Ex Parte Gompper

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2017

14467514 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 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 12/19/2017
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
12/19/2017 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 REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant1 filed a Request for Rehearing (“Req. Reh’g”) under 37
C.F.R. § 41.52 following our Decision on Appeal mailed November 22,
2017, in which we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—7. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We have considered Appellant’s arguments in the Request for
Rehearing, but we are not persuaded that any points were misapprehended or
overlooked by the Board in issuing the Decision. We have provided herein
additional explanations, but decline to change our Decision in view of
Appellant’s arguments.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellant is Component Hardware
Group, Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-002754
Application 14/467,514
In the Request for Rehearing, Appellant repeats many of the
arguments presented on appeal in the briefs. Req. Reh’g 1—8. A request for
rehearing is not an opportunity to rehash or reargue points merely because
Appellant does not agree with the result of the Board’s decision. The proper
course for an appellant dissatisfied with a Board decision is to seek judicial
review. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 141, 145. We deny the Request for Rehearing for
this reason.
“a second component having a cross-sectional shape for slidably mounting
in said slot and said cavity of said first component ”
Claim 1 recites “a second component having a cross-sectional shape
for slidably mounting in said slot and said cavity of said first component.”
App. Br. (Claims App’x). Appellant’s resubmitted arguments concerning
this claim limitation (Req. Reh’g 2—5) hinge on the view that King’s flanges
120 of clip 102 have uniform width and would jam at some point when
lowered behind flanges 118 of clip 100 due to the taper of side arms 130 as
these elements are depicted in Figure 1.
For reasons stated in our Decision on Appeal, we disagree with
Appellant’s argument. Dec. on App. 5—6. Specifically, King’s clip 100 has
tapered arms 130 normal to trapezoidal base 122. King 2:51—54. Since clip
102 has complementary shape and taper to the clip 100 (King 2:57—59), clip
102 also has tapered arms 132 normal to trapezoidal base 124. Also, the
upper portion of the right side arm 132 shown in King Figure 1 angles
inwardly like the trapezoidal base 124 does. Further, King describes the
flanges 118, 120 to be “nested” when joined. King 3:2—5. Although the left
side of clip 102 shows the flange 120 extending about parallel with the wall
section 110, we believe the drawing is an approximation of the structure
2
Appeal 2016-002754
Application 14/467,514
described in King. Thus, we remain of the opinion the weight of the
evidence shows the complementary clips 100, 102 and their flanges 118,
120, taper inwardly and nest together neatly when joined.
Even assuming that Appellant’s argument is correct and clip 100
would jam when lowered behind flanges 118, Appellant fails to establish
that the argued language of claim 1 would not be disclosed nonetheless by
King’s jammed clip. Thus, we find Appellant’s argument deficient for this
additional reason.
Furthermore, King states “[t]he double-tapered design allows the
clip flanges to be ‘nested’ at appreciably less difference in height than the
height of a clip, the exact engaging height depending on flange width and
taper.” King 3:1—5 (emphases added). Thus, King contemplates the clips
100 and 102 are configured to nest together. Even assuming arguendo clips
100 and 102 do not fit together as they are drawn in King’s Figure 1 (and we
are of the opinion, when considered in light of King’s description, that they
do), that is not the end of the matter, for the foregoing excerpt of King
contemplates flexibility in design of the flange width and taper. Appellant’s
reliance only on the exact depiction of part of King’s Figure 1, without
considering that King contemplates flexibility in the design of flange width
and taper, fails to consider a significant part of King’s disclosure, and thus is
unpersuasive for this additional reason.
Moreover, King’s claim 1 states “each said clip comprising a bi­
section channel having a tapered flat base, tapered arms normal to the
base, and flanges on the arms substantially normal thereto.” King 5:28—
31 (emphasis added). The geometry of the claimed structure necessarily has
3
Appeal 2016-002754
Application 14/467,514
inwardly tapering flanges, and constitutes additional evidence the flanges
120 taper inwardly.
