Ex Parte Garg et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 31, 201411821321 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2014) 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. 11/821,321 06/22/2007 Satya Garg 10472-8 5511 16464 7590 07/31/2014 Evans & Dixon, LLC Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 2500 St. Louis, MO 63102 EXAMINER MCKINLEY, CHRISTOPHER BRIAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3781 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/31/2014 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 SATYA GARG, BRENT RIALES, DAVID SMITH, and TIM CIMMERER ____________ Appeal 2012-007308 Application 11/821,321 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Satya Garg et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e): (1) claims 1, 6, 8, and 11 as anticipated by Bagwell (US 6,572,909 B1; iss. June 3, 2003); and (2) claims 1–4, 6, 8, and 11 as anticipated by Brilliant (US 5,897,011; iss. Apr. 27, 1999); and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claim 7 as unpatentable over Bagwell. Claims 5, 9 and 10 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2012-007308 Application 11/821,321 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter “relates to a single point hinge for plastic containers.” Spec. para. 4; Figs. 2–6. Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claims 1 and 11 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recite: 1. A plastic container, comprising: a lid; a tray; a hinge connecting the lid and the tray; the hinge comprising: an angle formed by a lid chamfer and a tray chamfer, wherein the angle results in a single hinge point; and a lid well adjacent to the lid chamfer and a tray well adjacent to the tray chamfer; and wherein the lid connects to the lid well by a lid well transition and the tray connects to the tray well by a tray well transition. 11. A plastic container, comprising: a lid thermoformed from a sheet of plastic material; a tray thermoformed from the sheet of plastic material; a hinge thermoformed from the sheet of plastic material, the hinge connects the lid and the tray; the hinge comprising: a single hinge point formed by two chamfers thermoformed from the sheet of plastic material; the single hinge point forming an angle between the two chamfers; and wherein the thermoformed plastic material is thinner at the single point than the remainder of the plastic material. Appeal 2012-007308 Application 11/821,321 3 ANALYSIS Anticipation by Bagwell Claims 1, 6, and 8 Independent claim 1 calls for a plastic container including a lid, a tray, a lid chamfer, a tray chamfer, and “a lid well adjacent to the lid chamfer and a tray well adjacent to the tray chamfer.” Appeal Br. 22, Clms. App. The Examiner found that Bagwell teaches, among other things, a plastic container including “a lid (26), tray (18), hinge (16), lid and tray chamfer (38a, 38b) . . . and lid and tray wells (36 and 34 respectively).” Ans. 4; See also Bagwell, Figs. 8–10. Appellants contend that the Examiner relies principally on Bagwell FIGS. 8 and 9 for the assertion that Bagwell discloses both chamfers and wells as claimed in Claim 1. A close review of Bagwell FIGS. 8 and 9, however, reveals that each of the lid and tray elements of the hinge of Bagwell clearly lack sufficient structure for both a chamfer and a well to exist. In fact, contrary to the Examiner’s indication, reference numerals 36 and 34 of Bagwell refer to side edges not wells. The bottom line is that in the case of both the lid and tray of Bagwell, at least one segment necessary to form a distinct chamfer is missing. Thus, Bagwell does not disclose the chamfer and well structure on each of the lid and tray elements as required by Claim 1. Appeal Br. 12–13. In response to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner stated that [r]egarding the chamfer and the well, the chamfers are clearly defined in fig. 9 by reference numbers 38a and 38b. The wells are defined by horizontal recessed members (34, 36) and the angularly extending members extending therefrom to the Appeal 2012-007308 Application 11/821,321 4 transition members . . . Since a well can be defined as “a depression for holding a specific item,” (dictionary.com), the horizontal recessed members and angularly extending members extending therefrom to the transition members form a well. See Ans. 8–9 (citing to the Examiner’s two alternative annotated versions of Figure 9 of Bagwell). Appellants counter that the Examiner’s argument . . . ignores the clear limitations of the claim language. That the wells are separate structural elements from the chamfers is a limitation specifically contained in Claim 1 by the