11507641 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2012)

Ex Parte Huang

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 31, 2012

11507641 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2012)

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. 11/507,641 08/22/2006 Sunny E.L. Huang 7547 1231 7590 02/01/2012 Paul M. Denk Suite 170 763 S. New Ballas Rd. St. Louis, MO 63141 EXAMINER PUROL, DAVID M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3634 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/01/2012 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 SUNNY E.L. HUANG ____________ Appeal 2010-001061 Application 11/507,641 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Sunny E.L. Huang (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 11, 12, 16, 19, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2010-001061 Application 11/507,641 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention relates generally to collapsible shades designed to fit in a window of an automobile. Spec. 2. Claim 11, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 11. A collapsible automobile shade for application within the window of an automobile, and for use for biasing against the window framework when holding the shade in its usable position comprising, an automobile window framework, said collapsible automobile shade having a support structure for said shade, and said automobile shade incorporating at least one material portion with an outer edge defining a perimeter boundary and said material portion having a plurality of sides in forming the collapsible automobile shade and said material portion spanning across said shade; at least one arcuate compressible member connecting with the material portion upon two sides, said arcuate compressible member extending outwardly beyond a portion of the perimeter boundary of said at least one material portion, extending between opposite sides of the material portion of the collapsible automobile shade, and biasing against the window framework, said at least one arcuate compressible member having an open configuration associated with a fully opened state of said automobile shade, and a collapsed configuration associated with a collapsed state of said automobile shade; wherein said at least one arcuate compressible member in the open configuration transfers expansive forces to the outer edges of the opposite sides of said material portion when the automobile shade is erected for usage, and said arcuate compressible member biases against the automobile window framework in holding the material portion proximate the automobile window framework and providing shading therein, and said collapsible automobile shade capable of being folded upon itself and into a smaller configuration when readied for storage. Appeal 2010-001061 Application 11/507,641 3 REJECTIONS Appellant seeks review of the following rejections: 1. Claims 11, 12, 16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zheng ‘052 (US 6,491,052 B1; iss. Dec. 10, 2002). 2. Claims 11, 12, 16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zheng ‘510 (US 6,357,510 B1; iss. Mar. 19, 2002). OPINION Appellant’s arguments for the first rejection amount to an assertion that Zheng ‘052 does not render obvious a shade having a compressible member that extends outside the perimeter of a material portion and deforms to fit within the window frame of an automobile, as called for in claim 11. Br. 8-9. The Examiner, at pages 4 through 6 of the Answer, adequately responded to Appellant’s arguments, and we adopt these responses as the basis of our decision affirming the first rejection. We also note that Zheng ‘052 “relates to collapsible structures” and provides examples of “many [prior art] collapsible structures that are being provided for use by children and adults.” Col. 1, ll. 6-15 (citing, inter alia, US 4,815,784 to Zheng). Zheng ‘784 is directed to an “automobile sunshield” that is collapsible. Zheng ‘784, col. 2, l. 22. This prior art disclosure in Zheng ‘052 is further evidence that, at the time of Appellant’s invention, it was known in the art to use collapsible structures to fit within the window frame of an automobile. Appellant argues for the second rejection that the structure of Zheng ‘510 would not suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that it can be used as an automobile shade, does not show a single piece of material stretched Appeal 2010-001061 Application 11/507,641 4 taut over the majority of the area within the frame, does not provide shading within a window of an automobile, and lacks a frame extending outwardly of the material portion and within the same planar configuration of the support frame. Br. 9-10. The Examiner, at pages 6 through 8 of the Answer, adequately responded to Appellant’s arguments, and we adopt these responses as the basis of our decision affirming the second rejection. We also note that Zheng ‘510 describes “[y]et another example of a collapsible object includes collapsible sunshields, such as illustrated in U.S. Pat. No. 4,815,784 (Zheng)” that has “two interconnected panels that span the width of the [automobile] windscreen.” Col. 1, ll. 59-62. This prior art disclosure in Zheng ‘510, in combination with the disclosure noted by the Examiner at column 3, lines 9-15 of Zheng ‘510 that its frame members can be used to support one or more removable panel pieces to provide a collapsible support frame structure for sunshields, supports the determination of obviousness of claim 11. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 11, 12, 16, 19, and 20 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED nlk