Appellant continues to argue King’s spacers 104 and 106 prevent clips
100 and 102 of Figure 1 from engaging with one another. Req. Reh’g 4. In
this regard, King further describes “Fig. 2 shows the relation of the spacer
and clip dimensions as assembled, each of the clips being recessed an
equal amount, with the total depth of the recessing equaling the depth of the
engaged clips. In FIG. 2, wall section 110 of FIG. 1 has been lowered,
engaging and tightening the clips and the wall sections.” King 2:66—72
(emphases added). Accordingly, King indisputably discloses the clips 100
and 102 engage with one another in the presence of the spacers.
In the Request for Rehearing, Appellant labels various assertions and
statements as “self-evident facts.” Req. Reh’g 3—4, 8. These statements are
more accurately termed as arguments, not facts.
For example, Appellant’s statement (1) contends the flanges 120 of
clip 102 are not of complementary shape to the tapered arms 130 of the clip
100. Reg. Reh’g 3. However, King states “[c]lip 102 is of complementary
shape and taper to clip 100” (2:57) and “[t]he double-tapered design allows
the clip flanges to be ‘nested’” (3:2—3). Thus, we disagree with Appellant’s
statement (1).
Appellant’s statements (2) to (4) contend King’s clip 102 has uniform
width and cannot travel down the narrowing space of the cavity of clip 100,
and the flanges 120 would allegedly jam against inwardly angled arms 130.
Req. Reh’g 3^4. However, as noted, “[c]lip 102 is of complementary shape
and taper to clip 100” (King 2:57) and “[t]he double-tapered design allows
the clip flanges to be ‘nested’” (King 3:2—3). In any case, Appellant has not
4
Appeal 2016-002754
Application 14/467,514
shown how King’s alleged jammed clips 100 and 102 do not disclose the
argued claim limitations nonetheless.
Appellant’s statement (5) asserts our Decision on Appeal provides no
explanation of how clip 102, being recessed within the spacers, can be
inserted into the projecting upper end of clip 100 from above. Req. Reh’g 4.
To the contrary, King explains how the clips and spacers assemble together.
King 2:69-75, Figs. 1 and 2.
Appellant’s statement (6) asserts King Figure 4 shows flanges that
converge whereas King Figure 1 shows flanges that are parallel. Req. Reh’g
4. We are of the opinion King Figures 1 and 4 and the corresponding
description disclose that the flanges converge in both Figures 1 and 4. King
3:2—3 (“The double-tapered design allows the clip flanges to be ‘nested’”).
Appellant’s statement (7) asserts the right flange 120 of clip 102 is not
visible in King Figure 1 except for the very top of the flange. Req. Reh’g 4.
Appellant is correct that Figure 1 shows only part of the right flange;
however, the visible part of the right flange 120 shows it angling inwardly
with the tapering of trapezoidal base 124.
Appellant’s statement (8) asserts a finding that flanges 120 of clip 102
of King Figure 1 “do taper so that they fit inside of flanges 118” is
contradicted by King Figure 1. Req. Reh’g 4. We disagree with this
assertion. Again, King discloses “[cjlip 102 is of complementary shape and
taper to clip 100” (2:57) and “[t]he double-tapered design allows the clip
flanges to be ‘nested’” (3:2—3).
“a second component having... a body of U-shaped cross-section received
in and extending through said slot of said first component”
Appellant again presents various arguments concerning the limitation
of claim 1 reciting “a second component having ... a body of U-shaped
5
Appeal 2016-002754
Application 14/467,514
cross-section received in and extending through said slot of said first
component.” Req. Reh’g 5—8. Specifically, Appellant argues that inward
tapering of arm 132 of King’s clip 102 means the cross-section of clip 102
has a truncated V shape, and does not disclose a “body of U-shaped cross-
section.” Id. at 7—8. Again, we disagree with Appellant’s argument for the
reasons stated in our Decision on Appeal. Dec. on App. 6—9.
Specifically, King discloses clip 100 is a “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,” and “[b]oth
tapered dimensions increase upwardly.” King 2:50—56 (emphasis added).
