Ex Parte Hallman

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 12, 2011

11186649 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 12, 2011)

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.
11/186,649 07/21/2005 John Dennis Hallman 4427 6745
7590 12/12/2011
Floyd B. Carothers
CAROTHERS AND CAROTHERS
Suite 200
445 Fort Pitt Blvd.
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
EXAMINER
RACHUBA, MAURINA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3727
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/12/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOHN DENNIS HALLMAN
____________

Appeal 2009-015191
Application 11/186,649
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and
STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
John Dennis Hallman (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Cook (US 6,364,289 B1; issued April 2,
2002), Wu (US Des. 406,022; issued February 23, 1999), and Appellant’s
Appeal 2009-015191
Application 11/186,649

2
Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) set forth on page 1, lines 14-17 of Appellant’s
Specification. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a “method for alleviating
ice freeze-up of vehicle windows.” Spec. 1, l. 5. Claim 3, which is
representative of the subject matter on appeal, is reproduced below.
3. A method for alleviating ice freeze-up of vehicle
windows which incorporate spaced upper and lower door seals
which engage an outside surface of said window, the method
comprising;
providing a tool having a handle and a blade extending
from the handle, said blade having a bend and a distal end
which is curved outwardly in the plane of the blade, and a blade
segment length between said bend and said distal end which is
slightly longer than the distance between said upper and lower
seals;
inserting said blade segment between said window
outside surface and said upper and lower seals; and
sliding said inserted blade segment for the length of said
window to sever any ice seal existing between said outside
window surface and said upper and lower seals.
ISSUE
The issue presented by this appeal is whether the Examiner articulated
adequate reasoning based on rational underpinnings to explain how the
teachings of Cook, Wu, and AAPA would have led one of ordinary skill in
the art to the method of independent claim 3.
Appeal 2009-015191
Application 11/186,649

3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that Cook teaches a method including sliding a
blade segment of a tool for “a length of the window” and that “applicant
admits that the method of removing ice from a window and seal using a tool
is known.” Ans. 3, 4. See also Ans. 6 (finding that “Cook, in teaching that
the tool is inserted between the window and door seal (wiper), does slide the
tool along at least part of the window length”). The Examiner determined:
As the tool is known, and a method of using the tool by placing
the tool between a window and seals is known, and a method of
using a tool to remove ice from between a window and seal by
sliding the tool between the window and seal (or else the ice
seal is not broken between the window and door seal) is known,
it is the examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art,
in considering all of the prior art, would consider the method of
removing ice from between a window and seals by moving a
tool having the claimed structure along the window to be
obvious over the applied art.
Id. at 4. This explanation fails to provide a reason why one of ordinary skill
in the art would have been led to use the particular wedge tool of Cook, as
modified by Wu, in the claimed method to sever an ice seal. The
Examiner’s articulation amounts to a finding that because it was known to
use a tool between the window and door seal to sever ice seals, it would
have been obvious to use any tool capable of being inserted between the
window and door seal for this purpose. This reasoning is not based on
rational underpinnings because while Cook teaches sliding its wedge-shaped
tool downwardly between the window and the seal to create a gap between
the window and seal through which a locksmith can then pass known tools
Appeal 2009-015191
Application 11/186,649

4
to release the lock mechanism (Cook, col. 3, ll. 56-60 and col. 4, ll. 45-57),
Cook does not teach sliding its wedge-shaped tool along the window for any
length once it is inserted between the window and seal. As Appellant noted,
the square or sharp angular side edges of Cook’s wedge could destroy the
upper and lower seals if slid for the length of the window to remove ice
seals. Br. 5. For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 3 or its dependent claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cook, Wu, and AAPA.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not articulate adequate reasoning based on rational
underpinnings to explain how the teachings of Cook, Wu, and AAPA would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to the method of claim 3.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 3 and 4 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

nlk