Ex Parte Huggett

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 13, 2017

10569969 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2017)

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.
10/569,969 03/21/2007 Anthony Court Huggett 037549-000002 3380
24239 7590 04/17/2017
MOORE & VAN AT .TEN PLLC
P.O. BOX 13706
3015 Carrington Mill Boulevard, Suite 400
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
EXAMINER
BRADEN, SHAWN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3728
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/17/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
iplaw @ mvalaw. com
u sptomail @ m valaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTHONY COURT HUGGETT1
Appeal 2015-001465
Application 10/569,969
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Anthony Court Huggett (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 20, 22, 24—26, 28—35,
and 37-47.2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant, the Real Party in Interest is Compact Crates
Limited. Appeal Br. 1 (filed July 3, 2014).
2 Claims 1—19, 21, 23, 27, and 36 have been cancelled. Id. at 10-13 (Claims
App.).
Appeal 2015-001465
Application 10/569,969
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention concerns a collapsible container. Spec. 1:7—8.
Claim 20 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal, and recites:
20. A collapsible container comprising:
a plurality of upper panels, and
a bottom panel,
each panel having a body defining a plurality of edges and
an elongate tubular member along each of the edges of the body;
each tubular member having at least one cut-away section
to form an interlocking formation that is an alternating tenon and
mortise formation, wherein each cut-away section comprises a
residual portion of said tubular member, each mortise being
shaped so that a tenon is received therein in an arrangement
wherein the received tenon is not concentric with adjacent
tenons, whereby an engagement member passing through the
tenons has a secure or friction fit therein;
the bottom panel having a plurality of reinforced
downwardly protruding supports comprised of a plurality of
panels for raising up the bottom panel and thereby the collapsible
container; and
at least one interlocking formation on the bottom panel
engaging an interlocking formation on at least one upper pane.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows:3
I. Claims 20, 22, 24—26, and 29—31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Vourganas (US 6,631,821 B2, iss. Oct. 14,
2003) and Dean (US 2002/0073509 Al, pub. June 20, 2002).
3 According to the Examiner, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, was overcome by Appellant’s amendments to the claims, which
2
Appeal 2015-001465
Application 10/569,969
II. Claims 28 and 41—44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Vourganas, Dean, and Winebarger (US 5,487,345, iss. Jan.
30, 1996).
III. Claims 32—35, 37-40, and 45^47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Vourganas, Dean, and Huggett (WO
02/46048 A2, pub. June 13, 2002).
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claim 20, the Examiner finds that
Vourganas discloses a collapsible container substantially as claimed
including upper panels 41, 42 and bottom panel 40. Final Act. 3. The
Examiner finds that each panel has a body with a plurality of edges and “an
elongate tubular member (86 see fig. 23-24) along each of the edges of the
body,” wherein each tubular member has at least one cut-away section, and
wherein each cut-away section comprises a residual portion of tubular
material 86. Id.; Ans. 2. The Examiner provides an annotated version of
Vourganas’s Figure 23, reproduced below, to illustrate the Examiner’s
findings. Ans. 3.
were entered by the Examiner. See Adv. Act. (mailed May 9, 2014); Final
Act. 2 (mailed Oct. 1, 2014).
3
Appeal 2015-001465
Application 10/569,969
; pi-tOP-' v
vr^f'C!
V" CWS
vi»iu4u\\\v\s,\
*¥
X-M
^ \
pzmm m. $
tuc stss' r'-^fK-* ek|* ,„jf]
>^P>s’pV >^r:
*-*** f: " ip
S: .** |K..
m*-23
The Examiner’s annotated Figure 23 depicts a comer of Voumagas’s
container with the side panel 42 and end panel 41 interleaved, and includes
the Examiner’s identifications of a tenon projecting from panel 41, a cut­
away section below the tenon (which the Examiner states is also the claimed
mortise), and residual portions of tubular material 86 at the upper and lower
edges of the identified cut-away section. Id.’, Vourganas, 3:65—67. The
