12001999 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 16, 2012)

Ex Parte Martin

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesApr 16, 2012

12001999 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 16, 2012)

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. 12/001,999 12/12/2007 Frank J. Martin FRNK-1-9427 5531 7590 04/16/2012 BLACK LOWE & GRAHAM, PLLC 701 Fifth Avenue Suite 4800 Seattle, WA 98104 EXAMINER BOSWELL, CHRISTOPHER J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3673 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/16/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte FRANK J. MARTIN ____________________ Appeal 2010-001118 Application 12/001,999 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: TERRY J. OWENS, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and JOHN C. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-001118 Application 12/001,999 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Frank J. Martin (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lin (US 5,216,910, iss. Jun. 8, 1993) and Cox (US 4,338,806, iss. Jul. 13, 1982). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to locks for cabinet doors or drawers and, more particularly, to cover plates that can be used on a cabinet door or drawer lock having different installation orientations. See Spec. 1, ll. 4-7. Claim 10, reproduced below, with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 10. A combination cover plate assembly and cabinet door and drawer lock comprising: a bolt housing having a reciprocating, retractable bolt and a cylinder and plug assembly housing, wherein a plug portion of the cylinder and plug assembly defines a first axis, the cylinder and plug assembly housing defines a second axis, and the bolt housing selectively rotates with respect to the plug portion of the cylinder and plug assembly about the first axis, a removable cover plate fixed to the bolt housing and defining a first circular aperture centered about the second axis which is displaced from the first axis when the cover plate is registered with the bolt housing; and a rotatable circular cover plate insert received within the first circular aperture defining a second circular aperture centered about the first axis, wherein the second circular aperture is sized to selectively receive the cylinder and plug assembly and an outer diameter of the insert is Appeal 2010-001118 Application 12/001,999 3 sized so that the insert fits within and is selectively rotatable with respect to the first circular aperture whereby the cylinder and plug assembly housing and the cover plate insert are rotatable with respect to the bolt housing and cover plate when the cover plate is fixed to the bolt housing. OPINION An issue raised in this appeal is whether the Examiner has established that Lin and Cox render obvious a combination cover plate assembly and lock comprising a removable cover plate fixed to the bolt housing and a cylinder and plug assembly housing and cover plate insert that are rotatable with respect to the bolt housing and cover plate when the cover plate is fixed to the bolt housing, as called for in claim 10. App. Br. 3-4; Reply Br. 2. The Examiner found that Lin’s outer ring 4 corresponds to the claimed “cover plate,” and that Lin’s reinforcing plate 6 and face plate 7 correspond to the claimed “cover plate insert.” Ans. 3. The Examiner found that Lin does not disclose a cylinder and plug assembly and a bolt housing, but found that Cox discloses a lock having a cylinder and plug assembly housing (protective sleeve 13) and a bolt housing (latch mechanism 20). Ans. 3-4. The Examiner determined “it would have been obvious . . . to incorporate a bolt housing and a cylinder and plug assembly housing as taught by Cox with the cover plate and cover plate insert of Lin,” with the cylinder and plug assembly being rotatable with respect to the bolt housing and cover plate “to establish the desired direction and orientation the bolt would be actuated, since cover plate and cover plate insert is in no way dependent on bolt housing.” Ans. 4. Appeal 2010-001118 Application 12/001,999 4 The Examiner’s rejection does not address the requirements in claim 10 that the cover plate be fixed to the bolt housing and that the cylinder and plug assembly housing and cover plate insert be rotatable with respect to the bolt housing and cover plate when the cover plate is fixed to the bolt housing. In particular, the Examiner does not explain why it would have been obvious, without the benefit of Appellant’s disclosure, to modify Lin’s lock, which the Examiner concedes lacks a bolt housing, so that Lin’s outer ring 4 is fixed to the bolt housing (incorporated in view of the teachings of Cox), much less fixed to the bolt housing in such a manner that the cylinder and plug assembly and the cover plate insert (i.e., reinforcing plate 6 and face plate 7) are rotatable with respect to the bolt housing when the outer ring 4 is fixed to the bolt housing. Accordingly, the Examiner has not established that Lin and Cox render obvious the subject matter of claim 10. We thus reverse the rejection of claim 10, and of claims 11-13, which depend from claim 10. In rejecting claim 14 as unpatentable over Lin and Cox, the Examiner proposes to modify Lin’s lock to incorporate a bolt housing and cylinder and plug assembly housing as taught by Cox with the cover plate and cover plate insert of Lin “such that the cover plate would be fixed to the bolt housing to permit the cover plate insert and the cylinder and plug assembly to rotate through 360o, whereby tumblers and pin springs in the cylinder and plug assembly would be maintained in a vertical orientation regardless of an orientation of the bolt housing (a pin and tumbler locking cylinder would not function regularly if the tumblers and springs were not in a vertical orientation, as the tumblers are in a locking condition due to gravity),” as called for in claim 14, “since cover plate and cover plate insert is in no way Appeal 2010-001118 Application 12/001,999 5 dependent on bolt housing, and the cover plate and cover plate insert could be used in combination with lock assembly to achieve the predictable results of having a reinforcement plate to protect the lock assembly from breakage by illegal attempt.” Ans. 5-6. As pointed out by Appellant (App. Br. 3-4; Reply Br. 2), neither Lin nor Cox teaches fixing the cover plate to the bolt housing while permitting the cover plate insert and cylinder and plug assembly to be rotated as called for in claim 14, and the Examiner has not explained how the proposed combination of Cox’s bolt housing (latch mechanism 20) and cylinder and plug assembly housing (protective sleeve 13) with Lin’s cover plate (outer ring 4) and cover plate insert (i.e., reinforcing plate 6 and face plate 7) would result in a structure that possesses the capability to permit the cover plate insert and cylinder and plug assembly to be rotated with the cover plate fixedly connected to the bolt housing in the manner called for in claim 14. The Examiner’s articulated rationale for the combination (i.e., “since cover plate and cover plate insert is in no way dependent on bolt housing, and the cover plate and cover plate insert could be used in combination with lock assembly to achieve the predictable results of having a reinforcement plate to protect the lock assembly from breakage by illegal attempt”) does not include any apparent reason to modify Lin’s lock to have such a capability. Neither does the Examiner’s parenthetical (i.e., “(a pin and tumbler locking cylinder would not function regularly if the tumblers and springs were not in a vertical orientation, as the tumblers are in a locking condition due to gravity)”) articulate an apparent reason to modify Lin’s lock to have the capability called for in claim 14. Accordingly, the Examiner has not Appeal 2010-001118 Application 12/001,999 6 established that Lin and Cox render obvious the subject matter of claim 14. Thus, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 14. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED Klh