requirement that the hinge comprise “a lid well adjacent to a lid chamfer and a tray well adjacent to a tray chamfer.” The use of the word “adjacent” lucidly means that there are at least two distinct structures that adjoin or are nearby each other. . . . One does not use the term “adjacent” to describe one structure that incorporates all or part of another. Reply Br. 2–3. Appellants’ argument is persuasive. Based on either one of the Examiner’s annotated versions of Figure 9 of Bagwell (see Ans. 8–9), the lid well is part of piece 38a (lid chamfer) and the tray well is part of piece 38b (tray chamfer). Thus, the Examiner has used the same element or structure in Bagwell (i.e., piece 38a), to satisfy two different limitations from the claimed subject matter, (i.e., the lid chamfer and the lid well). The Examiner has further used the same element or structure in Bagwell (i.e., piece 38b), to satisfy two different limitations from the claimed subject matter, (i.e., the tray chamfer and the tray well). When a claim requires two separate elements, using one element construed as performing two separate Appeal 2012-007308 Application 11/821,321 5 functions will not suffice to meet the terms of the claim. See In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999)(claim requiring three separate means not anticipated by structure containing two means where one of the two means was argued to meet two of the three claimed means). In addition, we agree with Appellants that “a straight, horizontal line segment conjoined at an angle with only one other straight line segment [does not] constitute a ‘well.’” Reply Br. 2.1 Moreover, even assuming arguendo that elements 34 and 36 of Bagwell are considered to constitute the tray well and lid well, respectively (see Ans. 4, 8), Bagwell teaches that “[t]he hinge 16 is integrally formed to a side edge 34 of the base 12 and to a side edge 36 of the lid 14.” Bagwell, col. 2, ll. 66–67, Figs. 1, 10. A side edge is not a well, and the Examiner has not persuasive indicated how side edge 34 of Bagwell is considered a tray well or how side edge 36 of Bagwell is considered a lid well. See Ans. 4, 8. Consequently, the Examiner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Bagwell teaches the plastic container of claim 1. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 6 and 8 as anticipated by Bagwell cannot be sustained. Claim 11 Independent claim 11 calls for a plastic container including a lid, tray and hinge thermoformed from the same sheet of plastic material, the hinge 1 The Specification describes that “[a] lid well 46 and a tray well 48 are formed on both sides of the point space 49. The lid well 46 is formed by the lid vertical portion 38, a lid horizontal well portion 50 and a lid vertical well wall 54. A tray well 48 is formed by the tray vertical portion 39, a tray horizontal well portion 52, and a tray vertical well wall 56.” Spec. para. 49. Appeal 2012-007308 Application 11/821,321 6 including a single hinge point “wherein the thermoformed plastic material is thinner at the single point than the remainder of the plastic material.” Appeal Br. 23–24, Clms. App. The Examiner found that Bagwell teaches a lid, tray and hinge thermoformed from the same sheet of plastic material, the hinge including a single hinge point “(figs. 8 and 9, point connecting lid and tray chamfers), wherein said hinge point is thinned (Abstract), polypropylene (col. 2, line 57)[.]” See Ans. 4–5. Appellants contend that Bagwell fails to teach or suggest that the thermoformed plastic material at the single point is thinner than the remainder of the plastic material. See Appeal Br. 18–19. Appellants’ argument is persuasive. Bagwell teaches that “[t]he container 10 is thermoformed from a sheet of thermoplastic material preferably including a polypropylene or polyethylene resin” (Bagwell, col. 2, ll. 55–57); and (2) “[t]he hinge 16 has a series of thin sections 38 and a series of thick sections 40” (Bagwell, col. 2, l. 67–col. 3, l. 1). Bagwell further teaches that [t]he thin sections 38 are sufficiently thin so that the tensile stress caused by th[e] pivotal movement of the lid 14 toward the base 12 weakens and severs them into two pieces 38a and 38b as shown in FIGS. 7 and 8 as the container 10 is closed. The thick sections 40 are sufficiently thin [sic] so that the tensile stress applied to them transverse to the axis 42 during the initial closing action of the lid 14 upon the base 12 does not sever the thick sections. Bagwell, col. 4, ll. 19–26; Figs. 7, 8. Bagwell is silent as to the thermoformed plastic material at a single point of hinge 16 being thinner than the remainder of the plastic material. Moreover, although Bagwell Appeal 2012-007308 Application 11/821,321 7 teaches that container 10 is thermoformed from a single sheet of thermoplastic material (see Bagwell, col. 2, ll. 55–57; Ans. 5), the Examiner has not persuasively indicated how the thermoformed plastic material at the point connecting lid and tray chamfers (i.e., the single hinge point) (see Ans. 5) is thinner than the remainder of the plastic material. Consequently, the Examiner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Bagwell teaches the plastic container of claim 11. