAMINER KENNEDY, JOSHUA T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3649 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/515,823 09/14/2011 33197 7590 12/21/2016 STOUT, UXA & BUY AN LLP 4 VENTURE, SUITE 300 IRVINE, CA 92618 Jonathan Henry Stevens Evitt 12/21/2016 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 JONATHAN HENRY STEVENS EVITT Appeal 2015-001509 Application 12/515,82s1 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. FETTING, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 11—14 and 16—28. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to the Appellant, the real party in interest is the inventor, Jonathan Henry Stevens Evitt. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2015-001509 Application 12/515,823 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claimed Subject Matter Claims 11 and 26 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 11, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 11. A connector for use in displays of the kind which include a display frame formed of a plurality of beams which are joined together by multi-way node fittings to form a three-dimensional shape and which have display panels releasably secured to the beams, said connector comprising: a male part having a bearing face, a stem fixedly connected to and projecting directly from the bearing face, and a head comprising four noses which project laterally from the stem; and a female part having a plurality of walls, each wall having an inner face and an outer bearing face, each of the walls containing an aperture, which permits the head of the male part to pass through the aperture and rotatably receives the stem with the bearing face of the male part in contact with the outer bearing face of the wall, the inner face of each wall being profiled to engage the said noses when the male part is rotated within the aperture, and the outer bearing face of each wall being disposed outside of the aperture of that wall; wherein each aperture of the female part is of cruciform shape, and the opposing faces of each wall and the noses are provided with oppositely inclined ramps which act to provide progressively tightening and alignment of the connector as the male part is rotated within the aperture in either a clockwise or counter clockwise direction to engage the female part, the male part passing through the aperture in a first orientation and the progressive tightening occurring as the male part is rotated from the first orientation to an engaged orientation. 2 Appeal 2015-001509 Application 12/515,823 Rejections Claims 11—13 and 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over De Wilde (US 6,595,825 Bl, iss. July 22, 2003) and Tangeman (US 7,491,025 B2, iss. Feb. 17, 2009). Claims 14 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over De Wilde, Tangeman, and Altman (US 6,969,211 B2, iss. Nov. 29, 2005). Claims 16—18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over De Wilde, Tangeman, and Fenner (US 4,065,890, iss. Jan. 3, 1978). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that “a male part having a bearing face, a stem fixedly connected to and projecting directly from the bearing face,” as recited in independent claims 11 and 26, reads on De Wilde’s coupling part 62. Final Act. 2—3 (citing De Wilde, Fig. 8B). More specifically, the Examiner finds that the claimed “bearing face” reads on De Wilde’s central part 64 and that the claimed “stem” reads on De Wilde’s lips 65. Final Act. 5, Ans. 9. The Examiner explains that De Wilde’s Figure 8B illustrates the stems associated with lips 65 axially fixed to each other and to central part 64. See Ans. 9, De Wilde, Fig. 8B. The Examiner acknowledges that the stems of De Wilde’s lips 65 rotate relative to plate 64, i.e., are not rotationally fixed. See Ans. 11. Indeed, De Wilde describes “lips 65 are rotatably mounted on either side of central part 64.” De Wilde, col. 5, 11. 19—20. As such, the Examiner’s application of De Wilde relies on a construction of the term “fixedly connected” that includes a connection that is axially fixed, but not rotationally fixed. See Ans. 9-10. 3 Appeal 2015-001509 Application 12/515,823 The Appellant argues that De Wilde’s coupling part 62 does not correspond to the claimed “male part” because De Wilde’s rotatable mounting between the stems of lips 65 and central part 64 is not “fixedly connected,” as required by claims 11 and 26. Appeal Br. 13. The Appellant asserts that the term “fixedly connected” requires both an axially and rotationally fixed connection. See Reply Br. 2. Accordingly, the Examiner and the Appellant are in dispute about the construction of the term “fixedly connected.” We agree with the Appellant that term “fixedly connected” means “that the connected members cannot move relative to one another either axially or rotationally.” Reply Br. 2. Notably, the term “fixedly connected” is not explicitly defined or used in the Specification.2 However, we also note that the Specification does not disclose or imply a male part having a stem that is rotationally movable relative to a bearing face. Additionally, at no point does the Specification disclose or imply that there is any relative movement between a stem and a bearing face of a male part. As such, we do not understand how the broadest reasonable construction of the term “fixedly connected” in light of the Specification would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art to include a stem that is rotationally movable relative to a bearing plate. See also In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We also note that the Appellant recites a dictionary definition of the term “‘fixed’ as ‘firmly in position; stationary’” and asserts that “[t]his 2 The Examiner acknowledges that “the stem being rotationally fixed relative to the bearing plate is found in the [Specification.” Ans. 9; see Spec. 6, Figs. 3^4. 4 Appeal 2015-001509 Application 12/515,823 definition . . . certainly conveys the impression of no relative motion between two parts fixedly connected, either axial or rotational.” Reply Br. 2 (citing American Heritage Dictionary (1985)).3 We agree with the Appellant only to the extent that the definition provides guidance to a person of ordinary skill in the art in giving the term “fixedly connected” its broadest reasonable construction in light of the Specification.4 See also Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In this case, because De Wilde’s connection between the stems of lips 65 and central part 64 is “rotatably mounted,” the connection is not “fixedly connected,” as required by independent claims 11 and 26. Further, to the extent that the Examiner relies on the embodiment associated with De Wilde’s Figure 13 (Final Act. 3), the Examiner fails to explain how the connection in this embodiment is not “rotatably mounted.” Additionally, the Examiner does not explain how the combined teachings of De Wilde and Tangeman would have resulted in a connection that is not “rotatably mounted” or one that cannot move relative to one another either axially or rotationally. 3 The Appellant also asserts that courts have construed similar terminology. For example, “‘fixedly connected to the drive assembly’ was construed as ‘fastened securely to the drive assembly’ in Sundance, Inc. V. De Monte Fabricating, Ltd., 485 F.Supp. 2d 805 (E.D. Mich. 2007)” and ‘“[fjixedly mounted’ was construed in Warn Industries, Inc. v. Ramsey Winch Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61639 (D. Or., Aug. 11, 2006), as ‘firmly attached in a manner that prevents relative rotation or axial movement between the stator and the drum.” Reply Br. 2. 4 We also note that the Examiner defines the term “fixed” as “merely setting] forth that two pieces are securely fastened or attached to each other.” Ans. 9. However, the Examiner does not provide a citation to a dictionary to support this definition. 5 Appeal 2015-001509 Application 12/515,823 Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11—13 and 19—27 as unpatentable over De Wilde and Tangeman. The remaining rejections based on De Wilde and Tangeman in combination with Altman or Fenner rely on the same inadequately supported reasoning as discussed above. As such, we do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of: claims 14 and 28 as unpatentable over De Wilde and Tangeman in combination with Altman; and claims 16—18 as unpatentable over De Wilde, Tangeman, and Fenner. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 11—14 and 16-28. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation