Ex Parte Israeli et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 14, 2017

13291386 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 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.
13/291,386 11/08/2011 Amit Israeli 10SFS0007-US-DIV 4309
23413 7590 02/16/2017
TANTOR TOT RTTRN T T P
EXAMINER
20 Church Street FERGUSON, MICHAEL P
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/16/2017 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMIT ISRAELI, FRANS ADRIAANSEN, and
MICHAEL MATTHEW LAURIN
Appeal 2015-0006481
Application 13/291,3862
Technology Center 3600
Before CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1—5 and 7—13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Feb.
21, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Oct. 6, 2014), and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Aug. 4, 2014) and Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed Sept. 25, 2013).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SABIC Innovative
Plastics IP B.V. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-000648
Application 13/291,386
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, the Specification “relates to connectors and
collectors for connecting panels.” Spec. 12.
CLAIMS
Claims 1—5 and 7—133 are on appeal. Claim 1, the only independent
claim, is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A connector assembly, comprising:
a first side collector, comprising a first panel engagement
region comprising a first receiving area that has a size to attach
onto an edge of a first panel; and
a second side collector, comprising a second panel
engagement region comprising a second receiving area that has
a size to attach onto an edge of a second panel;
wherein the first side collector and second side collector
are separate elements; and
wherein the first side collector and second side collector
are configured to fixedly mate with each other to hold panels
together.
Appeal Br. 17.
REJECTIONS4
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1—3 and 7—13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bryant5 in view of Erlandsson.6
3 Claim 6 has been cancelled. See Appeal Br. 2.
4 The rejection of claims 8, 10, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, has been withdrawn. Ans. 12.
5 Bryant, US 6,314,704 Bl, iss. Nov. 13, 2001.
6 Erlandsson et al, US 6,719,363 B2, iss. Apr. 13, 2004.
2
Appeal 2015-000648
Application 13/291,386
2. The Examiner rejects claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bryant in view of Erlandsson and Francis.7
3. The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bryant in view of Erlandsson and Thiagarajan.8
4. The Examiner rejects claims 1—3 and 7—13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Erlandsson.
5. The Examiner rejects claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Erlandsson in view of Francis.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Bryant discloses a
connector assembly as claimed except that Bryant’s side collectors are sized
to be affixed within panels internally rather than having a receiving area
sized to attach onto an edge of a panel. Final Act. 7 (citing Bryant Figs. 2 A—
3; col. 10,11. 35—45). The Examiner relies on Erlandsson as teaching a
connector assembly having side collectors with receiving areas as claimed.
Id. at 8 (citing Erlandsson Figs. 1—3; col. 3,11. 45—50). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been an obvious design choice to include
collectors adapted to externally attach to the edge of a panel as taught by
Erlandsson rather than to include collectors adapted to attach internally to
the edge of a panel as taught by Bryant. Final Act. 8. Further, the Examiner
concludes that modifying Bryant’s configuration would provide for greater
utility of the collectors allowing them to attach to a variety of panels without
requiring specially manufactured panels and would provide for less
7 Francis, Jr. et al., US 4,828,132, iss. May 9, 1989.
8 Thiagarajan et al., US 2007/0251183 Al, pub. Nov. 1, 2007.
3
Appeal 2015-000648
Application 13/291,386
expensive manufacturing and easier replacement of panels. Id. at 8—9. The
Examiner also indicates that because Erlandsson discloses ultrasonically
welding collectors onto panels, the collectors would provide for an easier
and more secure assembly. Id. at 8. Finally, the Examiner finds that Bryant
discloses no structural or functional significance to the collectors being
mounted internally to the panels. Id. at 9.
As discussed below, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection by
Appellants’ arguments.
Appellants first argue that Bryant’s connectors are not configured to
fixedly mate because they can slide apart without a locking member in place.
Appeal Br. 12. However, Appellants acknowledge that Bryant discloses a
tongue and groove engagement and Appellants’ Specification and claims
indicate that this forms a fixedly mated arrangement. See e.g. Spec. 198,
claim 2. Also, Bryant’s connectors mate so that the locking member may be
put in place and we see nothing in the claim language precluding the use of
another component to assist in fixedly mating the panels together.
Second, Appellants argue that the Examiner has not set forth a prima
facie case because no reason for the combination “derived from the
references themselves” has been provided. Appeal Br. 12. We are not
persuaded by this argument at least because we agree with the Examiner that
the reasons provided for the combination need not be specifically derived
from the reference relied upon. Ans. 19. Further, Appellants specifically
attack the Examiner’s finding that the proposed combination would make
the device easier or more secure. Appeal Br. 13. However, this argument,
by itself, is not persuasive of reversible error in the rejection at least because
it does not address all of the reasons the Examiner provided for why one of
4
Appeal 2015-000648
Application 13/291,386
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated or would have otherwise
found it obvious to make the proposed modification to Bryant.
Next, Appellants argue that the references are not analogous. Id.
However, Appellants only assert that the references are from different fields,
and do not address whether the references are pertinent to the problem
addressed by the inventors. See In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
We agree with the Examiner that both references are pertinent to the
problem of securely attaching panels together. Ans. 20.
Finally, Appellants argue that the proposed combination would render
Bryant unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Appeal Br. 14. In support,
Appellants first indicate that the proposed combination would allow the
panels to pivot. Id. However, the rejection does not propose to incorporate
Erlandsson’s pivoting bridge into Bryant’s connector assembly and only
proposes to change Bryant’s collectors so that they are affixed to the
external edges of a panel.
Appellants also indicate that the Examiner has not addressed how the
proposed combination would alter the performance of Bryant’s panels under
wind or seismic loads. Id. (citing Bryant col. 7,1. 24; cols. 13,11. 8—9). We
disagree. We find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
the advantages and disadvantages of attaching connectors on the external or
internal edges of a panel and would have known how to compensate for any
disadvantages of the modification proposed by the Examiner. On this point,
we note that the rejection relies on Erlandsson’s disclosure that the
connectors may be ultrasonically welded onto panels to provide for a secure
assembly to the outer edge of a panel. Final Act. 8 (citing Erlandsson col. 3,
11. 45-50).
5
Appeal 2015-000648
Application 13/291,386
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of error with respect to the
rejection of claim 1 over Bryant in view of Erlandsson. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection. Appellants do not provide separate arguments with
respect to the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 7—13, and thus, we sustain the
rejection of those claims for the same reasons.
Rejections 2 and 3
With respect to the rejections of claims 4 and 5, Appellants argue only
that Francis and Thiagarajan do not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 14—15. Having found no such deficiencies with
respect to the rejection of claim 1, we are not persuaded of error in these
rejections. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 4 in view of
Bryant, Erlandsson, and Francis; and we sustain the rejection of claim 5 in
view of Bryant, Erlandsson, and Thiagarajan.
Rejections 4 and 5
Because we have sustained the rejections above, which are dispositive
of all claims on appeal, we do not reach the anticipation and obviousness
rejections over Erlandsson and Elandsson in view of Francis, respectively.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we conclude as follows.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1—3 and 7—13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bryant in view of Erlandsson.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bryant in view of Erlandsson and Francis.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bryant in view of Erlandsson and Thiagarajan.
6
Appeal 2015-000648
Application 13/291,386
We do not reach the rejection of claims 1—3 and 7—13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Erlandsson.
We do not reach the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Erlandsson in view of Francis
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7