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 11 as anticipated by Bagwell cannot be sustained. Anticipation by Brilliant Claims 1–4, 6, 8, and 11 Independent claim 1 calls for a hinge including “an angle formed by a lid chamfer and a tray chamfer, wherein the angle results in a single hinge point.” Appeal Br. 22, Clms. App. Independent claim 11 calls for a hinge including “a single hinge point formed by two chamfers thermoformed from the sheet of plastic material; the single hinge point forming an angle between the two chamfers.” Id. at 23–24. The Examiner found that Brilliant teaches “all the elements of the claim[s], including a single hinge point.” Ans. 10 (citing to the Examiner’s annotated version of Figure 3 of Brilliant); See also id. at 5–6. Appellants contend that Brilliant fails to teach or suggest “a container with a single point hinge.” Appeal Br. 14; See also id. at 20. In particular, Appellants contend that “Brilliant discloses a hinge with multiple flexure points. In this respect, this is exactly like the ‘W-type’ hinge that the application expressly distinguishes from the present invention hinge.” Id. at 13 (citing Spec. 2, ll. 1–15); See also id. at 20. In response to Appellants’ Appeal 2012-007308 Application 11/821,321 8 argument, the Examiner stated that it appears [A]ppellant[s] are interchanging “multiple parallel axes of flexure” with multiple hinge points. However, “axes of flexure” suggests a plurality of points that flex or undergo elastic deformation when forces are applied. Furthermore, although the W-hinge comprises at least four walls, it rotates about a central apex, . . . Thus, Brilliant discloses a single hinge point. Nevertheless, even if, arguendo, Brilliant discloses multiple hinge points, the presence of a single hinge point still exists amongst the plurality. Note, claim 1 only requires that there be a single hinge point located where the angle between the lid chamfer and tray chamfer is formed, i.e. the point where the two chamfers make an angle, not a single hinge point for the entire lid [i.e., container]. Thus, Brilliant still reads on the “single hinge point” limitation of claim 1. Ans. 11; See also Brilliant col. 3, ll. 1–9. We disagree with the Examiner’s position for the following reasons. First, the Specification describes that [t]he present invention is directed to a plastic container with a [single] point hinge . . . The plastic container may include a lid, a tray, and a single point hinge that connects the lid and the tray. The single point hinge includes an angle formed by a lid chamfer and a tray chamfer. Spec. paras. 13, 36 (emphasis added). Based on Appellants’ disclosure, we disagree with the Examiner’s position that the single hinge point of the subject invention is not a single hinge point for the entire container. See Ans. 11. Second, Brilliant teaches that “[t]he W-type hinge 26 provides a durable hinge with six parallel axes of flexure, which are each subjected to Appeal 2012-007308 Application 11/821,321 9 less bending than would a single hinge axis. The multiple hinge walls 52 also contribute to the stiffness of the hinge against bending about an axis perpendicular to the hinging axes.” Brilliant, col. 3, ll. 4–9 (emphasis added); Figs. 1, 3; See also Appeal Br. 13, 20. We agree with Appellants that Brilliant teaches a multiple point hinge not a single hinge point, as required by the claims. See Appeal Br. 13, 20; See also Reply Br. 4. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2–4, 6, and 8, and independent claim 11 as anticipated by Brilliant cannot be sustained. Obviousness over Bagwell - Claim 7 Claim 7 ultimately depends from claim 1. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 as unpatentable over Bagwell (see Ans. 6–7) is based on the same unsupported findings discussed above with respect to independent claim 1. The Examiner’s proposed modification of Bagwell does not remedy the deficiencies of Bagwell. Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 as unpatentable over Bagwell. DECISION We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–4, 6–8 and 11. REVERSED Klh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation