10224012 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 21, 2008)

Ex Parte Gomez

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 21, 2008

10224012 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 21, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES __________ Ex parte RUBEN GOMEZ Appeal 2007-4381 Application 10/224,012 Technology Center 3700 __________ Decided: February 21, 2008 __________ Before TONI R. SCHEINER, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and LORA M. GREEN, Administrative Patent Judges. MILLS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134. The Examiner has rejected claims 1-18 for anticipation or obviousness. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Claims 1-18 read as follow: 1. A device for storing hangers comprising a hanging portion and a clothes holding portion, the device comprising: a first and a second shoulder portion; and a first and a second side portion; wherein the first shoulder portion is attached to the first side portion at a first interface; Appeal 2007-4381 Application 10/224,012 wherein the second shoulder portion is attached to the first side portion at a second interface; wherein the second side portion is attached to the first shoulder portion at a third interface; wherein at least one of the second side portion or the second shoulder portion is rotatable around the axis defined by the third interface or the second interface respectively to rotate between an opened and a closed position; wherein an engageable fastener is provided to maintain the at least one rotatable portion in the closed position when engaged; and wherein the side portions and the shoulder portions define a gap for protrusion of the hanging portion of the hanger. 2. The device of claim 1 wherein both the second side portion and the second shoulder portion are rotatable around the axes defined by the third interface and the second interface respectively. 3. The device of claim 1 further comprising a bottom portion attached to the first shoulder portion and the first side portion. 4. The device of claim 1 wherein the fastener is chosen from a magnet, a zipper, a hook-and loop fastener, a button, a snap, or a latch. 5. The device of claim 1 wherein the first and second side portion and the first and second shoulder portion comprise a rigid material. 6. The device of claim 1 wherein the first and second side portion and the first and second shoulder portion comprise a flexible material. 7. A device for storing hangers comprising a hanging portion and a clothes holding portion, the device comprising: a first and a second shoulder portion; a first and a second side portion; and a bottom portion; wherein the first shoulder portion, the second shoulder portion, the first side portion, and the second side portion are attached to the bottom portion at first, second, third, and fourth interfaces respectively; 2 Appeal 2007-4381 Application 10/224,012 wherein at least one of the second side portion or the second shoulder portion is rotatable around the axis defined by the fourth interface or the second interface respectively to rotate between an open and a closed position; wherein an engageable fastener is provided to maintain the at least one rotatable portion in the closed position when engaged; and wherein the side portions and the shoulder portions define a gap for protrusion of the hanging portion of the hanger. 8. The device of claim 7 wherein the mechanical fastener is chosen from a magnet, a zipper, a hook-and-loop fastener, a button, a snap, or a latch. 9. The device of claim 7 wherein the first and second side portion and the first and second shoulder portion comprise a rigid material. 10. The device of claim 7 wherein the first and second side portion and the first and second shoulder portion comprise a flexible material. 11. The device of claim 7 wherein both the second side portion and the second shoulder portion are rotatable around the axis defined by the fourth interface and the second interface respectively. 12. A device for storing hangers comprising a hanging portion and a clothes holding portion, the device comprising: an enclosure comprising four sides, a bottom, and a gap for protrusion of the hanging portion of the hangers, wherein at least one of the sides is rotatable between an opened and a closed position; wherein an engageable fastener maintains the at least one rotatable side in a closed position when the fastener is engaged; and wherein the opening created when the rotatable side is opened is large enough to allow removal or addition of at least one hanger. 13. The device of claim 12 wherein two sides are rotatable between an opened and a closed position. 14. The device of claim 12 wherein the sides and bottom comprise a rigid material. 3 Appeal 2007-4381 Application 10/224,012 15. The device of claim 12 wherein the sides and bottom comprise a flexible material. 16. The device of claim 12 wherein the fastener is a magnet. 17. The device of claim 12 wherein the fastener is a zipper. 18. The device of claim 12 wherein two sides are rotatable between an opened and a closed position, wherein the sides and bottom comprise a rigid material, and wherein the fastener is a magnet. Cited References Mersbach U.S. 2,298,146 Oct. 6, 1942 Gingher U.S. 3,357,544 Dec. 12, 1967 Brennan U.S. 4,738,390 Apr. 19, 1988 Mack U.S. 443,397 Dec. 23, 1890 Thompson U.S. 5,316,138 May 31, 1994 Pakosh U.S. 6,481,574 Nov. 19, 2002 Lee U.S. 6,708,819 Mar. 23, 2004 Grounds of Rejection Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Gingher. Claims 2 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gingher in view of Mack or Mersbach. Claims 6, 10 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gingher. 4 Appeal 2007-4381 Application 10/224,012 Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gingher in view of Thompson or Brennan. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gingher in view of Pakosh or Lee. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gingher in view of Mack or Mersbach and Thompson or Brennan. Claims 1-10 and 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Mack in view of Gingher. Claims 16 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Mack in view of Thompson or Brennan. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Mack in view of Pakosh or Lee. DISCUSSION Background The claimed invention relates to a device in which hangers may be stored, concealed and organized. (Specification 1.) Obviousness Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Gingher. The Examiner finds that Gingher discloses a clothes hanger container comprising first and second shoulder panels 10, 11, first and second side portions 3, 4 connected by a bottom panel 2. The side panel is rotatable and connected to the container by at least one latch. An opening is formed between the panels. 5 Appeal 2007-4381 Application 10/224,012 Answer 3. Appellants contend that “Gingher does not describe a folding container for clothes hangers with ‘a gap for protrusion of the hanging portion of the hanger.’” (Br. 13.) We agree with Appellants that Gingher does not disclose this claimed feature. While the Examiner argues that an opening is formed between the side panels in Gingher (Answer 3), the Examiner has not provided evidence in the prior art of “a gap for protrusion of the hanging portion of the hanger,” as claimed. We reverse the anticipation rejection over Gingher. Claims 2 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gingher in view of Mack or Mersbach. Claims 6, 10 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gingher. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gingher in view of Thompson or Brennan. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gingher in view of Pakosh. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gingher in view of Mack or Mersbach and Thompson or Brennan. Claims 1-10 and 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Mack in view of Gingher. Each of these rejections relies on the primary reference, Gingher, which we have found does not disclose “a gap for protrusion of the hanging portion of the hanger,” as claimed. Nor has the Examiner provided a rationale for modifying Gingher to include the missing feature. We do not find that any of the secondary references cited in the rejections above 6 Appeal 2007-4381 Application 10/224,012 overcome the deficiency of Gingher. Thus the above noted rejections are reversed. Claims 16 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Mack in view of Thompson or Brennan. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Mack in view of Pakosh or Lee. Appellants contend that “neither Gingher nor Mack teaches “a gap for protrusion of the hanging portion of the hanger,” as claimed. (Br. 22.) We do not find that Mack teaches “a gap for protrusion of the hanging portion of the hanger,” as claimed, or that any of the secondary references cited in the rejections above overcome the deficiencies of Mack. Thus the above noted rejections are reversed. SUMMARY The anticipation and obviousness rejections of the Examiner are reversed. REVERSED CONLEY ROSE P.C. DAVID A. ROSE P.O. BOX 3267 HOUSTON, TX 77253-3267 lp 7