Ex Parte Penzes

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 24, 2017

13538058 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 2017)

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.
13/538,058 06/29/2012 Jay H. Penzes 1939.3000 3210
23649 7590 07/25/2017
Hanes & R artels T T C
EXAMINER
102 SOUTH TEJON ST. LIU, JONATHAN
SUITE 800
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80903 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3631
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2017 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 JAY H. PENZES
Appeal 2016-007181
Application 13/538,0581
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, SCOTT E. BAIN, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1—4, all claims pending in the
application. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies the Inventor, Jay H. Penzes, as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 11, 2016, “App. Br.”), the Reply
Brief (filed July 15, 2016, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed
June 23, 2016, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed September 9, 2015, “Final
Act.”), and the Specification (filed June 29, 2012, “Spec.”) for their
Appeal 2016-007181
Application 13/538,058
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to an apparatus for securing the working end of an
elongated flexible conductor for fluid or electricity to an elevated work
platform. See Abstract.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, which is reproduced below with some
formatting added:
1. Apparatus for securing the working end of an elongated
flexible conductor to an elevated work platform comprising,
a locking C clamp having first and second movable
opposed jaws, each having inner and outer edge portions and
where each jaw includes a tip end,
a work contacting pad attached to the inner edge of the
tip end of each of said jaws,
rigid adapter means for interconnecting two sections of a
flexible conductor, said adapter means attached to the outside
edge portion of the first clamping jaw.
INVENTION
Monick
Burrell, et al.,
Maby
References and Rejections
US 5,160,106 Nov. 3, 1992
US 5,626,320
FR 2 628 393 Al
May 6, 1997
9/15/1989
respective teachings.
2
Appeal 2016-007181
Application 13/538,058
Enco (website: www.use-enco.com: published 2/16/2012).
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U. S.C. 102(b) as anticipated
by Burrell. Final Act. 2—\.
2. Claims 1,2, and 4 stand rejected under 35 U. S.C. 103(a) as obvious
over Monick and Enco. Final Act. 4—7.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1—4 in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We are persuaded of
reversible error. We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are
presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 2—7.
Claims 1 and 3: Anticipation by Burrell
Appellant contends Burrell fails to disclose a locking C-clamp having
first and second moveable, opposed jaws. App. Br. 3.
3
Appeal 2016-007181
Application 13/538,058
Burrell, Figure 1 shows a prior art mounting bracket
The Examiner finds elements 20 and 30 of Burrell, Figure 1, to be a
first and second jaw, respectively. Ans. 5. We agree with Appellant
(App. Br. 4) that that because Element 20 is not moveable, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not recognize Element 20 as a moveable jaw,
as claimed. The hallmark of anticipation is prior invention. The prior art
reference, in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102, must not only
disclose all elements of the claim within the four comers of the document,
but must also disclose those elements “arranged as in the claim.”
4
Appeal 2016-007181
Application 13/538,058
Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Claims 1,2, and 4: Obviousness over Monick and Enco
Appellant contends Monick fails to teach a locking C-clamp having
first and second moveable, opposed jaws. App. Br. 6. Appellant argues
Monick support member 14 is not a locking C-clamp as that term is
generally understood in the art. Id.
Monick Figure 2 showing a prior art clamping device
5
Appeal 2016-007181
Application 13/538,058
The Examiner finds Monick Elements 15 and 14b are, respectively, a
first jaw and a second jaw, because elements 15 and 14b are opposed to one
another and they open and close for holding or crushing something
therebetween. Ans. 12.
We agree with Appellant (App.Br. 6) that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would not understand at least Monick Element 14b to be a moveable
jaw. Monick discloses a U-shaped support member 14 including a pair of
spaced arms 14a and 14b with arm 14a having a threaded opening
therethrough adapted to receive a threaded screw member 15. Monick, col.
2,11. 46—52. Monick further discloses that by tightening the screw member
15, the support member 14 will be tightly clamped to the bar 11. Id., 11.
52—54. We agree with Appellant that Monick’s disclosure would not convey
to a person of ordinary skill in the art that either arm 14a, or 14b, is a
moveable jaw. Monick further discloses that support member 14 is provided
with a passageway 14c extending therethrough for receiving one end of a
suction tubing 16. Id., 55—57. We agree with Appellant (App. Br. 6) that
passageway 14c is not “attached to the outside edge portion of the first
clamping jaw,” as claimed.
The Examiner cites Enco for teachings not related to those discussed
above. See Final Act. 6.
6
Appeal 2016-007181
Application 13/538,058
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 102 is REVERSED.
The rejection of Claims 1,2, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
7