Ex Parte Gompper

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 22, 2017

14467514 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 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.
14/467,514 08/25/2014 Brion Gompper 139650.212 5214
27162 7590 11/22/2017
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
5 BECKER FARM ROAD
ROSELAND, NJ 07068
EXAMINER
SADLON, JOSEPH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3638
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/22/2017 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 BRION GOMPPER
Appeal 2016-002754
Application 14/467,514
Technology Center 3600
Before HUNG H. BUI, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.2
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellant is Component Hardware
Group, Inc. App. Br. 1.
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed August 25, 2014,
the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed June 29, 2015, the Appeal
Brief (“App. Br.”) filed September 23, 2015, the Examiner’s Answer
Appeal 2016-002754
Application 14/467,514
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to a panel fastener for joining wall panels
securely together. Spec. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A panel fastener comprising
a first component having a back wall including at
least one opening for passage of a mounting element
therethrough and a front wall having a longitudinally
disposed slot aligned with said opening in said back wall,
said front wall being spaced from said back wall to
define a cavity therewith; and
a second component having a cross-sectional shape
for slidably mounting in said slot and said cavity of said
first component, said second component having a body of
U-shaped cross-section received in and extending
through said slot of said first component and a pair of
flanges extending outwardly from said body and received
in said cavity of said first component.
App. Br. (Claims App’x).
REJECTION
Claims 1—7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on King
(US 3,589,758, issued June 29, 1971). Final Act. 2—5.
(“Ans.”) mailed December 16, 2015, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed
December 30, 2015.
2
Appeal 2016-002754
Application 14/467,514
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Longitudinally Disposed Slot
Claim 1 recites “a first component having a back wall. . . and a front
wall having a longitudinally disposed slot. . and “a second component
having a cross-sectional shape for slidably mounting in said slot. . . said
second component having a body of U-shaped cross-section received in and
extending through said slot. . App. Br. 3.
Appellant argues King does not have a “slot” as defined in the
Specification and as recited in claim 1 because in the King reference
[t]he opening between the flanges 118 of the clip 100 illustrated
in Fig. 1 of King tapers and, as such, cannot slidably receive the
other clip 102. Simply stated, the width of the opening between
the flanges 118 is wider at the upper end, as viewed, than at the
lower end. Hence, any object that would be slidably received at
the upper end of the opening could not slide any further through
the opening since the object is wider than the remainder of the
opening.
App. Br. 6.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. Instead, we agree with
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions throughout the Final Office Action
and Answer, and we adopt them as our own.
Figures 1 to 3 of King are depicted below with added arrow marking
to show the manner in which clips 100, 102 are engaged to join together wall
sections 108, 110.
3
Appeal 2016-002754
Application 14/467,514
Figures 1 to 3 of King show how clips 100, 102 are engaged to join wall
sections 108, 110 together.
The Examiner finds that the clips 100, 102 are shown wider at the upper end
than at the lower end. Ans. 6. The Examiner notes that “when the lower
portion of clip 102 is inserted into the top portion of clip 100, clip 102 would
be [freer] to move within the space provided by the top portion of clip 100.”
Ans. 7. According to the Examiner, “once inserted into the space provided
by arms 130 of clip 100, as the lower portion of clip 102 continues to travel
down the space provided, the flanges 120 and arms 132 of clip 102 would be
engaged by the narrowing of clip 100.” Id.
Appellant contends the width between the upper ends of flanges 120
of King’s clip 102 are wider than the opening between flanges 118 of King’s
clip 100 in Figure 1. App. Br. 6. Simple measurement of the “slot” between
4
Appeal 2016-002754
Application 14/467,514
the upper end of the flanges 118 of King’s clip 100 and flanges 120 of clip
102 at the lower end indicates the clip 102 fits in the slot defined by clip
100. Also, King describes the clip flanges 118 and 120 as “nesting,”
meaning one fits inside the other. King 3:1—5. Thus, we are not persuaded
by Appellant’s arguments.
Appellant views the flanges 120 of King’s clip 102 as rectilinear, and
thus incapable of fitting inside flanges 118 of clip 100. Although left flange
120 may not be perfectly drawn in Figure 1, the base 124 is trapezoidal,
which indicates the left flange 120 is not rectilinear but tapers like the
flanges 118 of King’s clip 100. See also King, Figure 4, which shows a clip
with tapering flanges like clip 102 in Figure 1. In any case, the right flange
120 of clip 102 appears to taper in Figure 1. Thus, on the whole, we agree
with the Examiner’s finding the flanges 120 do taper so that they fit inside of
flanges 118. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
Cross-Sectional Shape for Slidably Mounting
Claim 1 also recites “a first component having a back wall. . . and a
front wall having a longitudinally disposed slot. . . said front wall being
spaced from said back wall to define a cavity therewith” and “a second
component having a cross-sectional shape for slidably mounting in said slot
and said cavity of said first component...” App. Br. 7.
Appellant argues this feature is not disclosed by King. Id.
Particularly, Appellant argues King does not have a cross-sectional shape for
slidably mounting in the opening formed by the flanges 118. Id. According
to Appellant, the clip 100 has a U-shaped cross-section, and the clip 102 has
a truncated V-shape cross-section, and there is no disclosure in King that the
5
Appeal 2016-002754
Application 14/467,514
clip 102 of truncated V-shape cross-section is slidably mounted in the clip
100 of U-shaped cross-section. Id.', Reply Br. 2—3.
