Ex Parte Loughlin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 25, 201512362185 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 12/362,185 01/29/2009 Robert Loughlin SCI0002-02CP 9589 112006 7590 06/26/2015 Graham Curtin, P.A. 4 Headquarters Plaza Morristown, NJ 07962 EXAMINER BOSWELL, CHRISTOPHER J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3673 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/26/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ROBERT LOUGHLIN and JOHN LOUGHLIN ____________ Appeal 2013-008718 Application 12/362,1851 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, JAMES A. WORTH, and BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Jenkins (US 5,956,980, iss. Sept. 28, 1999). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to the Appellants, “[t]he real party in interest is Stanton Concepts Inc.” Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2013-008718 Application 12/362,185 2 Claimed Subject Matter Claims 1 and 13 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A security link for securing a component of a securing member, comprising: a body with a surface having a first opening and a second opening that are connected; and a blocking element that is not a shackle of a lock and that is separate from the body, wherein: the first opening is adapted not to pass the component of the securing member; and the second opening is adapted to allow passing of the component of the securing member and to receive the blocking element for blocking access by the securing member from the first opening to the second opening when the component of the securing member is in the first opening. ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 is directed to a security link including a body and a blocking element. Appeal Br. 17, Claims App. The Examiner finds Jenkins’s primary catch 10 and locking catch 20 correspond to the claimed “body” and “blocking element,” respectively. Final Act. 2; see Jenkins, col. 2, ll. 32–33. Independent claim 1 also requires that the “body” has a “first opening” and “second opening,” wherein “the second opening is adapted . . . to receive the blocking element.” Appeal Br. 17, Claims App. The Examiner finds Jenkins’s cavity 18 corresponds to the claimed “first opening” and “second opening.” Final Act. 2; see Jenkins, col. 2, l. 31. More particularly, the Examiner finds that the “opening of [cavity] 18” Appeal 2013-008718 Application 12/362,185 3 corresponds to the claimed “second opening.” Final Act. 2. As such, the claimed “second opening” of the body of the security link must read on the opening of cavity 18 for the Examiner’s finding to be supported adequately. Hence, the opening of cavity 18 must be adapted to receive locking catch 20, i.e., the element identified by the Examiner that corresponds to the claimed “blocking element.” See also Reply Br. 6–7. The Appellants contend that Jenkins fails to teach an opening receiving a blocking element, i.e., a blocking element entering the opening. See Appeal Br. 13, Reply Br. 6–7. The Appellants assert that the Examiner appears to find “that blocking access to an opening is identical to an opening receiving a blocking element.” Appeal Br. 13. The Appellants’ contention is persuasive. The Examiner determines that: The claims are absent of the direction that the opening opens, and how the blocking element is received therein. Jenkins teaches of an initial opening that opens laterally from the center of the body to allow for the insertion of a component of the securing member, and the blocking member is received in a lateral space of the opening. Ans. 8; see id. at 9. We disagree with the Examiner’s determination. Jenkins discloses that primary catch 10, which creates the opening of cavity 18, is pivotally secured with locking catch 20 about a bolt, rivet, or similar article through holes 17, 27, and 37a and 37b (of folded keeper 30). Jenkins, col. 3, ll. 15– 23. Because primary catch 10 is pivotally secured to locking catch 20, primary catch 10 and locking catch 20 move with respect to one another by rotation. Accordingly, for the opening of cavity 18 to be adapted to receive Appeal 2013-008718 Application 12/362,185 4 locking catch 20, i.e., for locking catch 20 to be adapted to enter the opening of cavity 18, a portion of locking catch 20 must be able to enter the opening of cavity 18 by rotating into the opening of cavity 18. However, locking catch 20 and primary catch 10 appears to rotate generally in separate planes about a pivot point, e.g., bolt.2 More importantly, no portion of locking catch 20 appears to be able to rotate (i.e., enter) into the opening of cavity 18. Moreover, the Examiner fails to explain persuasively, using Jenkins’s disclosure or technical reasoning, how the opening of cavity 18 is adapted to receive locking catch 20, i.e., how locking catch 20 is adapted to enter the opening of cavity 18. See Appeal Br. 13. As such, the Examiner’s finding that the opening of cavity 18 is adapted to receive locking catch 20 lacks adequate support. For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and depending claims 2–12, as anticipated by Jenkins is not sustained. Additionally, independent claim 13 recites a similar limitation as claim 1, i.e., “the first opening is adapted to receive a blocking body into the first opening.” Appeal Br. 19, Claims App. The Examiner’s findings are similar to the findings as discussed above with regard to the rejection of independent claim 1. See Final Act. 4. Thus, for substantially the same 2 Jenkins discloses that “[p]rojection 28 [of locking catch 20] is configured in such a manner that is will engage slant 15b of . . . primary catch [10] when the two catches [10, 20] are in an open position as shown in FIG. 2, thereby preventing further opening of the two catches.” As such, Jenkins discloses that not all portions of primary catch 10 and locking catch 20 are in separate planes. Appeal 2013-008718 Application 12/362,185 5 reasons as discussed above, the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 13, and depending claims 14–20, as anticipated by Jenkins is not sustained. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. REVERSED Klh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation