Ex Parte Friesenecker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2016

13274615 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/274,615 10/17/2011
513 7590 09/29/2016
WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, LLP,
1030 15th Street, N.W.,
Suite 400 East
Washington, DC 20005-1503
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gerald FRIESENECKER
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.
2011_1553A 1083
EXAMINER
WRIGHT, KIMBERLEY S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3637
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 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):
ddalecki@wenderoth.com
eoa@wenderoth.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GERALD FRIESENECKER and WOLFGANG BOHLE
Appeal2015-000316 1
Application 13/274,6152
Technology Center 3600
Before KEVIN W. CHERRY, BRADLEY B. BAY AT, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 14--38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention "concerns a flap drive system for a flap
mounted movably to a furniture carcass." Spec. 1, 11. 5---6.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed May 27,
2014), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Aug. 15, 2014) and Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Dec. 27, 2013).
2 Appellants identify Julius Blum GmbH, as the real party in interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-000316
Application 13/274,615
Claims 14 and 25 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 14,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
14. A flap drive device comprising:
a mechanical actuating unit including an actuating arm to
be connected to a movable flap of an article of furniture, and a
force storage member acting on said actuating arm, said
mechanical actuating unit having a planar mounting surface;
an electric drive linked to said mechanical actuating unit
for driving said actuating arm to move the flap, said electric drive
having an electric motor and a planar mounting surface; and
a plate-shaped transmission stage for transmitting force
from said electric drive to said mechanical actuating unit, said
transmission stage comprising a self-contained housing
independent of said mechanical actuating unit and said electric
drive, said transmission stage having a first planar mounting
surface mounted to said planar mounting surface of said
mechanical actuating unit so that said first planar mounting
surface and said planar mounting surface of said mechanical
actuating unit bear flat against each other, and having a second
planar mounting surface mounted to said planar mounting
surface of said electric drive so that said second planar mounting
surface and said planar mounting surface of said electric drive
bear flat against each other, said first planar mounting surface
and said second planar mounting surface being substantially
parallel.
REJECTION
Claims 14--38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Brustle (US 2008/0122332 Al, pub. May 29, 2008) and Hormann (US
2007 /0193384 Al, pub. Aug. 23, 2007).
2
Appeal2015-000316
Application 13/274,615
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 14 and 25 and dependent claims 15-24 and 26--38
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claims 14 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because
neither Brustle nor Hormann, individually or in combination, discloses or
suggests a plate-shaped transmission stage, as recited in claim 14, and
similarly recited in claim 25. Br. 3-5. The Examiner relies primarily on
Brustle as disclosing the limitations of claims 14 and 25. Final Act. 2. But
the Examiner acknowledges that Brustle does not disclose the claimed
transmission stage, as recited in each of claims 14 and 25, and relies on
Hormann to cure the deficiency. Id. at 3 (citing Hormann i-fi-125-27).
Hormann relates to a door drive for a garage, garden, hall, or factory
door. Hormann i-f l. As shown with reference to Figure 1 of Hormann, door
drive 1 has a motor unit 2 with an electric motor 3, a motor output shaft 4, a
transmission 5, housing 6, and drive attachment 7. Id. i-fi-125-26. Drive
attachment 7 constitutes an independent functional block, which can be
interposed, between the motor unit 2 and the door moving element to be
moved. Id. i126. Drive attachment 7 comprises an output transmission 8.
Id. i127.
The Examiner broadly interprets the term "plate-shaped" as recited in
claim 14 and similarly recited in claim 25, as encompassing "a variety of
shapes and sizes," including plates that "are bowl shaped having sidewalls."
Ans. 3. Relying on this interpretation, the Examiner finds that Hormann's
drive attachment 7 and output transmission 8, which form a box-shaped
structure (see Hormann, Fig. 1 ), constitutes the claimed plate-shaped
transmission stage. Id. We disagree.
3
Appeal2015-000316
Application 13/274,615
The term "plate" is generally understood to mean a "shallow dish in
which food is served or from which it is eaten." See American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition, Houghton Mifflin
Harcourt Publishing Co. (2011) (available at
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/plate). In our view, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would understand, in light of the Specification, that the term
"plate-shaped," as called for in independent claims 14 and 25, describes a
shallow or flat shape. See, e.g., Spec. 6-7 (describing structure of the
transmission stage). With this definition in mind, we conclude that
Hormann's box-shaped structure cannot reasonably correspond to a "plate-
shaped" transmission stage, as required by independent claims 14 and 25.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 14 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we
also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 15-24 and 26-40,
which depend therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 14--38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
REVERSED
4