Ex Parte Finardi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 1, 2011

11114008 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 1, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte IVO FINARDI
____________

Appeal 2009-012995
Application 11/114,008
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012995
Application 11/114,008

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ivo Finardi (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision to finally reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claims 8-10
as unpatentable over Hahn (US 5,001,861, issued Mar. 26, 1991) and
Spalding (US 4,352,585, issued Oct. 5, 1982). Claims 1-7 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a device for section doors, swinging
doors and other similar doors to allow a correct maneuver of a blocking
means when the door is operated by a motor. Spec. 1, ll. 5-8 and figs. 1-3.
Claim 8, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claimed
invention and reads as follows:1
8. A door including a motor, a shaft connected to said
motor, blocking means for releasably holding the door closed, a
mechanism for releasing said blocking means and a tie-rod
connected to said mechanism for releasing the blocking means,

wherein, in order to allow a correct maneuver of the door by
said motor, the door includes:

a bracket on an upper edge of said door;

an axle mounted in said bracket parallel to said door edge;

1 We note that claim 8 is written in means-plus-function format, and the
means-plus-function language of claim 8 has been recognized as a § 112,
sixth paragraph “means-plus-function” limitation by Appellant. Br. 2-3.
Nonetheless, since Appellant’s arguments do not challenge whether the
Examiner’s modification of Hahn discloses the corresponding structure
described in the Specification or an equivalent thereof, we do not reach its
merits. See In re Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).

Appeal 2009-012995
Application 11/114,008
3

a swinging member pivoted on said axle for swinging about a
fixed axis;

said swinging member having a first articulation for said shaft
connected to said motor;

said swinging member having a second articulation for said tie-
rod connected to said mechanisms for releasing said blocking
means of the door;

and a means for limiting the swing field of said swinging
member with respect to said bracket.

SUMMARY OF DECISION

We REVERSE.

OPINION
Independent claim 8 requires “a swinging member pivoted on said
axle for swinging about a fixed axis.” Br., Claims Appendix. The Examiner
found that member 46 (swinging member) of Hahn pivots on the axle of
follower member 44 of Hahn for swinging about a fixed axis. See Ans. 3.
Appellant argues that follower member 44 along with connector member 46
of Hahn displace under sliding movement along slots 40, 42; whereas,
swinging member 3 and articulations 4, 5 of the claimed invention displace
solely under rotational movement. See Br. 6-8. In other words, based on
our understanding, Appellant appears to argue that member 46 of Hahn does
not pivot relative to the axle of follower member 44, whereas swinging
member 3 of the claimed invention pivots on axle 2. Br. 3. See also, Figure
2 of Appellant’s Drawings. We think Appellant has the better argument
here.
Appeal 2009-012995
Application 11/114,008
4
In this case, we find that Hahn discloses a garage door 12 including a
motor 22, a push/pull cable 20, a bracket 32 that includes slots 40, 42,
wherein each slot 40, 42 defines a track, a follower member 44 mounted on
the track and a member 46, which connects push/pull cable 20 to follower
member 44. See Hahn figs. 1-3. During operation of Hahn, actuation of
push/pull cable 20 by motor 22 results in push/pull cable 20 pulling on
pivotally attached member 46, which further results in follower member 44,
integral with member 46, sliding from one closed end of slot 40, 42 to the
other closed end of slot 40, 42. See Hahn, col. 3, ll. 17-25 and figs.1-3.
Although we appreciate the Examiner’s position that member 46 of Hahn
turns relative to its attachment to push/pull cable 20 (see Ans. 3),
nonetheless, member 46, which is integral with (formed as a unit with)
follower member 44, is not pivoted relative to the axle of follower member
44, as required by claim 8.
As such, Hahn does not disclose all the limitations of independent
claim 8. The addition of Spalding does not remedy the deficiencies of Hahn
as discussed above. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the rejection of
independent claim 8 and its respective dependent claims 9 and 10 cannot be
sustained. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 8-10 is reversed.

REVERSED

mls