Ex Parte Männikkö

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 16, 2016

13389193 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/389, 193 02/06/2012 Ari Milnnikko
69590 7590 09/20/2016
International IP Law Group
P.O. BOX 691927
HOUSTON, TX 77269-1927
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11830-PT-WO-US 5852
EXAMINER
WAY,JAMESR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3788
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2016 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):
docketing@iiplg.com
barry.blount@iiplg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARI MANNIKKO
Appeal2014-005252
Application 13/389, 193
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ari Mannikko (Appellant) 1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the Examiner's decision, as set forth in the Final Action dated April 23, 2013
("Final Act."), rejecting claims 15-19, 21, and 23-28. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Deutsche Post AG. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal2014-005252
Application 13/389, 193
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's claimed subject matter relates to "a tamper evident
closure of a box with alarm sensor providing a latch with at least one side
flap, and an opening." Spec., para. 3.2 Claims 15 and 24 are the
independent claims on appeal. Independent claim 15 is reproduced below.
15. A tamper-evident closure of a box with alarm
sensor, compnsmg
a latch with at least one side flap and an opening,
a width of the opening being smaller than a width of the
latch and the at least one side flap,
the at least one side flap being foldable prior insertion into
the opening, the at least one side flap being expandable after
insertion into the opening,
the latch and the at least one side flap being provided with
at least one layer of an electrical conducting material,
the at least one side flap providing a break line along a
folding line, for allowing that a first time the box is opened, the
at least one side flap cooperates with side walls of the box and is
tom off at the break line when the at least one side flap is moved
beyond a tearing edge, and
at least part of the side flap and the latch comprise the
electric conducting material crossing the break line in order to
allow triggering an alarm when the at least one side flap is tom
off the latch while breaking the tamper-evident closure.
2 Citations to "Spec." refer to the "Substitute Specification Without
Markings" filed on February 6, 2012.
2
Appeal2014-005252
Application 13/389, 193
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied upon the following evidence in the Final Action:
Lupton '593
Lupton
Wohlers
Cooper
Kouyoumdjian
us 1,827,593
us 2,028,678
us 2,331,754
us 4,813,564
US 6,270,008B1
REJECTIONS
Oct. 13, 1931
Jan.21, 1936
Oct. 12, 1943
Mar. 21, 1989
Aug. 7, 2001
The Final Action contained the following rejections:
1. Claims 15, 17-19, 21, 23, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lupton and Cooper.
2. Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lupton,
Cooper, and Kouyoumdjian.
3. Claims 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Lupton, Cooper, and \Vohlers.
4. Claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lupton,
Cooper, and Lupton '593.
ANALYSIS
First Ground of Rejection
Appellant argues all of the claims subject to the first ground of
rejection, i.e., claims 15, 17-19, 21, 23, and 24, as a group. Appeal Br. 5-9.
We select claim 15 as a representative claim for this group, and the
3
Appeal2014-005252
Application 13/389, 193
remaining claims subject to the first ground of rejection stand or fall with
claim 15. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).3
The Examiner found that Lupton discloses a tamper-evident closure of
a box having a latch with at least one side flap 12a and an opening 7, and the
latch provides a break line along a folding line (crease lines 12b). Final
Act. 2 (finding that Lupton's crease lines 12b "could act as break lines in the
event that the package was opened by pulling the tongues"). Appellant
contends that "Lupton merely makes reference to crease lines. See Lupton,
Fig. 6 (references 8, 12b, and 13). Lupton does not disclose the folding lines
and the break lines recited in the independent claims." Appeal Br. 7.
Appellant further argues that Lupton discloses opening the box by cutting
the tongues transversely, and thus "the position of the cutting takes place at a
different position" and "Lupton does not disclose breaking lines for cutting
the tongues transversely." Id. at 7-8.
Appellant's Specification does not describe how the claimed "folding
lines" are formed. The Figures of Appellant's Specification simply depict
lines along the paperboard blank where folding is to take place. For
example, Figure 2 shows lines about which side flaps 108, 108' are folded
3 Appellant raises an argument directed to dependent claim 1 7 for the first
time in the Reply Brief. Compare Appeal Br. 9, with Reply Br. 4. This
argument is not timely, and Appellant does not present any evidence or
explanation to show good cause why this argument should be considered by
the Board at this time. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.4l(b)(2) ("Any argument raised
in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not
responsive to an argument raised in the examiner's answer ... will not be
considered by the Board ... unless good cause is shown.").
4
Appeal2014-005252
Application 13/389, 193
(folding indicated by the arrows in the Figure) prior to insertion of latch 107
into opening 111. Spec., para. 38, Fig. 2. Appellant does not explain how
the crease lines 12b of Lupton differ structurally from the claimed folding
lines. Lupton discloses that flaps 12a are "foldable inwardly along crease
lines 12b so that the heads may be passed through the slots when the flaps
are folded." Lupton, p. 1, col. 2, 11. 35-37. We find adequate support in the
disclosure of Lupton for the Examiner's finding that Lupton' s crease lines
12b are the claimed folding lines about which the side flaps are foldable
prior to insertion of the latch into the opening.
Appellant's Specification describes that break lines "can be realized
by grooves in the material, with perforation or by cutting the material along
the folding line adjacent to the respective latch" and that the material of the
side flaps "may be especially shaped for example with notches or cuts, in
order [to] fail under excess mechanical stress." Spec., para. 5 7. We
understand this description in Appellant's Specification to mean that one
way to form break lines is by making grooves in the material. Appellant
does not explain how the crease lines 12b of Lupton differ structurally from
the claimed break line. A "crease" is "a line or mark made by folding,
pressing, or crushing something (such as a cloth or a piece of paper)."
Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary, www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/crease, last accessed September 12, 2016. Thus,
Lupton's crease lines are akin to grooves in the material formed when the
crease lines are made. We agree with the Examiner's finding that "the
crease lines as provided by Lupton would act as break lines when opening
5
Appeal2014-005252
Application 13/389, 193
the package." See Ans. 2. In other words, because the crease lines create a
line of weakness in the area around the side flaps l 2a, were one to attempt to
open the package by pulling on the latch 12, the latch would naturally break
along this line of weakness at the crease lines 12b. See Ans. 2 (finding that
"it is well known by those of ordinary skill in the art that providing a crease
creates a line of weakness that would then serve as the ideal path for
breaking to occur in the closure of Lupton"). We find no discemable
structural difference, and Appellant has not clearly articulated one, between
Lupton's crease lines 12b and the claimed "break line along a folding line."
We acknowledge that Lupton discloses cutting the tongue transversely
(Lupton, p. 2, col. 1, 11. 26-27), but this disclosure does not demonstrate
error in the Examiner's finding that pulling upward on the tongues would
cause the tongues to break naturally at the crease lines 12b.
The Examiner found that "Lupton does not teach wherein the closure
of a box has an alarm sensor, wherein the latch, of the closure, and the at
least one side flap are provided with at least one layer of an electrical
conducting material, or where at least part of the side flap and the latch
comprise the electric conducting material crossing the break line." Final
Act. 2-3. The Examiner relied on Cooper for these teachings and
determined that it would have been obvious "to modify Lupton with the
teachings of Cooper in order to monitor the integrity of packages." Id. at 3.
Appellant argues that "Cooper is merely applicable to secured
closures of boxes that are different than the closure recited in the
independent claims." Appeal Br. 8 (arguing that "opening the package in
6
Appeal2014-005252
Application 13/389, 193
Cooper by unfolding the flaps merely results in the network being tuned to
different frequencies") (citing Cooper, col. 3, 11. 36-44). This argument is
based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the operation of Cooper's
system. Cooper describes that the box 81 is closed by overlapping flaps 83
and 85 on one end, and overlapping flaps 87 and 89 on the other end.
Cooper, col. 3, 11. 34-36, Fig. 4. Cooper teaches that network 53 for
electrical oscillatory assembly 51, which is adhered to flap 83, is tuned to a
different frequency than network 53a of electrical oscillatory assembly 5 la,
which is adhered to flap 87. Id., col. 3, 11. 35--44. This difference allows one
to distinguish readily between the networks so that one can discern which set
of flaps has been opened. Id. Cooper teaches, however, that opening of
either end of the box will cause a break in the network that, when detected,
will produce a signal. Id., col. 4, 11. 24-26. As such, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that opening the package in Cooper by unfolding the
flaps results in the circuit being broken and a signal being generated. Ans. 3.
Appellant further argues that "the electrical spiral described in Cooper
cannot be operated in accordance with the teaching of Cooper when applied
to the closure of the present invention, because of the mandatory condition
of the open ends of the spiral being in a defined and close distance to each
other to form an electrical oscillator." Appeal Br. 9. As noted by the
Examiner, this argument does not address the proposed modification of the
package of Lupton with the electrical spiral of Cooper. Ans. 3. To the
extent Appellant is arguing that Cooper's electrical spiral cannot be used on
the tongue 12 of Lupton, we disagree. The Examiner's proposed
7
Appeal2014-005252
Application 13/389, 193
modification to employ the electrical spiral of Cooper on the tongue 12 of
Lupton is reasonable. For example, the spiral could be added to the tongue
12 of Lupton such that it extends across side flaps 12a and crease lines 12b,
and the overlapping open ends of the spiral could be disposed on the center
portion of tongue 12, between flaps 12a, in a defined and close distance to
each other to form the oscillator. Breaking of the flaps 12a along crease
lines 12b during opening would result in a break to the electric oscillator
network, which would produce a signal according to the teaching of Cooper.
For these reasons, Appellant's arguments have not demonstrated error
in the Examiner's rejection of claim 15. As such, we sustain the rejection of
claim 15, and claims 17-19, 21, 23, and 24 fall with claim 15, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lupton and Cooper.
Second through Fourth Grounds of Rejection
Appellant relies on the same arguments presented against the
proposed combination of Lupton and Cooper as the basis for patentability of
claim 16 over Lupton, Cooper, and Kouyoumdjian,4 of claims 25-27 over
Lupton, Cooper, and Wohlers, and of claim 28 over Lupton, Cooper, and
4 Appellant raises an argument directed to the Examiner's finding as to the
disclosure of Kouyoumdjian for the first time in the Reply Brief. Compare
Appeal Br. 9-10, with Reply Br. 4. This argument is not timely, and
Appellant does not present any evidence or explanation to show good cause
why this argument should be considered by the Board at this time. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.4l(b)(2). Further, the argument that Kouyoumdjian does not
disclose use of a material comprising rubber is not commensurate with the
scope of the claim 16, which recites that the latch is made of "rubber, metal
or a plastic material." Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
8
Appeal2014-005252
Application 13/389, 193
Lupton '593. Appeal Br. 9-11 (arguing that Kouyoumdjian, Wohlers, and
Lupton '593 "do[] not remedy the deficiencies of Lupton and Cooper"). For
these reasons discussed above in our analysis of the first ground of rejection,
we find no deficiencies in the combination of Lupton and Cooper.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 16 and 25-28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lupton and Cooper and one of
Kouyoumdjian, Wohlers, and Lupton '593.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 15-19, 21, and 23-28 is
AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ l.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9