Examiner explains that element 86 is the claimed tubular member, and “the
cutout... is the gap or empty space between which has residual portions of
(86) on each side of it.” Ans. 2.
Appellant contends, inter alia, that Vourganas does not disclose
tubular members wherein a “cut-away section comprises a residual portion
of said tubular member” as claimed. Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 5.
Specifically, Appellant contends that “the ordinary meaning of ‘residual
4
Appeal 2015-001465
Application 10/569,969
portion’ is a portion that remains,” and Vourganas does not disclose as
much. Reply Br. 4 (citing Spec. 9:7—10; Webster’s II New Riverside
University Dictionary).
During examination, “claims . . . are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, [ ] and . . . claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831,
833 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal citation and quotations omitted). Therefore,
the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain
meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). We agree with Appellant that an appropriate definition
of “residual,” in the context of the claim language and in light of Appellant’s
Specification, is “remaining.” See Spec. 9:7—9 (explaining that mortises are
formed by removing portions of the tube section “so that an inner half of the
tube section remains”); Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, “residual,”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/residual (last accessed Apr. 6,
2017) (defining term as “remainder”).
Accordingly, claim 20, as construed by a person of ordinary skill in
the art and in light of Appellant’s Specification, requires that each panel
include a tubular member, and each tubular member have at least one cut­
away section that includes a remaining portion [a “residual portion”] of the
tubular member. Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.). A preponderance of
evidence does not support the Examiner’s finding that Vourganas discloses
such tubular members. Vourganas discloses a bin including two vertical end
panels 41, two vertical side panels 42, and pallet base 40. Vourganas, 4:39—
5
Appeal 2015-001465
Application 10/569,969
41, Fig. 1. Each end panel 41 and each side panel 42 defines complimentary
segmented horizontal extensions. Id. at 4:64—5:2, Figs. 1,6. At each of the
four comers of the bin, the segmented horizontal extensions of one end panel
41 and one side panel 42 are intermeshed and joined by a tubular, vertical
comer post 80 that is inserted through the panels. Id. at 4:50—53, 7:1—7,
8:47—53, Figs. 6, 8. Vourganas explains that comer posts 80 are inserted
from the bottom of pallet base 40 and through holes 86 to join the end and
side panels together. Id. at 7:1—8, 8:47—53, Figs. 23—24.
The Examiner identifies Vourganas’s holes 86 as the claimed “tubular
member[s].” Final Act. 3; Ans. 2—3. As an initial matter, we are not
persuaded that a hole, which is the absence of stmctural material, is the
claimed tubular member, which requires an affirmative stmcture.
Furthermore, these holes 86 are formed through the segmented horizontal
extensions of panels 41 and 42 (identified by the Examiner as the claimed
tenons). Ans. 3; Vourganas, Fig. 23. These holes 86 simply terminate at the
top and bottom faces of the segmented horizontal extensions, i.e., the tenons.
To the extent the vacant area between these extensions is considered a “cut­
away section,” as the Examiner finds, this section does not “comprise a
residual portion of said tubular member” (i.e., a remaining portion of the
tubular member), because no structural portion of hole 86 is present in that
cut-away section. See Ans. 2. As stated above, holes 86 simply terminate
flush with the faces of the segmented horizontal extensions. See Vourganas,
Fig. 23. For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
20, or claims 22, 24—26, and 29—31, which depend therefrom.
6
Appeal 2015-001465
Application 10/569,969
The Examiner’s reliance on Winebarger, with respect to dependent
claims 28 and 42 44, and Huggett, with respect to dependent claims 32—35,
37-40, and 45^47, does not cure the deficiency discussed above. See Final
Act. 5—8. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 28, 32—35, and 37-47 as unpatentable over Vourganas, Dean, and
either of Winebarger or Huggett.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 20, 22, 24—26, 28—35, and
37-47 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
7