Ex Parte Gretz

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 6, 2016

12321283 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/321,283 0112012009
30010 7590 04/07/2016
The Jackson Patent Group, LLC
1500 Forest Avenue, Suite 212
RICHMOND, VA 23229
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas J. Gretz
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.
1986(Arl) 1432
EXAMINER
BAXTER, GWENDOLYN WRENN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3632
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/07/2016 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 THOMAS J. GRETZ
Appeal2014-004475
Application 12/321,283
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFERD. BAHR, JAMES P. CALVE, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 9-14. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant submits the real party in interest is Arlington Industries, Inc. Br.
1.
Appeal2014-004475
Application 12/321,283
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A support bracket for securing an electrical junction box to a
narrow surface comprising:
a planar brace member including two ends and two sides;
a base member extending orthogonally from a first end of said brace
member;
a flange extending orthogonally and cantilevered from a second end of
said brace member, said flange including two sides;
a strengthening rib extending orthogonally along a linear bend line
substantially parallel to said sides of said flange toward said base
member;
said base member including a base flange extending from a first side
of said brace member; and
said base member including a tab extending outward from a second
side of said brace member, said tab planar with said base flange.
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gretz (US
6,607,086 Bl, iss. Aug. 19, 2003) in view of Zidar (US 7,774,995
Bl, iss. Aug. 17, 2010). 5/29/13 Non-Final Act. ("Act.") 3.
2) Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Gretz in view of Zidar and Gadd (US 2006/0191234 Al, pub.
Aug 31, 2006). Id. at 5.
3) Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gretz in view of Zidar and Rodgers (US
2008/0209846, pub. Sept. 4, 2008). Id.
2
Appeal2014-004475
Application 12/321,283
4) Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gretz in view of Zidar and Egawa (US
5,666,781, iss. Sept. 16, 1997). Id.
DISCUSSION
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9--10, 12 and 13- Obviousness-Gretz and Zidar
The Examiner found that Gretz discloses all the limitations of these
claims except for the "strengthening rib extending orthogonally along a
linear bend line." Act. 3--4. The Examiner found that Zidar discloses a
support bracket including a strengthening rib. Id. at 4. The Examiner
concluded that it would have been obvious "to have modified the flange and
brace member as taught by Gretz to have incorporated the strengthening rib
as taught by Zidar for the purpose of adding strength and help support the
bracket." Id. at 4--5. The Examiner further explained that Gretz teaches a
unitary bracket and
Once the teaching of Zidar is incorporated in Gretz, Gretz's unitary
bracket would have to maintain the unitary state even after importing
the [sic] Zidar's teaching. Hence the combination of references would
met [sic] the limitation of a strengthening rib extending orthogonally
along a linear bend line substantially parallel to said sides of said
flange toward said base member.
Ans. 7.
With respect to claim 1, Appellant disputes the Examiner's finding
that Zidar discloses the limitation that the strengthening ribs extend along "a
linear bend line substantially parallel to said sides of said flange toward said
brace member." Br. 13. Appellant contends that a bend line is not disclosed
in Gretz or Zidar. Appellant argues the strengthening ribs in Zidar do not
3
Appeal2014-004475
Application 12/321,283
extend along a bend line parallel to the sides of the flange, and do not extend
toward the base member. Id. Appellant also argues the Examiner erred in
finding that Gretz discloses a base member including a base flange and a tab
planar with the base flange where the base flange and tab extend from
opposite sides of the brace member. Id. at 14. With respect to claim 3,
Appellant argues that Gretz does not disclose a "base flange extending from
a centerline and 180 degrees apart from tab 28." Id. at 17. With respect to
claim 9, Appellant argues that Gretz does not disclose the limitation of a
C-shaped slot in the brace member. Id. at 18. For the following reasons,
we find Appellant's arguments unpersuasive.
The Examiner found that Gretz discloses a base member including
base flange 24 and tab 28. Act. 3. As shown in Figure 1 of Gretz, base
flange 24 and tab 18 are planar and extend outward from the first and second
sides respectively of brace member 20. Thus, we agree with the Examiner's
finding that Gretz discloses a base member including a base flange and tab
as recited in claim 1.
Appellant argues that neither Gretz nor Zidar discloses a linear bend
line. This argument amounts to an attack on the references individually.
The rejection, however, is based on a combination of the references. The
Examiner reasoned that combining the unitary bracket of Gretz with Zidar's
strengthening ribs would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to form the
strengthening rib along a linear bend line so the bracket resulting from the
combination of Gretz and Zidar would be unitary. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981)("0ne cannot shownonobviousness by attacking
references individually where, as here the rejections are based on
4
Appeal2014-004475
Application 12/321,283
combination of references."). Appellant does not offer persuasive reasoning
why the Examiner erred in concluding the linear bend line is taught by the
combination of Gretz and Zidar.
We do not agree with Appellant's contention that ribs 84 in Zidar's
Figure 7, as annotated by Appellant (Br. 11 ), do not extend toward base
member 78. Ribs 84 are generally triangular in shape and the hypotenuse
extends from the side surface of flange 7 4 toward base member 7 8. Further,
ribs 84 are orthogonal to and substantially parallel to the side of flange 74.
The Examiner articulated a reason with a rational underpinning for the
combination of Gretz and Zidar, i.e., one of ordinary skill in the art would
have known that adding Zidar' s strengthening ribs to the unitary bracket of
Gretz would yield the predictable result of adding strength to the claimed
support bracket. See Act. 4--5. Appellant has not identified any error in the
Examiner's reasoning or rational underpinning in support of the
combination. We, thus, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gretz in view of Zidar.
With respect to claim 3, Figure 2 of Gretz discloses a base member
including base flange 24 and tab 28. We agree with the Examiner's finding
(Act. 3) that a centerline of the base member is disclosed in Gretz namely
the horizontal line in Figure 2 running along the top edge of base flange 24.
Base flange 24 and tab 28 extend from opposite sides of the centerline and
are 180 degrees apart as recited in claim 3. We, thus, sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 3.
With respect to claim 9, we agree with the Examiner's finding that
Gretz discloses tab 28 formed by a substantially C-shaped slot. Act. 3.
5
Appeal2014-004475
Application 12/321,283
Appellant compares Gretz' Figure 4 to Appellant's Figure 2 and, based on
the comparison, argues that Gretz discloses an opening near to tab 28 not a
C-shaped slot. Appellant's Figure 2 is a "view of a blank that will be shaped
to form the support bracket of Fig. 1." Spec. p.4, 11. 2-3. Figure 4 of Gretz
illustrates a bracket after it is formed. Appellant's Figure 1 illustrates
Appellant's support bracket after it is formed. The bracket, after it is
formed, includes an opening similar to the one in Figure 4 of Gretz.
Consequently, Appellant's argument is unpersuasive and we sustain the
rejection of claim 9.
Appellant did not argue separately for the patentability of dependent
claims 4, 7, 10, 12 and 13. Br. 19. Consequently, we sustain the rejection of
these claims for the reasons set forth above in regard to claims 1 and 9.
Claims 5, 11, and 14
Appellant did not submit any argument in response to rejections 2, 3,
and 4. Br. 19. Consequently, we sustain the rejection of claims 5, 11, and
14.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 9-14 is
AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6