Ex Parte Houlihan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 29, 2014

11967192 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte KEVIN HOULIHAN and MICHAEL GALLO
____________________

Appeal 2012-003100
Application 11/967,192
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, and
SCOTT A. DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-003100
Application 11/967,192

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Foote and Burleigh.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The Invention
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “dial assemblies for
combination locks.” Spec. 1:7-8. Claims 1, 12, and 17 are the independent
claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A dial assembly for a master key controlled combination
lock, the dial assembly comprising:
a dial having a front side, a back side and a gripping
surface disposed therebetween, the front side having an opening
therein;
a key plug having a lock cylinder rotatably disposed
therein, the lock cylinder having a key hole end and a lever end,
the lock cylinder being configured to receive a master key
having a particular key code sequence in the key hole end, the
key plug being configured to be installed within the dial
through the opening of the dial and the lever end is configured
to actuate a combination lock; and
a cover plate for securing the key plug in the dial, the
cover plate having a face portion and an engagement portion,
the face portion having an aperture extending therethrough, the
aperture being configured to rotatably receive the keyhole end
of the lock cylinder therein and the engagement portion is
configured to provide a snap in securement of the cover plate to
the dial by inserting the engagement portion of the cover plate

1 Foote (US 3,190,089; iss. Jun. 22, 1965); Burleigh (US 6,079,241; iss. Jun
27, 2000).
Appeal 2012-003100
Application 11/967,192

3
in the opening until the engagement portion snap fittingly
engages the dial wherein a peripheral portion of the face portion
is received on a ledge portion in the opening so that cover plate
does not pass too far into the opening in the dial and wherein
the face potion is received in the opening and is either flush
with, slightly recessed or slightly protruding from the front side
of the dial.

OPINION
Independent claim 1
Independent claim 1 is directed to a dial assembly for a master key
controlled combination lock, comprised of: a dial, a key plug, and a cover
plate. The front side of the dial includes an opening and a ledge portion in
that opening. The cover plate includes a face portion with a peripheral
portion and an engagement portion. The cover plate is received on the ledge
portion of the opening of the dial so that the face portion of the cover plate is
flush, slightly recessed, or slightly protruding from the front side of the dial.
The Specification does not provide a lexicographical definition of
“opening,” “peripheral portion,” or “ledge portion.” The Specification, in
parity with the claim language, describes that peripheral portion 53 of cover
plate 16 is received on ledge portion 55 of opening 22 of dial housing 12 so
that cover plate 16 does not pass too far into opening 22. Spec. 11:20-12:3;
see also Br. 4-5, 14-15 (citing this portion of the Specification as support for
the limitation at issue).
The Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based in part on the
finding that Burleigh discloses a cover plate (cover member 30) having a
face portion (frontal flange of element 30) and an engagement portion (first
Appeal 2012-003100
Application 11/967,192

4
and second arms 48a and 48b).2 Ans. 6. The Examiner further found that
the peripheral portion of the face portion (frontal flange of element 30) of
the cover plate (cover member 30) is received on the ledge portion (the
recessed portion of face plate 14) of the opening in the dial. Ans. 6-8. In
support of this finding, the Examiner provided a modified version of
Burleigh’s Figure 3. Ans. 8.
The Examiner’s modified version of Burleigh’s
Figure 3 is reproduced below:

The Examiner’s modified version of Burleigh’s Figure 3, identifies the
portion corresponding to a ledge in an opening as claimed.3
Appellants argue that the references, individually or in combination,
do not disclose a ledge portion in the opening as claimed. Br. 12-17.
Specifically, Appellants contend that Figure 3 of Burleigh “is merely a cross
sectional view of arms 48a ad [sic] 48b of the cover 30 and no ledge within
an opening is illustrated let alone a ledge that is in the opening and supports
a peripheral edge of the face portion.” Br. 17.

