Ex Parte Gerst

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 14, 2016

13384655 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/384,655 01/18/2012 Kaljopa Gerst
24737 7590 09/16/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2009P01200WOUS 4543
EXAMINER
ROERSMA, ANDREW MARK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3637
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2016 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):
marianne.fox@philips.com
debbie.henn@philips.com
patti. demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
L11'-~ITED STATES PATENT AND TRADE~'v1ARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KALJOP A GERST
Appeal2014-005251
Application 13/384,655
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kaljopa Gerst (Appellant) 1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the Examiner's decision, as set forth in the Final Action dated May 24, 2013,
("Final Act."), rejecting claims 1--4 and 6-8. Claim 5 is allowed.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Koninklijke Philips
electronics, N. V. Appeal Br. 1.
2 The Examiner allowed claim 5 in the Notice of Panel Decision from Pre-
Appeal Brief Review, dated September 19, 2013.
Appeal2014-005251
Application 13/384,655
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's claimed subject matter relates to "a housing with a
locking structure to interlock different parts of the housing with each other."
Spec. 1. Claims 1 and 8 are the rejected independent claims on appeal.
Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A housing with a locking structure,
said housing comprising at least a first housing part and an
adjacent second housing part,
said locking structure comprising a flexible snap member
extending from the first housing part over an inner wall portion
of the second housing part and being provided with a first
engaging portion,
said inner wall portion of the second housing part being
provided with a second engaging portion,
said first engaging portion and second engaging portion
forming a snap fit connection to be released by lifting said snap
member from the inner wall portion,
and a release tool arranged on or above the bottom of said
second housing part to be slidable towards the snap member,
said snap member being further provided with a receiving
portion being formed to catch and interlock with the tip of said
release tool such that the tip of the tool and the snap member are
interlocked with each other when the release tool is pushed into
the receiving portion.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied upon the following evidence in the Final Action:
Moulton
Kitamura
us 5,348,356
US 6,315,142 Bl
2
Sept. 20, 1994
Nov. 13, 2001
Appeal2014-005251
Application 13/384,655
Hung
Volpone
Kazuhiro
US 6,992,901 Bl
US 7,413,479 Bl
JP 2007-5701 A
REJECTIONS
Jan. 31, 2006
Aug. 19, 2008
Jan. 11, 2007
The Final Action, from which this appeal is taken, contained the
following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Kazuhiro.
2. Claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kazuhiro, Hung, and Volpone.
3. Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kazuhiro,
Moulton, and Kitamura.
ANALYSIS
11lirst Grourzd of _l?._ejectiorz
Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, that the receiving portion of the snap
member is "formed to catch and interlock with the tip of said release tool
such that the tip of the tool and the snap member are interlocked with each
other when the release tool is pushed into the receiving portion." Appeal
Br. 15 (Claims App.). The Examiner found that Kazuhiro teaches a housing
with a locking structure including "a flexible snap member (hook portion 54)
... , and a release tool (release rod 7) ... , said snap member being further
provided with a receiving portion (groove part 54b) being formed to catch
and interlock with the tip of said release tool. ... " Final Act. 2-3 (citing
Kazuhiro, Figs. 14-20, paras. 40--46).
3
Appeal2014-005251
Application 13/384,655
Appellant contends that Kazuhiro does not anticipate claim 1 because
the receiving portion 54b of Kazuhiro' s hook element 54 does not "catch
and interlock" with release rod 7. Appeal Br. 6 (arguing that "[t]he release
rod 7 of Kazuhiro has no hook structure nor any other structure which
interlocks with the hook element 54"). See also id. (arguing that "[t]he hook
element 54 and the release rod 7 of Kazuhiro do not unite or join closely as
by hooking or interlocking") and Reply Br. 3 (arguing that "the release rod
is loosely received in the groove part 54b").
