Ex Parte HUH

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2018

14027859 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/027,859 09/16/2013 Moon Young HUH
23413 7590 11/01/2018
CANTOR COLBURN LLP
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
WJ00069US 4258
EXAMINER
FERREIRA, CATHERINE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3732
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2018 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MOON YOUNG HUH
Appeal 2018-001880
Application 14/027 ,859
Technology Center 3700
Before: LINDA E. HORNER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § l 12(b) and
claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Huh (US
2012/0144567 Al, published June 14, 2012). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Otos Wing Co., Ltd is the Applicant and real party in interest. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-001880
Application 14/027,859
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention is a coupling structure for a headband visor
hinge. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A coupling structure of a visor hinge for a headband, to
connect a protective mask, which is configured to cover a
wearer's face along with a viewing window, to both sides of the
headband which assists a wearer in wearing the protective
mask, the coupling structure of a visor hinge for a headband
compnsmg:
a rail base portion protruding from a headband;
a plurality of distance adjustment recesses formed at regular
intervals in a longitudinal direction on an outer surface of the
rail base portion;
rails formed on upper and lower surfaces of the rail base
portion;
a slider slidably installed on the rails, the slider enclosing
the rails and moving in forward or rearward direction on the
rails;
an entry port formed in the slider, the entry port
corresponding to the distance adjustment recesses;
a push plate installed outward of the slider, the push plate
having a through-hole in a center thereof and being configured
to forcibly move away from the slider when upper and lower
portions of the push plate are pressed by the wearer;
a stopper installed physically separately from and outward
of the push plate, the stopper inserted into one of the distance
adjustment recesses through the entry port and the through-
hole, the stopper being formed with a bent portion lengthened
in forward and rearward directions thereof to be elastically
supported by front and rear sides of the slider, the stopper being
configured to move away from the one of the distance
adjustment recesses when the push plate forcibly moves away
from the slider; and
a hinge installed outward of the stopper and the protective
mask being pivoted on the hinge.
2
Appeal 2018-001880
Application 14/027,859
OPINION
Indefiniteness
Claim 1
The Examiner takes the position that the language "installed
physically separately from and outward of' renders claim 1 indefinite. Final
Action 2. In the Answer, the Examiner remarks that "installed physically
separately" is susceptible to an interpretation that such refers to a
manufacturing process. Ans. 3.
A claim is properly rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) if,
after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
specification, the metes and bounds of a claim are not clear because the
claim "contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear." In re
Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (percuriam)
(approving, for pre-issuance claims, the standard from MPEP § 2173.05(e));
see also Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416, 2017 WL 3669566, at *5
(PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential) (adopting the approach for assessing
indefiniteness approved by the Federal Circuit in Packard).
Having reviewed the disputed claim language in light of Appellant's
Specification, we are of the opinion that the Examiner errs in finding the
claim indefinite. A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably
understand that "installed physically separately from" means that the stopper
and the push plate are two separate and distinct structural components and
that "installed ... outward'' merely relates to their relative juxtaposition.
We do not sustain the Examiner's section 112 indefiniteness rejection
of claim 1. The Examiner based the indefiniteness rejection of claim 4
solely on this claim's dependency from claim 1. Final Action 2. Thus, we
3
Appeal 2018-001880
Application 14/027,859
also do not sustain the Examiner's section 112 indefiniteness rejection of
claim 4.
Claim 2
The Examiner takes the position that the term "wrinkle" renders
claim 2 indefinite. We disagree. The word "wrinkle" appears at least three
times in the Specification and the surrounding context informs the reader
that the wrinkle form facilitates bending of connection portion 310 of push
plate 300. Spec. 4, 10, 15 (describing that the connection portion is
"configured to be bent in a wrinkle form"). The teaching in the
Specification is augmented by graphical depictions that illustrate a "wrinkle
form" in Figures 4, 5, and 7. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that structure with a wrinkle form stands in contrast to structure
that is straight. While the term may be broad, it is not indefinite. In re
Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (CCPA 1970) ("Breadth is not indefiniteness.");
MPEP § 2173.04.
We do not sustain the Examiner's section 112 indefiniteness rejection
of claim 2.
Claim 1
Anticipation of Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5
by Huh
The Examiner finds that Huh discloses all of the elements of claim 1.
Final Action 4--5. In particular, the Examiner finds that Huh element 322
corresponds to Appellant's "push plate" and that element 220 corresponds to
the claimed "stopper." Id. at 5. Appellant argues, among other things, that
Huh lacks structure corresponding to Appellant's "stopper installed
physically separately from and outward of the push plate." Br. 11.
4
Appeal 2018-001880
Application 14/027,859
Element 322 of Huh is a lever that is part of the hinge assembly. Huh,
,r 33, Figs. 4 and 5. The component of Huh that corresponds with
Appellant's "push plate" is element 210/230. Id. ,r,r 27-29. With the
foregoing in mind, element 220 of Huh, although denominated a "stopper,"
is not physically separate from push plate 210/230. Id. Fig. 4. Furthermore,
even if element 322 were a "push plate" (it is not), it is not disposed
"outward" of stopper 220. Id.
For a prior art reference to anticipate a claim, it must disclose all of
the limitations of the claim, "arranged or combined in the same way as in the
claim." Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir.
2008). Huh's structure is patentably distinguishable from the subject matter
of claim 1 and, therefore, does not anticipate.
We do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 1.
Claim 2, 4, and 5
These claims depend, directly or indirectly from claim 1. Claims
App. The Examiner's rejection of these claims suffers from the same
infirmity that was identified above with respect to claim 1. Thus, for
essentially the same reason expressed above in connection with claim 1, we
do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4, and 5.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, and 4 under
section 112 as indefinite is reversed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 under
section 102 as anticipated by Huh is reversed.
REVERSED
5