Ex Parte Gee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 9, 2017

12405033 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2017)

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.
12/405,033 03/16/2009 Jack W. Gee II 025818-9660-01 2832
60840 7590 02/13/2017
MICHAEL, BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (MT)
100 EAST WISCONSIN AVENUE
SUITE 3300
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
EGGERDING, ALIX ECHET .MEYER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1729
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/13/2017 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):
MKEIPDOCKET@MICHAELBEST.COM
milwaukeeip@milwaukeetool.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JACK W. GEE II, MARK BUTTS,
JAMIE HORVATH, and DOUG RUKAVINA
Appeal 2016-000124
Application 12/405,033
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JULIA HEANEY, and JEFFREY R. SNAY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a
decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 5—11, 15—18, and 21 of
Application 12/405,033.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Techtronic Floor Care
Technology Limited. App. Br. 2.
2 Non-Final Rejection dated September 5, 2014 (“Non-Final Act.”). We also
refer in this decision to the Appeal Brief dated February 3, 2015 (“App.
Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated July 17, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply
Brief dated September 16, 2015 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2016-000124
Application 12/405,033
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a latching assembly for
securing a battery package to an electrically powered cleaning device. App.
Br. 2. Representative claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced
from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief as follows:
1. A latching assembly for securing a battery package to an
electrically powered cleaning device, comprising:
at least one moveable first engagement member, located toward
a first side of a long end of the battery package and configured for
movement between an engaged position to thereby secure the battery
package to the cleaning device and an unengaged position for removal
of the battery package from the cleaning device;
at least one moveable member having a longitudinal axis
movably mounted to the battery package to interface with the first
engagement member; and
at least one user contact movably mounted to the battery
package, the user contact located toward a second side of an end of
the battery package opposite the first side, the user contact configured
to interface with the moveable member for movement of the moveable
member to thereby move the first engagement member between the
engaged position and the unengaged position;
wherein the first engagement member moves substantially
normal to the movement of the moveable member.
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, 5—11, 15, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Dayton,3
Deguchi,4and Roehm.5
3 Dayton et al., US 2008/0250570 Al, pub. Oct. 16, 2008.
4 Deguchi, US 5,716,730, pub. Feb. 10, 1998.
5 Roehm et al., US 2007/0243458 Al, pub. Oct. 18, 2007.
2
Appeal 2016-000124
Application 12/405,033
2. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Dayton, Deguchi, Roehm, and Lee.6
3. Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Dayton, Deguchi, Roehm,
and Watson.7
4. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Dayton, Deguchi, Roehm, and Lee.8
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
Appellants’ arguments focus on claim 1. We therefore limit our
discussion accordingly with respect to the first-stated ground of rejection.
All other claims stand or fall with claim 1, except for claim 9 which
Appellants argue separately in connection with Rejection 2, discussed
below. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
Dayton discloses a power tool, such as a cleaning device, having a
removable battery pack secured by a latching assembly. Dayton Fig. 3.
Dayton does not disclose the details of the latching assembly. Deguchi
discloses a battery case mounting structure on the main body of an electronic
device, such as a cellular phone set, having a latching assembly for attaching
the battery case to the main body. Deguchi, Abstract, 1:21—25. The latching
assembly comprises a release button 8 supported by inclined segments 8b in
6 Lee et al., US 6,216,195 Bl, pat. Apr. 10, 2001.
7 Watson et al., US 2002/0011819 Al, pub. Jan. 31, 2002.
8 This rejection was entered as a new ground in the Answer. Ans. 2.
Appellants elect to address the new ground of rejection in the Reply Brief
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.41. Reply Br. 2, 5.
3
Appeal 2016-000124
Application 12/405,033
its lower portion that engage a slider 4 when the release button is depressed,
thereby retracting conductive pins 3 to disengage the battery pack from the
main body. Deguchi 5:45—64, Figs. 4—5. Roehm discloses a battery pack
for a handheld power tool having a latching assembly within the battery
pack for securing it to the power tool. Roehm, Abstract, Fig. 2. The
Examiner determines it would have been obvious to use the latching
assembly of Deguchi to attach a battery pack to a cleaning device as shown
in Dayton, in order to reduce the overall size and cost of the device, and that
it would have been obvious to use the latching assembly of Deguchi inside
Roehm’s battery package, in order to reduce the number of components, and
because it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to
recognize that the location of a latching assembly is easily changed as long
as the latching assembly functions to latch the two components. Non-Final
Act. 4; Ans. 4.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not established obviousness
for several reasons, among them the following: (1) none of the references,
alone or in combination, discloses an engagement member for a latching
assembly located on a first side of a battery package and a user contact
located on a second side of the battery package; (2) none of the references
provides a motivation for rearranging the engagement member that secures
the battery package to a cleaning device and the user contact the moves the
engagement member, so that they are located on opposite sides of the battery
package; (3) none of the references discloses the three components of the
latching assembly recited in claim 1: an engagement member, a moveable
member interfacing with the engagement member, and a user contact
interfacing with the moveable member. App. Br. 9—15.
