Ex Parte Garg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2014

11821321 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2014)

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