Ex Parte Lauchner

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 10, 2011

10968510 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 10, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CRAIG E. LAUCHNER
____________

Appeal 2009-009835
Application 10/968,510
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, MICHAEL W. O’NEILL and STEFAN
STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-009835
Application 10/968,510

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Craig E. Lauchner (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-19. The
Examiner has objected to pending claims 7, 15 and 20 as being dependent on
a rejected base claim. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a method for mounting a slide
assembly to a computer server rack. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of Appellant’s invention:
1. A method for mounting a slide assembly to a
computer server rack including a rack column, said
method comprising:

providing a member;

providing a bracket including a base plate, a
mounting plate, at least one pin rigidly secured to
the mounting plate, and a pair of opposing spring
elements where one of the spring elements is
shorter than the other spring element;

mounting the bracket to the member;

inserting the at least one pin into a hole in the rack
column; and

positioning one of the spring elements behind the
rack column to hold the bracket in place.
Appeal 2009-009835
Application 10/968,510

3
THE REJECTION
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abbott (US 6,230,903 B1, issued
May 15, 2001) in view of Reddicliffe (US 6,431,668 B1, issued August 13,
2002), and further in view of Varghese (US 6,988,626 B2, issued January
24, 2006) or Good (US 5,571,256, issued November 5, 1996).

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in concluding that it would have been obvious to
modify the Abbott mounting bracket to include a pair of opposing spring
elements, in view of Reddicliffe, Varghese and Good?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner relies on Varghese and Good as tertiary references that
disclose “providing multiple disparate attachments on a slide assembly
bracket”, to include, in Varghese, pins 122 and spring elements 86, and in
Good, pins 64, 72 and spring elements 60. (Ans. 4). The purported spring
elements in these references do nothing more than align plates and/or
prevent rotation of those plates by virtue of being inserted into openings in a
server rack column. (Varghese, Fig. 6, col. 6, ll. 43-45; Good, Fig. 3, col. 5,
ll. 61-66). They do not attach a slide assembly bracket to a rack column. As
such, neither reference discloses multiple disparate attachments, as asserted
by the Examiner.
The Examiner’s stated reasons to combine the teachings of Abbott and
Reddicliffe are that: (1) “one of ordinary skill in the art could have provided
the bracket of Abbott with the opposing spring elements of Reddicliffe
Appeal 2009-009835
Application 10/968,510

4
positioned behind the rack column, in addition to the disclosed pin inserted
into a hole in the rack column, by known methods as taught by both
Varghese et al. and Good et al.”, with each element in combination merely
performing the same function as it did separately, with predicable results;
and (2) using both engagement elements would provide a more secure, non-
movable attachment of the bracket/slide assembly. (Ans. 4-5; Ans. 8). As
noted above, Varghese and Good do not disclose any known methods for
securing a slide assembly bracket to a rack column.
Appellant argues that it would not have been obvious to provide
Abbott, which already employs pins, with spring elements as are disclosed in
Reddicliffe, because the pins 37 of Abbott and the lugs (spring elements) 28
of Reddicliffe “are tantamount to the same element” and “serve the same
function”. (Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 2). We disagree, in this respect, with
Appellant’s characterization that the pins of Abbott “are provided to secure
mounting brackets (27, 47) to rack columns (13, 15).” (Reply Br. 2). The
pins in Abbott do nothing more than the pins in the present invention; they
position the bracket within holes in the rack column. Other means, namely
the spring 59 and knob 49 in Abbott, and Appellant’s pair of opposing
spring elements, secure the brackets and slide assemblies to the rack
columns.
Notwithstanding, the Examiner has not adequately explained how the
Abbott bracket would be modified to include spring elements as disclosed in
Reddicliffe, such that the resulting structure would yield predictable results.
Abbott discloses the provision of a pair of spaced apart pins on each
mounting bracket, which pins are to be inserted into openings in a rack
column to position the bracket and slide assembly depending therefrom.
Appeal 2009-009835
Application 10/968,510

5
Reddicliffe discloses that spring elements extend laterally of the bracket and
are inserted into openings in a rear flange of the rack column by twisting in
two directions the bracket and member attached thereto. (Reddicliffe, Fig.
6; col. 5, ll. 39-46). However, once the Abbott bracket is positioned by the
pins as discussed above, the bracket does not appear susceptible of being
twisted, thus a modified bracket with the Reddicliffe spring elements would
not be capable of being installed as taught by Reddicliffe. To the extent that
the Examiner intended the modification to involve providing spring elements
on the mounting plate portion of Abbott that carries the pins, it might or
might not be possible at one end of the slide assembly to manipulate the
bracket to obtain insertion of the spring elements into openings adjacent the
ones into which the pins are inserted, but such manipulation would not be
possible at the other end of the slide assembly once one end is fixed in place.
In either case, or in any other case envisioned by the Examiner, the
combination appears to involve considerably more than modifying one
device having pin elements to also include spring elements, by applying
known methods, with each element in the combination merely performing
the same function as it did separately, with predicable results. Without a
reason based on rational underpinning, the Examiner’s proposal to add the
spring elements of Reddicliffe to the mounting bracket of Abbott appears to
be solely motivated by the desire to address the claim limitation requiring a
bracket having both at least one pin rigidly secured to a mounting plate of
the bracket, as well as a pair of opposing spring elements, one of which is to
be positioned behind the rack column to hold the bracket in place.
The rejection of the claims as being obvious in view of Abbott,
Reddicliffe, Varghese and Good will not be sustained.
Appeal 2009-009835
Application 10/968,510

6
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in concluding that it would have been obvious to
modify the Abbott mounting bracket to include a pair of opposing spring
elements, in view of Reddicliffe, Varghese and Good.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-19 is
reversed.

REVERSED

mls

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
MAIL STOP 35
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80528