Ex parte Lordahl

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 29, 1999

08370851 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 29, 1999)

Application for patent filed January 10, 1995. According to appellant, the1
application is a continuation of Application 08/158,449, filed November 29, 1993, now
abandoned.
1
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publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte VAR E. LORDAHL
__________
Appeal No. 97-0997
Application 08/370,8511
___________
HEARD: April 9, 1999
___________
Before CALVERT, STAAB and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVERT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
and 7, all the claims remaining in the application.
The subject matter in issue is a toilet tank ball flapper
and chain assembly, wherein the chain is an elongate planar
member and is engaged to the periphery of the base plate of
Appeal No. 97-0997
Application 08/370,851
In the Advisory Action of April 22, 1996 (Paper No. 7), the examiner indicated2
that a rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, was overcome by the
amendment filed on April 8, 1996.
2
the flapper. The appealed claims are reproduced in the
appendix of appellant’s brief.
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Schoepe et al. (Schoepe) 2,985,291 May 23,
1961
Woolf et al. (Woolf) 3,943,577 Mar. 16,
1976
Freed 4,698,859 Oct. 13,
1987
Claims 1 and 7 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Freed in view of Woolf and Schoepe.2
The basis of the rejection is stated on pages 4 and 5 of
the examiner’s answer, and need not be repeated here.
After fully considering the record in light of the
arguments presented in appellant’s brief and reply brief, and
in the examiner’s answer, we conclude that the combination of
references applied by the examiner does not make out a prima
facie case of obviousness.
Initially, we agree with the examiner that, for the
reasons stated by him, it would have been obvious to utilize a
Appeal No. 97-0997
Application 08/370,851
3
flat plastic strap (“elongated planar plastic member”) as the
chain 13 of the Freed flapper valve assembly in view of the
disclosure of such a chain (54) by Woolf. We do not regard
Woolf’s disclosure of such a strap as being used in addition
to the normal chain 38 as detracting from the suggestion that
a strap may be used in place of a flapper valve link chain.
On the other hand, we do not consider that the recited
engagement of such a planar strap about the periphery of
Freed’s base plate 10 would have been obvious in view of
Schoepe. Appellant acknowledges at page 8 of the brief that
“pluralities of hobby model pieces are typically engaged
together within large boxes when received by a consumer”, and
Schoepe discloses that two toilet inlet pipe seals 14, 20 may
be molded concentrically as a unit, connected by frangible web
24, in order to reduce manufacturing, inventory and packaging
problems (col. 1, lines 46 to 60). However, while this prior
art would suggest to one of ordinary skill that the flapper 10
and chain 13 of Freed (as a strap) might be molded as two
separable parts of a one-piece molded article, we find no
suggestion that the chain be molded around the periphery of
the flapper base plate, as claimed. Although Schoepe’s seals
Appeal No. 97-0997
Application 08/370,851
4
14, 20 are nested, this would not teach one of ordinary skill
to position the chain of Freed around the periphery of the
flapper because Schoepe’s seals are to be separated from each
other by engagement with fitting 32 (col. 3, lines 36 to 43),
and when in use, seals 14 and 20 are still in the same
(coaxial) orientation relative to each other as they were when
attached to each other; cf. Figs. 1 and 3. Schoepe’s
disclosure therefore is not suggestive of the claimed assembly
having a chain engaged around the periphery of a flapper base
plate, because in such an assembly the chain is not an item
which is to be separated from the flapper by engagement with
any fittings, and in use assumes a different orientation
relative to the flapper.
Since a prima facie case of obviousness has not been
established, it is unnecessary to consider the Declarations
Under Rule 1.132 submitted by appellant.
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 7 is
reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 97-0997
Application 08/370,851
5
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
IAC/kis
Kajane McManus
P.O. Box 344
Wonder Lake, IL 60097