13480276 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2017)

Ex Parte George

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 28, 2017

13480276 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 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. 13/480,276 05/24/2012 Richard George TP-GEOR-SSA4 7465 62439 7590 SINORICA, LLC 20251 Century Blvd. Suite 140 Germantown, MD 20874 EXAMINER GRACZ, KATHARINE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3765 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/01/2017 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): SINORICA@GMAIL.COM sinorica@outlook.com pair @ sinorica.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICHARD GEORGE Appeal 2015-005859 Application 13/480,2761 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 11, and 12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The Appeal Brief (page 2) identifies Richard George as the real party in interest. (Because the pages of the Appeal Brief are not numbered, we regard the page bearing the title as the first page and the pages that follow as being numbered sequentially thereafter.) Appeal 2015-005859 Application 13/480,276 ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM 1. An apparatus for sandals with interchangeable upper section comprises, an upper portion; a sole; a securing system; the upper portion comprises a first end, a second end, and a third end; the sole comprises a top panel, an inside panel, an outside panel, front portion, and a back portion; the securing system comprises a plurality of male connectors and a plurality of female connectors; the plurality of male connectors and the plurality of female connectors being positioned in between the upper portion and the sole; the upper portion being attached to the sole by the plurality of male connectors and the plurality of female connectors; the first end being positioned in between the second end and the third end; the first end being adjacently located with the front portion and the top panel; the second end being oppositely positioned from the third end; the second end and the third end being adjacently located with the back portion and the top panel; the top panel being perpendicularly positioned with the inside panel and the outside panel; the inside panel and the outside panel being oppositely positioned from each other; the plurality of female connectors comprises a first female connector, a second female connector, and a third female connector; 2 Appeal 2015-005859 Application 13/480,276 the first female connector being adjacently connected with the first end; the second female connector being adjacently connected with the second end; the third female connector being adjacently connected with the third end; the plurality of male connectors comprises a first male connector, a second male connector, and a third connector; the first male connector being positioned on the front portion; the first male connector being connected on the top panel; the second male connector and the third male connector being positioned in the back portion; the second male connector being connected with the top panel; and the third male connector being connected with the top panel. REJECTION Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Smith et al. (US 7,222,441 B2, iss. May 29, 2007) (hereinafter “Smith”). FINDINGS OF FACT The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis. ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites a “securing system compris[ing] a plurality of male connectors” and further recites that “the plurality of male connectors comprises a first male connector, a second male connector, and a third connector.” 3 Appeal 2015-005859 Application 13/480,276 The rejection identifies elements 80, 85, and 220 of Smith as “male connectors.” Final Action 3. The Appellant argues that element 220 is “a slot, not a male connector.” Appeal Br. 4. The Examiner maintains that the Appellant “has not defined the structure of the female connector and male connector”; therefore, “they can be considered interchangeable as long as one fits into the other.” Final Action 6. In addition, the Answer states: It is noted Appellant only relies on the term “male connectors” to disclose the claimed feature of the male connector. “Male connector” is a broad term which does not impart any particular structure. Appellant has not provided any kind of structure to distinguish the male connector from the female connector. Instead Appellant has claimed the male connector and female connector connect to each other in a certain manner. Smith discloses the connection and connectors inasmuch as [Ajppellant has claimed. Although the male connector is a slot in Smith, Appellant has provided no structural difference where the male connector can’t be a slot. Answer 2. The Examiner’s position does not comport with the principle that the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim language “must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Notably, by the time of the invention, the term “male” had a well-understood meaning in the art of connecting devices, as “a part shaped to fit into a corresponding hollow part (called female).” Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary (2d ed. 1979). 4 Appeal 2015-005859 Application 13/480,276 Further, in stating that the “Appellant only relies on the term ‘male connectors’ to disclose the claimed feature of the male connector” (Answer 2), the Answer overlooks the drawings provided with the Specification, which may aid in the interpretation of claim language. See, e.g., Primos, Inc. v. Hunter’s Specialties, Inc., 451 F.3d 841, 847-48 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Figure 3 of the Specification, for example, shows “second male connector” (element 312) as an upwardly-projecting stud to be received within the “second female connector” (element 322), thus indicating that the “male connector” possesses an element of some length that is mated with an opposing “female connector.” The Answer also does not consider other intrinsic evidence, in the form of the references of record. See V-Formation, Inc. v. Benetton Group SpA, 401 F.3d 1307, 1311-12 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The Non-Final Office Action dated March 26, 2014, cites Pan (US 2002/0124433 Al, pub. Sept. 12, 2002), Enderson (US 2008/0060227 Al, pub. Mar. 13, 2008), Lewis (US 2008/0110054 Al, pub. May 15, 2008), and Rudd, Jr. et al. (US 2010/0212184 Al, pub. Aug. 26, 2010) (“Rudd”) — each of which employs the term “male” to describe connection structures. For example, Enderson (| 40) refers to “a male connector which will provide an insertable interlocking connector.” Additionally, drawings of these cited references (see, e.g., Enderson, Fig. 12; Rudd, Fig. 4B) show “male” structures as extended elements sized to be received within corresponding “female” structures. Therefore, the term “male connector” should be interpreted as possessing an extended portion that is insertable into a receiving portion of a mating element. 5 Appeal 2015-005859 Application 13/480,276 Therefore, element 220 of Smith (identified as a “keyway” (Smith, col. 7,1. 31)) — which both the Appellant and Examiner call a “slot” (see Appeal Br. 4; Answer 2) — does not satisfy the “male connector” feature of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and, for like reasons, the other independent claims (claims 6 and 11) and the dependent claims (claims 5, 8, and 12) under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). REVERSED 6