Ex parte Kraeutler

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 17, 1999

08679939 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 17, 1999)

Application for patent filed July 15, 1996. According1
to appellant, this application is a continuation of
Application No. 08/440,452 filed May 12, 1995, now abandoned;
which is a continuation of Application No. 08/130,192 filed
October 2, 1993, now U.S. Patent No. 5,477,902 issued December
26, 1995.
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was
not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte BERNARD KRAEUTLER
____________
Appeal No. 98-1243
Application No. 08/679,9391
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before COHEN, MEISTER and ABRAMS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 98-1243
Application No. 08/679,939
2
This is an appeal from the decision of the examiner
finally rejecting claims 10-12, which constitute all of the
claims remaining of record in the application.
The appellant's invention is directed to an improvement
in flexible curtain doors. The claims before us on appeal
have been reproduced in an appendix to the Brief (Paper No.
19).
THE REFERENCES
The references relied upon by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Anderson 2,839,135 Jun.
17, 1958
Kraeutler 4,934,437 Jun.
19, 1990
Mueller 5,025,847 Jun. 25,
1991
THE REJECTIONS
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kraeutler in view of Mueller.
Claims 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Mueller.
Appeal No. 98-1243
Application No. 08/679,939
3
The rejections are explained in Paper No. 17, the final
rejection.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Brief (Paper No. 19).
Appeal No. 98-1243
Application No. 08/679,939
4
OPINION
The present invention is directed to the problem of
protecting the operating mechanisms of flexible roll-up doors
of the type allowing vehicles and pallet trucks to pass.
According to the appellant, a problem with these doors has
been the damage that can be perpetrated upon the sliding
operating mechanism by the effects of high winds or by
collisions by vehicles. The thrust of the appellant’s
invention is a mounting system which connects one or more
tension resisting bars extending from edge to edge in the door
curtain to the retaining and guiding carriages that support
them in vertical tracks by means of “a rupturable mechanical
coupling designed to intentionally release its connection
under the effect of a predetermined force acting in a
direction substantially parallel to said tension resisting
bar” (independent claim 10). Similar language is present in
independent claim 11. The improvement in this system,
according to the appellant, is that in case of high wind or
collision the door is separated from the carriages upon which
it is mounted and is free to move laterally, which minimizes
Appeal No. 98-1243
Application No. 08/679,939
5
the damage to the operating mechanism and allows quick repair.
In the rejection directed to claim 10 alone, the examiner
is of the view that the claim is unpatentable over the
teachings of Kraeutler taken in view of those of Mueller, a
conclusion with which we do not agree. Kraeutler is directed
to the problem of preventing wind from blowing around the
track mechanism for a door of the same type as that which is
the subject of the present case. To solve this problem, draft
preventing elements, such as brushes or foam material, are
installed in the tracks in such a fashion as to stop the wind
while not inhibiting the action of the door carriages or
wheels. There is no explicit mention of the problem of high
wind loading or collision by vehicles. It would appear that
in the face of such forces the Kraeutler door would, at best,
flex outwardly to such an extent as to pull the edges of the
door and the carriages from the tracks. This is precisely
what the appellant wishes to avoid.
Like the appellant, Mueller wishes to minimize the damage
to roll-up doors and their operating mechanisms caused by the
impact of machinery. Mueller attaches the door to its
Appeal No. 98-1243
Application No. 08/679,939
6
operating mechanism through a plurality of interlocking dove-
tailed elements having one element located on the edge of the
door and the other on the operating mechanism. As shown in
Figure 4, the dove-tailed elements are oriented horizontally,
so that they can slidably disengage when subjected to forces
transverse to the door. However, to prevent this from
occurring until a predetermined force is applied, a shear pin
is installed perpendicularly to the orientation of the dove-
tailed elements, so that separation cannot occur until the
strength of the pin is exceeded and the pin shears. See
column 2, lines 27-52.
Of course, it is axiomatic that the test for obviousness
is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In
the present case it is our view that, even assuming, arguendo,
that the requisite suggestion to combine the references is
present, the combined teachings of the references would not
result in the invention recited in claim 10. This is because
the claim requires that there be a rupturable mechanical
Appeal No. 98-1243
Application No. 08/679,939
7
coupling that releases its connection in response to the
effect of a force “acting in a direction substantially
parallel” to the tension resisting bar that extends along the
plane of the door, a teaching that is not present in either of
the references. In Mueller, the only reference that utilizes
a rupturable connection, response can be only to a force
transverse to the plane of the door, which is perpendicular to
that required by claim 10.
The examiner bears the burden of presenting a prima
facie case of obviousness (see In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), which is
established when the teachings of the prior art itself would
appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of
ordinary skill in the art (see In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783,
26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). For the reason stated
above, such is not the case with the two references applied
against claim 10. Therefore, we will not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 10 as being unpatentable over
Kraeutler and Mueller.
Appeal No. 98-1243
Application No. 08/679,939
8
The examiner has set forth a second rejection, in which
claims 10-12 are rejected on the basis of Anderson in view of
Mueller. Independent claim 11 requires that there be a
mechanical coupling that releases in the same manner as was
explained above with regard to claim 10.
Anderson discloses a rolling door, and is directed to
solving the problem of binding of the door during raising and
lowering when forces such as high winds cause it to distend
laterally to its plane (see Figure 3). The reference solves
this problem by providing rollers 46 that bear against
vertical surfaces 38 when the door is distended, rather than
the surface of the door itself. This significantly reduces
the friction during operation of the door. There is no
concern in Anderson for disengaging the edges of the door to
protect the mechanism in the face of high winds or collision
by vehicles.
Mueller has been discussed above with regard to the first
rejection. As was the case there, it is our opinion that even
if suggestion to combine the references in the manner proposed
by the examiner existed, the result would not be the claimed
invention, because neither reference teaches a rupturable
Appeal No. 98-1243
Application No. 08/679,939
9
mechanical coupling that releases under the effect of a force
acting substantially parallel to the direction of the tension
resisting bar, that is, to the plane of the door.
The combined teachings of these references fail to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the
subject matter of independent claims 10 and 11 or, it follows,
of dependent claim 12, and we therefore will not sustain this
rejection.
Appeal No. 98-1243
Application No. 08/679,939
10
SUMMARY
Neither rejection is sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JAMES M. MEISTER ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
bae
Appeal No. 98-1243
Application No. 08/679,939
11
Sughrue, Mion, Zinn, Macpeak & Seas
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20037-3202