Ex Parte Griffin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 21, 2014

10619154 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAMES PATRICK GRIFFIN, JR.
____________

Appeal 2012-004688
Application 10/619,154
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-004688
Application 10/619,154

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
James Patrick Griffin, Jr. (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 40-46, 49, and 52-54. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 40, the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of
the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below.
40. A security combination for a doorway comprising:
a door frame having at least one opening to receive a
locking member,
a door sized and shaped to fit within the door frame, the
door having a front surface, a rear surface, a top surface, a
bottom surface, a free vertical edge portion, and a hinged
vertical edge portion, the free vertical edge portion comprising
at least one lockset, the lockset having a portion protruding
through the front surface of the door and a locking member,
a first U-shaped reinforcing member consisting of a base
member and two substantially perpendicularly positioned side
members, the first U-shaped reinforcing member being securely
affixed to the free vertical edge portion of the door, said first U-
shaped reinforcing member being made of a metal material,
extending substantially along the full length of the free vertical
edge portion of the door, the base member having at least one
opening for passage of the locking member of the at least one
lockset, each of the side members being flat and generally
rectangular and extending substantially along the free vertical
edge portion of the door and having a proximal edge connected
to the base member of a distal edge, wherein the distal edge of
each of the side members does not extend in a horizontal
direction from the free vertical edge portion towards the hinged
vertical edge portion beyond any part of the portion of the
lockset protruding through the front surface of the door, and
a second reinforcing member capable of being securely
affixed to the door frame, said second reinforcing member
Appeal 2012-004688
Application 10/619,154

3
having at least one opening for passage of the locking member
of the at least one lockset,
wherein the first U-shaped reinforcing member is over-
bend mounted to the free vertical edge portion of the door so
that the first U-shaped reinforcing member engages the free
vertical edge portion of the door without being screwed to the
door, and,
wherein the second reinforcing member has a length of
from about 12 inches to substantially the full length of the free
vertical edge portion of the door, and wherein force applied
against the front or rear surface of the door will be transmitted
through the locking member to the second reinforcing member
and to the door frame.
App. Br. 21, Claims App’x.
References
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Olton US 3,271,919 Sept. 13, 1966
Blankenship US 4,858,384 Aug. 22, 1989
Stein US 5,475,044 Dec. 12, 1995
Zarzycki US 6,406,076 B1 Jun. 18, 2002
Smith GB 2 265 664 A Oct. 6, 1993
Rejections
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
I. Claims 40-44 and 52-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Olton, Smith, and
Blankenship;
II. Claims 45 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Olton, Smith, Blankenship, and
Stein; and
Appeal 2012-004688
Application 10/619,154

4
III. Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Olton, Smith, Blankenship, and
Zarzycki.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
OPINION
Rejection I
The Examiner concludes that the combination of Olton, Smith, and
Blankenship would have rendered the subject matter of claims 40-44 and
52-54 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Ans. 4-7. In particular, the Examiner finds that Olton discloses a “first
U-shaped reinforcing member 14a (see figure 9) consisting of a base 17a
member and two substantially perpendicularly positioned side member 15,
16.” Id. at 5. The Examiner also finds that Olton discloses “each of the side
members being flat.” Id.
Appellant raises several arguments in response to this rejection,
including that (a) Olton’s flanges 20 and 21 are additional components
excluded by the claim language “consisting of” and (b) if flanges 20 and 21
are considered parts of legs 15 and 16, then the side members of Olton are
not “flat,” as the term is understood in accordance with its ordinary meaning.
App. Br. 11.
In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner takes the position
that Olton’s “side members are bent to form flanges 20 and 21, but the
flanges are not separate elements as argued by the Appellant since the
flanges 20 and 21 form an integral, one piece element with [the] base
Appeal 2012-004688
Application 10/619,154

5
member as shown in figures 2 and 9.” Ans. 8. The Examiner further
explains that claim 40 “does not require the side members to be flat along
the entire length or width of the side members.” Id. at 9.
Claim 40 is directed to “[a] security combination for a doorway
comprising: . . . a first U-shaped reinforcing member consisting of a base
member and two substantially perpendicularly positioned side members . . .
each of the side members being flat.” App. Br. 21, Claims App’x (emphasis
added). We interpret that claim language, where necessary, giving the
claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification.
In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In determining the
ordinary and customary meaning of the claims as viewed by a person of
ordinary skill in the art, it is appropriate to consult a general dictionary
definition for guidance. Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348
(Fed. Cir. 2010).
The ordinary and customary meaning of “flat” in this context is
“level; horizontal; even,” in other words “not bent or crumpled.” Chambers
21st Century Dictionary (2001), retrieved from
http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/chambdict/flat_1/0?searchId
=25f08e13-c190-11e3-a0e8-0aea1e24c1ac&result=0 (last visited Apr. 11,
2014). Appellant’s Specification, particularly Figures 2 and 2b, illustrate the
U-shaped reinforcing member and reflect that side members (i.e., interior
portion 26 and exterior portion 28) are level, even, and not bent. See, e.g.,
figs. 2, 2b.
Olton discloses “decorative and protective edge protectors of durable
material for preventing damage to the edges of architectural doors and,
especially, the vertical side edges of such doors.” Olton, col. 1, ll. 8-11.
Appeal 2012-004688
Application 10/619,154

6
Olton teaches that “the vertical portions of the edge 10 of door D . . . are
covered by a channel-shaped strip . . . . [which] consists of front and rear
leg portions 15 and 16 and a web portion 17 interconnecting corresponding
and adjacent edges of legs 15 and 16.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 52-60; see also id. at
figs. 1-2. Olton further discloses that “[t]he free edges of legs 15 and 16, i.e.
those edges remote from web 17, are provided with inwardly and oppositely
extending flanges 20 and 21, respectively.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 18-20.
First, with respect to whether Olton discloses “a first U-shaped
reinforcing member consisting of a base member and two substantially
perpendicularly positioned side members,” we agree with Appellant that
Olton’s flanges 20 and 21 are additional elements of the U-shaped
reinforcing member, and are hence excluded by the close-ended transition
“consisting of.”
Second, even if one were to consider Olton’s flanges as further
limiting the claimed side members, rather than the U-shaped member, as it
appears the Examiner did (see Ans. 8), Olton’s side members are not “flat”
because they are bent to form the flanges.
Accordingly, under either construction, we do not sustain Rejection I.
Rejections II and III
The Examiner relies upon Olton in the context of Rejections II and III
for the same teachings as discussed in the context of Rejection I. See
Ans. 7-8. Accordingly, for the reasons we explained in our discussion of
Rejection I, we do not sustain Rejections II and III.
Appeal 2012-004688
Application 10/619,154

7
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 40-46,
49, and 52-54.

REVERSED

mls