Ex parte QIAO

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 23, 2001

08909834 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 23, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte HUILI QIAO
____________
Appeal No. 1999-2371
Application No. 08/909,834
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before ABRAMS, FRANKFORT, and McQUADE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1-14,
which are all of the claims pending in this application.
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 1999-2371 Page 2
Application No. 08/909,834
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a method of removably securing a speaker grille
to a cabinet (claims 1-7) and to a removable fastening system (claims 8-14). An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 8, which
appears in an appendix to the appellant's Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Raymond 3,252,677 May 24, 1966
Notoya 4,422,222 Dec. 27, 1983
Nakamura 4,681,288 Jul. 21, 1987
Hiraki et al. (Hiraki) 4,993,511 Feb. 19, 1991
Claims 1-3, 5-10 and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hiraki in view of Notoya and Raymond.
Claims 4 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hiraki in view of Notoya, Raymond and Nakamura.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Final Rejection
(Paper No. 4) and the Answer (Paper No. 11) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the Brief (Paper No. 10) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
Appeal No. 1999-2371 Page 3
Application No. 08/909,834
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The appellant’s invention is directed to a push-on, pull-off system for securing a
decorative speaker grille to apertures in a cabinet. As manifested in independent claim 8,
the inventive system comprises a plurality of receptacles in the grille and a plurality of
fasteners, each fastener having a head with outwardly flared resilient wings for
engagement with a receptacle and a tree-like base for securing the fastener in the
apertures,
said head of each said fastener and each said receptacle being
dimensioned such that a first pushing force is required for engagement and
a second, larger, pulling force is required for disengagement.
The examiner is of the view that Hiraki shows all of the structure recited in claim 8 except
for the claimed fasteners, the push-on, push-off structure is disclosed by Notoya and the
tree structure by Raymond, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to modify the Hiraki fastener to meet the terms of the claim. The appellant points out in
rebuttal that while the Notoya fastener is pushed on, it is not pulled off, for it must be rotated
Appeal No. 1999-2371 Page 4
Application No. 08/909,834
by a screw driver to be removed. The examiner’s position with regard to this argument is
that
[t]he skilled artisan would have recognized that engagement and
disengagement of the parts to be fastened could be accomplished
exclusively through pulling and pushing forces since the heads are resilient.
The motivation being [sic, is] the inaccessibility to the screw driver slot or the
unavailability of a screwdriver. (Answer, page 2, emphasis added.)
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness, it is incumbent upon the examiner to provide a reason why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been led to modify a prior art reference or to combine reference
teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973
(Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985). To this end, the requisite motivation must stem from some
teaching, suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or from the knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art and not from the appellant's disclosure.
See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d
1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).
Hiraki teaches securing a speaker grille to a cabinet by means of bolts. There is no
teaching in this patent that relates to a push-on, pull-off system of securement, and it
therefore fails to disclose or teach most of the elements of the claimed system. Figure 2 of
Appeal No. 1999-2371 Page 5
Application No. 08/909,834
Notoya discloses a fastener that can be categorized as a push-on, rotate-off system.
Push-on is accomplished by pressing the head of the fastener through an opening,
whereupon a pair of flared resilient wings 19 is cammed inwardly by first edges 23 of the
opening, which finally rest on oppositely inclined ramps 20. According to the reference,
removal is accomplished by engaging a slot in the front of the fastener head with a screw
driver and rotating the head at least forty-five degrees on flexible stem 18 in order to align
the wings with a wider portion of the opening, at edges 24 (column 6, line 5 et seq.).
There is no explicit teaching in Notoya of disengaging the fastener by pulling it. Nor does it
appear to us that it is capable of being removed in such a fashion, particularly in view of
the statement that the oppositely inclined ramps 20 “catch onto the small diameter portion
hole edges 23" (column 6, lines 18-20, emphasis added), and the fact that there is no way
to determine whether the angle of inclination of ramps 20 is such as to allow them to be
cammed inward by aperture edges 23 when pulled outward. From our perspective,
therefore, the examiner’s conclusion that the fastener can be disengaged by pulling is
merely speculation. Moreover, the claim requires that the dimensioning of the elements be
such as to require a lesser force for pushing on as for pulling off, and the reference
provides absolutely no teaching in this regard. Raymond, which was applied for its
showing of a tree-like structure to secure the fastener in an aperture in the cabinet, does
not alleviate the shortcomings with the other two references.
Appeal No. 1999-2371 Page 6
Application No. 08/909,834
For the reasons set forth above, the combined teachings of Hiraki, Notoya and
Raymond fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject
matter of independent claim 8, and we will not sustain the rejection. The same is true with
regard to independent claims 1, 7 and 14, which contain the same limitations, and
dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12 and 13.
Dependent claims 4 and 11 stand rejected on the basis of the references cited
against claim 1 et al., taken further in view of Nakamura, which is cited for its teaching of
sizing the body of the fastener so it provides a snug fit with the receptacle. Be this as it
may, Nakamura does not overcome the problems with the basic rejection pointed out
above. This rejection is not sustained.
Appeal No. 1999-2371 Page 7
Application No. 08/909,834
SUMMARY
Neither rejection is sustained.
The decision of the examiner is REVERSED.
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
JOHN P. McQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
NEA:lbg
Appeal No. 1999-2371 Page 8
Application No. 08/909,834
ZENITH ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
1000 MILWAUKEE AVENUE
GLENVIEW , IL 60025
APPEAL NO. 1999-2371 - JUDGE ABRAMS
APPLICATION NO. 08/909,834
APJ ABRAMS
APJ McQUADE
APJ FRANKFORT
DECISION: REVERSED
Prepared By:
DRAFT TYPED: 14 Jan 02
FINAL TYPED: