Ex Parte Olsen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2016

11647098 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/647,098 12/28/2006
826 7590 06/23/2016
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA
101 SOUTH TRYON STREET, SUITE 4000
CHARLOTTE, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Paul Olsen
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.
060418-426226 2897
EXAMINER
CUMAR, NATHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2016 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID PAUL OLSEN
Appeal2014-006088
Application 11/647,098
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, FREDERICK C. LANEY, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final decision rejecting claims 3, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 23. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-006088
Application 11/647,098
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 3, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
3. A system comprising:
a doorway frame; and
a safety door, the safety door comprising:
an actuator configured to be rotated to lock and
unlock the safety door to the doorway frame;
radially extending bars coupled to the actuator and
mounted in the safety door such that each of the radially
extending bars is configured to be extended radially from
one of a plurality of laterally extending door slots into the
doorway frame in response to the actuator being rotated;
and
a door core having:
an actuator opening configured to receive
and support the actuator while allowing the
actuator to be rotated, and
radially extending openings, wherein:
each of the radially extending
openings receives one of the radially
extending bars; and
each of the radially extending
openings of the door is configured to permit
both lateral and longitudinal movement of
the radially extending bars resulting from
each of the radially extending bars pivoting
about a point in an arcing motion in
response to the actuator being rotated.
2
Appeal2014-006088
Application 11/647,098
REJECTIONS
Claims 3, 7-8, 12-13, 17-18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable in view of Morris (US 1,366,015, iss. Jan. 18,
1921), Schlage, (US 2,921,461, iss. Jan. 19, 1960), and Donovan (US
4,288,944, iss. Sep. 15, 1981 ).
DISCUSSION
Claims 3, 7, and 8
The Examiner finds that Morris discloses the salient limitations of
claim 3 other than configuring the recited radially extending openings in the
door core "to permit both lateral and longitudinal movement about a point in
an arcing motion." Final Act. 2, 3. The Examiner finds that "Donovan
shows in figure 2 that openings and slots 48, 64 are sufficiently larger than
the bars allowing lateral and longitudinal movement." Id. at 3. The
Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to combine Donovan's
"slots and openings wider than the bars in the Morris device in order to
allow tolerance in bolt/slot engagement assuring proper latching." Id.
Appellant contends that Donovan's bolts 56 are limited to "straight-
line motion." App. Br. 4--5. Appellant contends that the attachment of
Donovan's bolt 56 to arm 92 by means of pin 70 sliding in slot 96 allows for
the recited longitudinal movement but precludes the recited lateral
movement of bolt 56. See id. Appellant further contends that if the
attachment of Donovan's bolt 56 to arm 92 were to be modified to allow for
both longitudinal and lateral movement of bolt 56, Donovan would not
function because "the locking mechanism would bind (e.g., the bolts would
3
Appeal2014-006088
Application 11/647,098
get stuck within the passageways as the actuator is rotated)." Id. at 5
(emphasis omitted).
Claim 3 requires that the openings be "configured to permit both
lateral and longitudinal movement of the radially extending bars resulting
from each of the radially extending bars pivoting about a point in an arcing
motion." Appellant's Specification provides that rods 26A through 26F
move "in an orbital curved path rather than only linearly along the direction
of their longitudinal axes." Spec. 10; Fig. 7. The orbital curved path of rods
26A through 26F results in both lateral and longitudinal movement thereof.
Donovan's bolt 56 moves horizontally through passage 48 from a first
position shown by the dotted lines in Figure 2 to a second position where
bolt 56 is extended into receiver 62. See Donovan, Fig. 2, col. 3, 1. 29- col.
4, 1. 11. Donovan's arm 92 moves in an arcing motion, but bolt 56 does not
as it is limited to reciprocating in a horizontal direction by the sliding of pin
70 in slot 96. Id. col. 1, 11. 55-56, and col. 3, 11. 35-36. We acknowledge
the Examiner's reference to Donovan's Figure 2 illustrating the diameter of
passage 48 as larger than the diameter of bolt 56. However, in light of
Donovan's disclosure limiting bolt 56 to horizontal reciprocation, Figure 2
does not support a finding that Donovan discloses the recited openings
"configured to permit both lateral and longitudinal movement" resulting
from the bars "pivoting about a point in an arcing motion." Ans. 6; see also
Reply Br. 3. Consequently, we do not sustain the rejections of claim 3 and
claims 7 and 8 which depend on claim 3.
4
Appeal2014-006088
Application 11/647,098
Claims 12, 13, 17 and 18
These claims are directed to a safety door. App. Br. 14--15 (Claims
App.). The Examiner rejected independent claim 12 on the same grounds as
claim 3. Final Act. 4. Claim 12 contains a limitation that "the radially
extending openings in the door" are "configured to be sufficiently larger
than the diameter of the bars to permit both lateral and longitudinal
movement" resulting "from each of the bars pivoting about a point in an
arcing motion." App. Br. 14--15 (Claims App.). The Examiner does not
refer us to any disclosure in Donovan, other than Figure 2, to support a
finding that the diameter of Donovan's passage 48 is sufficiently larger than
the diameter of bolt 56 to permit both lateral and longitudinal movement of
bolt 56. Figure 2 illustrates that the diameter of passage 48 is larger than the
diameter of bolt 56 but that, standing alone, does not support the Examiner's
finding that its diameter is sufficiently larger to permit both lateral and
longitudinal movement of bolt 56. For this reason and for the reasons stated
above in connection with claim 3, we do not sustain the rejections of claim
12 and claims 13, 1 7, and 18 which depend on claim 12.
Claim 23
Claim 23 is directed to a "method of locking a door." App. Br. 16.
This claim positively recites "moving the bars laterally and [the]
longitudinally resulting from each of the bars pivoting about a point in an
arcing motion." Id. The Examiner does not refer us to any disclosure of this
claim limitation but relies on the same findings as for claim 3. Final Act. 4.
Consequently, for the reason stated above in connection with claim 3, i.e.
5
Appeal2014-006088
Application 11/647,098
Donovan's bolt 56 is limited to horizontal reciprocating motion, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 23.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 3, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, and
23 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
6