Ex Parte Husing

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 26, 2012

11114595 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RICHARD L. HUSING
____________________

Appeal 2010-007524
Application 11/114,595
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
BENJAMIN D.M. WOOD, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-007524
Application 11/114,595

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-3, 6-11, and 14. (Br. 5). An Oral Hearing was held on October 18,
2012. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claims 1 and 11 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below:
1. A handle comprising:
a generally planar ring-shaped structure
including a first side, a second side, a third side and a
fourth side defining a perimetrical planar structure
enclosing an open interior portion, an inner edge of
the fourth side extending within the open interior
portion and being contoured to form a grip;
a locking mechanism comprising:
a) a first hole positioned in substantially the
center of the second side of the ring-shaped structure
opposite the grip and extending through the second
side of the ring-shaped structure in a direction
transverse a plane defining the ring-shaped structure,
and
b) second and third holes spaced from each
other and extending through at least one of the first
side and the third side of the ring-shaped structure in
a direction transverse a plane defining the ring-
shaped structure; and
a string secured to the ring-shaped structure
through the locking mechanism by threading a first
end of the string through the first hole of the second
side, and threading the first end of the string through
at least one of the second or third holes in either the
first side or the third side, such that the first end of
the string is removably secured to the ring-shaped
structure.
Appeal 2010-007524
Application 11/114,595

3
THE REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-3, 8-11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Martin (US 3,387,752; iss. Jun. 11, 1968), Day (US
5,203,480; iss. Apr. 20, 1993), and Mercer (US 2,812,125; iss. Nov. 5,
1957).
2. Claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Martin, Day, Mercer, and Williamson (US 2,519,528; iss. Aug. 22, 1950).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 8-11, and 14
The Examiner found Martin discloses a handle comprising first,
second, and third sides 26 (left, bottom and right sides), and a fourth side 24
(top side) of support frame 18, where each of these sides has a plurality of
holes 27. (Ans. 3, 7) (see also Martin, col. 2, l. 70 – col. 3, l. 4; Fig. 2). The
Examiner found Martin does not disclose that the fourth side 24 is contoured
to form a grip. (Ans. 3). The Examiner found Day discloses finger grooves
7, and concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to modify Martin's fourth side 24 to include Day's finger grooves 7 to
provide a firm grip to the user. (Ans. 3, 7-8).
The Examiner also found that the combination of Martin and Day
does not include the claimed string. (Ans. 4). The Examiner found Mercer
discloses a string 10 secured to a structure through a locking mechanism by
threading the string 10 through a first hole 15, and then through a second
hole 15 or third hole 16, on the hand grip 17. (Ans. 4) (citing Mercer, Figs.
1 and 2, col. 2, ll. 43-67). The Examiner concluded that it would have been
obvious to further modify Martin's device by threading Mercer's string 10
Appeal 2010-007524
Application 11/114,595

4
through the first hole 27 (on the second side), and then through the second
hole 27 (on the first side) or the third hole 27 (on the third side), to firmly
secure the string to the structure to facilitate carrying of items. (Ans. 4).
Appellant contends that Mercer does not teach or suggest passing the
flexible member (10) through a hole in a first side and then through a hole in
a second side, of a ring member, because Mercer's fish stringer only includes
a plate member 11 with a plurality of holes 15, 16. (Br. 13). Appellant also
contends that Martin does not teach or suggest that the holes 27 around the
support frame 18 are configured to receive and lock a string in place, but
only describes using the holes 27 for securing hook assemblies 21 to the
support frame 18. (Id.) These contentions are not persuasive.
Firstly, Appellant's contentions analyze Martin and Mercer separately.
However, non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking these
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Appellant has not addressed the Examiner's combination of teachings and
rationales for combining these teachings.
Secondly, Martin provides evidence that it was known in the art for a
fish stringer to include a ring-shaped structure configured to be grasped at
one side by a user, and to include holes at each of its other three sides for
receiving fish-securing elements. Mercer provides evidence that it was
known in the art to alternatively secure fish to a string and to secure the
string to a handle configured to be grasped by a user; and for the handle to
include a plurality of holes to allow the string to be threaded through
selected ones of them to secure the string to the handle to prevent it from
Appeal 2010-007524
Application 11/114,595

5
separating from the handle when carrying fish, as well as to be unthreaded
from the holes to either add fish to, or remove fish from, the string.
In light of the teachings of Martin and Mercer, we agree with the
Examiner that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify
Martin's fish stringer by substituting the hook assemblies 21 with Mercer's
string 10, which provides the same fish-securing function as the hook
assemblies 21. We further agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to secure the string to Martin's support frame 18 "by threading a
first end of the string . . . such that the first end of the string is removably
secured to the ring-shaped structure," as claimed. Securing the string to
Martin's support frame in this way would prevent the string from separating
from the support frame when carrying fish, and also allows it to be
unthreaded from the holes. This substitution of elements is no more than
"the simple substitution of one known element for another" with predictable
results. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 US. 398, 417 (2007). Thus,
we conclude that the handle recited in claim 1 would have been obvious to
one skilled in the art in view of Martin, Day, and Mercer. Therefore, we
sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Appellant relies on the dependency of claims 2, 3, and 8-10 from
claim 1 for patentability. (Br. 13). Thus, we also sustain the rejection of
these dependent claims for similar reasons as those discussed supra for
claim 1.
Claim 11 is directed to a handle for carrying a load comprising, inter
alia, "a string removably secured to the ring-shaped structure by threading a
first end of the string through the securing hole, and threading the first end
of the string through at least one of the pair of locking holes." The
Appeal 2010-007524
Application 11/114,595

6
Examiner's findings and conclusions (Ans. 3, 6-12) and Appellant's
arguments for patentability (Br. 11-13) for claim 11 are similar to those
discussed supra with respect to claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of
claim 11.
Appellant relies on the dependency of dependent claim 14 from claim
11 for patentability. (Br. 13). We also sustain the rejection of claim 14.
Claims 6 and 7
Claims 6 and 7 depend from claim 1. Appellant contends that
Williamson does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Martin, Day, and
Mercer for claim 1. (Br. 14). As we find no deficiencies in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1, we also sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 7.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6-11, and 14 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

Klh