4
Appeal 2016-000124
Application 12/405,033
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection for the reasons explained in the Non-
Final Action and Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants’ argument concerning the locations of the engagement
member and user contact is not persuasive. Claim 1 does not recite that those
components are located “on” a first side and a second side opposite the first
side, respectively. Claims Appx. Rather, the claim recites that those
components are located “toward a first side” and “toward a second side,”
respectively. Id. Although Appellants concede this issue in the Reply Brief
(Reply Br. 2), Appellants nonetheless maintain that the rejection is improper
because Roehm discloses that its engagement member and user contact are
located on the same side of its battery package, and Deguchi’s engagement
member and user contact are not located on its battery package, but rather on
the main body. Id. at 3. Appellants misapprehend the basis for the rejection,
however, because the Examiner relies on Deguchi as teaching the location of
the recited components within the latching assembly. See Ans. 4—5.
Further, Appellants’ argument that Deguchi does not disclose a latching
assembly on its battery package is not persuasive because the basis for the
rejection is that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have provided
Deguchi’s latching assembly on the battery package as suggested by Roehm,
in order to reduce the number of components, and additionally that it would
have been within the level of skill in the art to change the location of the
latch assembly, so long as the latch assembly functions to latch the battery
package to the main body. Non-Final Act. 4. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (arguing against individual references cannot
overcome a rejection based on a combination of the references).
5
Appeal 2016-000124
Application 12/405,033
Appellants’ argument that Deguchi merely discloses two of the three
components recited in claim 1 is based on their assertion that Deguchi’s
release button 8 and inclined segment 8b do not correspond to the “user
contact” and “moveable member” because 8 and 8b are parts of the same
component, rather than physically separate components. App. Br. 14—15.
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because claim 1 does not require that
the “user contact” and “moveable member” are physically separate
components. See Ans. 6. Additionally, Appellants’ argument that Roehm
merely discloses two of the three components recited in claim 1 (App. Br.
12—14) is not persuasive because, as discussed above, the Examiner does not
rely on Roehm alone as teaching all of the components of the latching
assembly. Ans. 5.
Rejection 2
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and includes a further limitation that
the moveable member protrudes through an aperture at the bottom of the
battery package to eject the battery package from the cleaning device. App.
Br. 22, Claims Appx. The Examiner finds that Lee teaches a latching
assembly including a moveable member 16 having a protruding position
when the ejecting member 36 protrudes from aperture 12 at the bottom of
the package, and determines that it would have been obvious to modify the
latching assembly as disclosed in the combination of Dayton, Deguchi, and
Roehm in order to ensure successful removal of the battery from the
cleaning device. Non-Final Act. 7, citing Lee 2:26—3:19, Fig. 1. Appellants
argue that the Examiner is incorrect because ejecting member 36 is not part
of linking arm 16, but rather is part of ejecting member 32 which is
pivotably connected to linking arm 16, and therefore Lee does not disclose a
moveable member as recited in claim 9. App. Br. 18.
6
Appeal 2016-000124
Application 12/405,033
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of reversible error. As the
Examiner explains, the rejection is based on modifying the moveable
member disclosed in the combination of Dayton, Deguchi, and Roehm; it is
not based on bodily incorporating Lee’s moveable member. Ans. 7, citing In
re Keller, 642 F.3d at 425.
Rejections 3 and 4
Appellants present argument only for claim 18, which depends from
claims 17 and 1. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 5—6. Appellants primarily rely on
an argument they also presented in response to Rejection 1, i.e., that the
Examiner “improperly relies on rearrangement of parts” from the references
and fails to identify a motivation within the cited references themselves for a
person of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange components of the latching
assembly. App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 5—6. Appellants’ argument is not
persuasive of reversible error; as discussed above, the Examiner provided a
rationale for combining the references that is sufficient to support the
rejection.
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejections of claims 1, 2, 5—11, 15—18, and 21 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the reasons set forth above.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7