2 Parenthetical references are to Burleigh’s nomenclature.
3 The Examiner also removed element numbers and their corresponding
indication lines from the original Figure.
Appeal 2012-003100
Application 11/967,192

5
This argument is unpersuasive for two primary reasons. First,
Appellants’ characterization that Figure 3 of Burleigh “is merely a cross
sectional view of arms 48a ad [sic] 48b of the cover 30” is not substantiated
because the Figure shows the entire lock cylinder mounting arrangement, not
just first and second arms 48a and 48b. See Br. 17; Burleigh, col. 2, ll. 1-2.
Second, though not explicit, Appellants’ argument suggests that the
Examiner identified some portion of first and second arms 48a and 48b as
corresponding to the peripheral portion of the cover plate as claimed. To the
contrary, as explained above, the Examiner found that Burleigh’s first and
second arms 48a and 48b correspond to the claimed engagement portion of
the cover plate, while the frontal flange of cover member 30 corresponds to
the claimed face portion of a cover plate. See Ans. 6. Further, as shown in
the Examiner’s modified version of Burleigh’s Figure 3 above, the Examiner
specifically identified the portion of Burleigh corresponding to the claimed
ledge in the opening of the dial. Appellants’ assertion that “no ledge within
an opening is illustrated let alone a ledge that is in the opening and supports
a peripheral edge of the face portion” is conclusory and does not effectively
refute the Examiner’s finding. See Br. 17.
The Examiner’s finding is supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. Burleigh’s lock cylinder 10 includes face plate 14 and cover
member 30. Burleigh, col. 2, ll. 8-10; figs. 3, 4. Face plate 14 includes an
opening 40 at the front. Id. at 2:17; fig. 3. Cover member 30 includes first
and second arms 48a, 48b protruding from its back. Id. at 26-27; fig. 3
(arms 48a, 48b in cross- sectional view); fig. 4 (arms 48a, 48b in perspective
view). First arm 48a and second arm 48b protrude from a point radially
inside the periphery of the back of cover member 30. Id., fig. 4. Thus, face
Appeal 2012-003100
Application 11/967,192

6
plate 14 includes a ledge portion in opening 40 for allowing cover 30 to sit at
a point corresponding to the periphery of the back side of cover member 30
from which arms 48a and 48b protrude. Id., fig. 3.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument and we
sustain the rejection of claim 1.

Claims 2-11
Appellants argue claims 2-11 based upon their dependence from
independent claim 1. Br. 17-19. For independent claim 5, Appellants also
repeat the claim elements and assert that such is not found in the references.
This contention does not rise to the level of separate argument. See In re
Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the Board
reasonably interpreted 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii) as requiring “more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art”). Consequently, claims 2-11 fall with claim 1.

Claims 12-16
Independent claim 12 is a method claim, and is similar to independent
claim 1 in that a peripheral portion of the face portion of the cover plate is
received on the ledge portion in the opening of the dial. Appellants repeat
the argument against the rejection of claim 1. Br. 19-20. This argument is
unpersuasive for the reasons given in the analysis of the rejection of claim 1
above. Appellants argue claims 13-16 based upon their dependence from
Appeal 2012-003100
Application 11/967,192

7
independent claim 12.4 Br. 20-21. Consequently, we sustain the rejection of
claims 12-16.

Claims 17-20
Independent claim 17 is directed to a combination lock and is similar
to independent claim 1 in that it calls for a cover plate that includes a face
portion having a peripheral portion that is received on a ledge portion in the
opening of the dial so that the face portion is received in the opening so that
it is flush, slightly recessed, or slightly protruding from the front side of the
dial. Appellants repeat the argument against the rejection of claim 1. Br.
21-22. This argument is unpersuasive for the reasons given in the analysis
of the rejection of claim 1 above. Appellants argue claims 18-20 based upon
their dependence from independent claim 17.5 Br. 22-23. Consequently, we
sustain the rejection of claims 17-20.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Foote and Burleigh.
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)(1)(iv).

4 Appellants’ repetition of the language of claim 16 and naked assertion that
such is not found in the references does not rise to the level of separate
argument. See Br. 20-21; In re Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357.
5 Appellants’ repetition of the language of claim 20 and naked assertion that
such is not found in the references does not rise to the level of separate
argument. See Br. 22; In re Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357.
Appeal 2012-003100
Application 11/967,192

8
AFFIRMED

mls