We do not agree with Appellant’s arguments. As the Examiner noted,
King discloses that the “[c]lip 100 is a vertically directed, symmetrical U-
section channel with a tapered flat base having tapered arms 130 normal to
the base with inwardly turned right-angle flanges 118 at the open side.”
Ans. 10 (citing King 2:50—53). Furthermore, King discloses “[c]lip 102 is of
complementary shape and taper to clip 100, comprising a vertically directed
symmetrical U-section channel with a tapered flat base 124 having tapered
arms 132.” Id., King 2:57—59. Accordingly, King discloses the argued
feature.
Appellant again argues the flanges 120 of King’s clip 102 are
rectilinear and wider than the clip 100 so that flanges 120 cannot be slidably
mounted in the space defined by the two tapered walls 130. Id. This
argument is unpersuasive for the reasons explained.
U-Shaped Cross-Section
Appellant argues the clip 102 of King does not have a U-shaped cross-
section as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8—10; Reply Br. 3^4. We do not
agree with Appellant’s argument. The Specification states “the body 31 of
U-shaped cross-section tapers from one end to the opposite end.” Spec. 8.
The body 31 is shown in Figure 6 of the Specification, and its cross-section
would look like what is presented below:
6
Appeal 2016-002754
Application 14/467,514
The Figure above shows a “U-shaped” cross-section of body 31 as described
at page 8 and shown in Figure 6 of the Specification.
One can readily ascertain that the cross-section of King’s clip 102,
taken along a horizontal plane in Figure 1, is the same configuration as
described in the Specification and shown above. Thus, King discloses the
identical “U-shaped” configuration for clip 102 as the claimed second
component. Also, as noted, clip 100 is described as having a U-shaped
cross-section (King 2:50—53) and clip 102 has a complementary shape and
taper (King 2:57—59). Thus, King discloses the claimed “U-shaped”
configuration, and Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
Appellant also argues King’s clip 102 does not have a body extending
through the opening between flanges 118 of clip 100. The Examiner finds
the side walls of arms 132 extending between base 124 and flanges 120 are
the “body” disclosed in King. Ans. 12. We agree with the Examiner the
term “body” is broad and can reasonably be interpreted as the items in King
identified by the Examiner.
Appellant also argues King does not disclose that its flanges 120 are
received between the base 122 and flanges 118 because the clip 102 is wider
than the clip 100. App. Br. 8 — 9. This argument has been repeatedly
presented, and is not persuasive. From Figure 1 of King, it is clear the
7
Appeal 2016-002754
Application 14/467,514
flanges 120 and a portion of arms 132 of the clip 102 are designed to fit
behind flanges 118. A “clip” is defined as “any of various devices that grip,
clasp, or hook.” Merriam-Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com
/dictionary /clip (last viewed 11/11/2017). We see no other way King’s clip
102 could “grip, clasp, or hook” to the clip 100, and Appellant provides no
explanation of how the clips 100, 102 would otherwise join together.
Appellant further argues the flanges 120 of clip 102 are prevented by
spacers 104, 106 from contacting the clip 100. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2. In
particular, Appellant contends the clips 100, 102 are recessed so that they do
not extend past spacers 104, 106 and cannot engage with one another. App.
Br. 9. We disagree for the reasons stated by the Examiner. Ans. 13.
Specifically, King shows “that flanges 118 of clip 100 extend outward from
base 122 and beyond the outer surface of studding 114 at the top portion of
the clip 100 and are seated behind the outer surface of studding 114 at the
bottom portion of the clip 100.” Ans. 13. Accordingly, “it is clear the
flanges 120 would not be ‘prevented by the spacers 104, 106 from
contacting the clip 100.’” Id. See also Figures 2 and 3 of King, which show
the clips 100, 102 nested together, which means the spacers 104, 106 do not
prevent their joining.
Furthermore, we do not agree with Appellant’s argument that Figures
1 and 2 of King are incompatible. App. Br. 9—10. For example, King states
“[i]n FIG. 2, wall section 110 of FIG. 1 has been butted against wall section
108 and wall section 110 has been lowered, engaging and tightening the
clips and the wall sections.” King 2:72—75. Thus, King describes Figures 1
and 2 together, meaning they are compatible.
8
Appeal 2016-002754
Application 14/467,514
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that King anticipates
claim 1.
Claim 4
Independent claim 4 is argued on the same basis as claim 1. App.
Br. 10. Accordingly, claim 4 falls with claim 1 for the stated reasons. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 4, and recites the first and second
components have “mating shapes.” App. Br. (Claims App’x). Appellant
argues King’s clips 100, 102 do not have “mating shapes.” App. Br. 10.
The Specification describes the “mating shapes” of the first and second
components to move towards each other as the components slide together to
move a pair of panels together in a tightened manner.” Spec. 3. Similarly,
as shown in Figure 1, King discloses “[c]lip 102 is of complementary shape
and taper to clip 100.” King 2:57. As mentioned, when wall section 110 is
lowered in abutment with wall section 108, the clips 100, 102 engage and
tighten the clips and the wall sections together. King 2:72—75. Thus, we
agree with the Examiner that King discloses the claimed feature. Ans. 15.
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are submitted for the remaining claims, which
fall with their independent claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
9
Appeal 2016-002754
Application 14/467,514
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10