“Clip 102 is of complementary shape and taper to clip 100, [and has a]
. . . U-section channel with a tapered flat base 124 having tapered arms
132.” King 2:57—59 (emphasis added). “The base taper of clip 102 widens
upwardly and the arm tapers widen downwardly.” King 2:59-61. “Flanges
120 of clip 102 are outwardly turned and proportioned to engage flanges 118
of clip 100.” King 2:61—62. Thus, King’s clip 102, which is of
complementary shape and taper to clip 100, has a U-section channel, and its
arms 132 and flanges 120, attached to base 124, are received in and extend
through the slot of the clip 100.
Appellant again presents various “self-evident facts” with respect to
this claim limitation, which are not facts, but assertions. First, Appellant
contends King Figure 1 shows vertically disposed flanges 120. Req. Reh’g
8. Again, we are of the opinion that Figure 1 is an approximate
configuration and Appellant reads too much into one part of the depiction,
ignoring its other aspects and the corresponding description. Specifically,
King discloses “[c]lip 102 is of complementary shape and taper to clip 100”
6
Appeal 2016-002754
Application 14/467,514
(2:57) and “[t]he double-tapered design allows the clip flanges to be
‘nested’” (3:2—3). Also, as mentioned, King’s clip 100 has tapered arms 130
normal to trapezoidal base 122. King 2:51—54. Since clip 102 has
complementary shape and taper to the clip 100 (King 2:57—59), clip 102 also
has tapered arms 132 normal to trapezoidal base 124. The upper portion of
flange 132 in Figure 1 is also shown tapering inwardly with trapezoidal base
124. Moreover, King’s claim 1 states “each said clip comprising a U-section
channel having a tapered flat base, tapered arms normal to the base, and
flanges on the arms substantially normal thereto.” King 5:28—31. This
geometry necessitates the flanges taper inwardly. Accordingly, the weight
of the evidence shows that King’s flanges 120 taper inwardly and nest with
flanges 118. Thus, we disagree with Appellant’s first statement.
Second, Appellant contends King Figure 2 shows clip 102 with
flanges 120 at an angle, and not vertically disposed, as in Figure 1. Req.
Reh’g 8. We agree the flanges of clip 102 are at an angle to the vertical in
Figure 2, but also are of the opinion that the flanges 120 of Figure 1 are also
angled, though shown only approximately, for the reasons stated with
respect to statement (1).
Lastly, Appellant contends (1) King’s Figure 1 illustrates clip 102
recessed within the spacers, and (2) King’s Figure 2 illustrates clip 102
projecting from a spacer and not recessed in the spacer. Req. Reh’g 8 (King
2:42-46). Clips 100 and 102 are the same clip shown in King’s Figures 1
and 2, which is why they are numbered the same. As can be seen in King’s
Figure 2, the upper right portion of clip 102 is recessed within a spacer, but
the lower left portion extends outwardly therefrom. Thus, it is more
7
Appeal 2016-002754
Application 14/467,514
accurate to say a portion of the clip 102 shown in Figures 1 and 2 is recessed
within the spacers, and a portion extends outwardly from the spacers.
Alleged Incompatibility of King’s Figures 1 and 2
As noted, King describes “Fig. 2 shows the relation of the spacer and
clip dimensions as assembled, each of the clips being recessed an equal
amount, with the total depth of the recessing equaling the depth of the
engaged clips. In FIG. 2, wall section 110 of FIG. 1 . . . has been lowered,
engaging and tightening the clips and the wall sections.” King 2:66—72
(emphases added). Despite the fact that the mentioned excerpt of King
describes how the same numbered components, including clips 100 and 102,
fit together in Figures 1 and 2, Appellant again argues King’s Figures 1 and
2 are “incompatible.” Req. Reh’g 8. We are not persuaded by this argument
in view of King’s description, which clearly indicates Figures 1 and 2 are
different views of the same clips 100, 102 and how they are assembled
together. Accordingly, we conclude King’s Figures 1 and 2 are
“compatible.”
Conclusion
For the above-stated reasons, as well as those given in our Decision
on Appeal, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in the rejection, or that
we overlooked or misapprehended any points in rendering our Decision.
8
Appeal 2016-002754
Application 14/467,514
DECISION
We decline to change our prior opinion concerning the rejection of
claims 1—7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
DENIED
9