"During examination, 'claims . . . are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and ... claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art."' In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d
831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Appellant's Specification describes the
interlocking of the tip of the release tool and the snap member as follows:
The lifting of the snap member can be achieved by the
integrated release tool that can be pushed into a receiving portion
of the snap member. The receiving portion is formed to catch
the tip of the release tool so that the tip of the tool and the snap
member are interlocked with each other. The receiving portion
and the tip of the release tool can be formed complementary so
that introducing the tip of the release tool is easy, but the release
tool cannot be easily pulled back in the opposite direction when
the tip has been introduced into the receiving portion. When the
release tool is pulled back in the interlocked position of the
receiving portion and the tool, a pulling force acts on the snap
member, lifting it in the above-described way to release the snap-
fit connection between the two housing parts.
4
Appeal2014-005251
Application 13/384,655
Spec. 3. The Specification further describes, with reference to the preferred
embodiment:
When the hook portion 54 has passed the edges 5 8 which mark
the narrowest passage between the branches 48, 50, the branches
48, 50 slide back behind the hook portion 54 so that the tip 7 6 of
the release tool 70 is catched [sic] in a locked manner. This
means that the release tool 70 cannot be pulled in the opposite
direction away from the sidewall 22 without deflecting the snap
member 38. The locking of the tip 76 of the release tool 70 is
achieved by the engagement of the hook portion 7 4 behind the
branches 48 and 50 of the snap member 38.
Spec. 7-8.
We find that a person having ordinary skill in the art would
understand the above-quoted passages from the Specification to define
"interlock" to mean that the release tool cannot be pulled in the opposite
direction from the direction in which it was inserted without causing
movement of the snap member. Based on this understanding of the
description provided in the Specification, we interpret "formed to catch and
interlock with the tip of said release tool such that the tip of the tool and the
snap member are interlocked with each other when the release tool is pushed
into the receiving portion" to mean that the receiving portion must be
formed such that, when the release tool is pushed into the receiving portion
of the snap member, the tip of the release tool engages the snap member so
that the release tool cannot be pulled in a direction opposite from the
direction of insertion of the tool without causing corresponding movement
of the snap member.
5
Appeal2014-005251
Application 13/384,655
Based on this claim interpretation, we agree with Appellant that
although the hook element 54 of Kazuhiro has a recess that may prevent
release rod 7 from sliding off the hook element 54, the two elements do not
catch and interlock in the manner called for in claim 1. Rather, when
Kazuhiro's release rod 7 is pushed into groove part 54b of hook portion 54,
it does not interlock with the hook portion. Release rod 7 is loosely received
in groove part 54b, and can be pulled in the opposite direction from the
direction of insertion of the rod without effecting any movement of hook
portion 54. For these reasons, we do not find by a preponderance of the
evidence that Kazuhiro' s groove part 54b of hook portion 54 is formed to
catch and interlock with the tip of release rod 7 such that the tip of release
rod 7 and hook portion 54 are interlocked with each other when release rod 7
is pushed into groove part 54b. For these reasons, we do not sustain the first
ground of rejection of claim 1, or its dependent claims 2, 6, and 7, under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kazuhiro.
Second Ground of Re} ection
Claims 3 and 4, which are subject to the second ground of rejection,
depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). In the rejection of these
dependent claims, the Examiner relied on the same finding that Kazuhiro
discloses a receiving portion formed to catch and interlock with the tip of the
release tool, that we found deficient in the analysis of claim 1 discussed
above. The Examiner did not rely on Hung or Volpone for proposed
modifications to Kazuhiro that would cure this deficiency. As such, for the
same reasons discussed above for the first ground of rejection, we do not
6
Appeal2014-005251
Application 13/384,655
sustain the second ground of rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kazuhiro, Hung, and Volpone.
Third Ground of Rejection
Independent claim 8, similar to claim 1, recites "said snap member
being further provided with a receiving portion being formed to catch and
interlock with the tip of said release tool such that the tip of the tool and the
snap member are interlocked with each other when the release tool is pushed
into the receiving portion." In the rejection of claim 8, the Examiner relied
on the same finding that Kazuhiro discloses a receiving portion formed to
catch and interlock with the tip of the release tool, that we found deficient in
the analysis of claim 1 discussed above. The Examiner did not rely on
Moulton or Kitamura for proposed modifications to Kazuhiro that would
cure this deficiency. As such, for the same reasons discussed above for the
first ground of rejection, we do not sustain the third ground of rejection of
claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kazuhiro, Moulton,
and Kitamura.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1--4 and 6-8 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
7