Ex Parte Rejc

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 6, 2011

10523631 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 6, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte PETRA REJC
____________________

Appeal 2009-011184
Application 10/523,631
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, KEN B. BARRETT, and
FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-011184
Application 10/523,631

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petra Rejc (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). Appellant’s counsel presented oral argument on May 10, 2011.
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to fast-moving industrial
gate having a flexible hanging (Spec. 1: para. [0002] and Spec. [0013]1).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. Industrial gate with a gate body covering a gateway and
having on either side a strap hinge with a multiplicity of hinge
members that are interconnected such that they may be oriented
at a relative angle, which are guided by rollers in lateral guides
guiding said gate body free of contact,
wherein said gate body includes a multiplicity of
stiffening profile members and a flexible hanging,
wherein each stiffening profile member extends
transversely to the lateral guides across said gate body and
connects two respective associated hinge members, and
wherein said flexible hanging substantially covers a full
surface of one side of said gate body while extending across
stiffening profile members and being affixed at each stiffening
profile member.

1 All references in this Decision to Appellant’s Specification are to the
Substitute Specification filed March 6, 2006.
Appeal 2009-011184
Application 10/523,631

3
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections by the Examiner are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-4, 8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Rejc (US 5,394,924, issued Mar. 7, 1995).
2. Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rejc in view of Aquilina (US 6,363,993 B1, issued
Apr. 2, 2002).

ISSUE
The issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Rejc
describes a flexible hanging that extends across the stiffening profile
members, as called for in independent claim 1 (App. Br. 10) 2.

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1-4, 8 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Rejc
Claim 1 calls for, inter alia, a multiplicity of stiffening profile
members and a flexible hanging, wherein the flexible hanging extends across
the stiffening profile members.
The Examiner found that Rejc describes “a multiplicity of stiffening
profile members 14, and a flexible hanging 38, 40, . . . wherein said flexible
hanging [38, 40] substantially covers a full surface of one side of said gate
body while extending across stiffening profile members [14] and being
affixed at each stiffening profile member [14]” (Ans. 3) (emphasis bolded).
The Examiner found that in Rejc, (1) the “flexible hanging [is] viewed
as the plurality of panels 38 or 40, which can be considered a flexible

2 All references in this Decision to the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) are to the
Appeal Brief filed November 18, 2008.
Appeal 2009-011184
Application 10/523,631

4
hanging when being operated, as best seen in Figures [sic., Figure] 1” (Ans.
7) (emphasis bolded), and (2) “section 14, is a distinct central section” (id.)
(emphasis bolded).
Appellant contends that Rejc does not describe a flexible hanging that
extends across the stiffening profile members, as called for in independent
claim 1 since Rejc’s elements 38, 40 are part of the slats 14, and thus, they
are not themselves a further flexible hanging affixed to the slats 14 (App. Br.
10).
Rejc describes a closure element 12 for an aperture 1 having a
plurality of slats 14 (col. 4, ll. 36-41). Rejc (1) describes elements 38, 40 as
outer main surfaces of the closure element 12 (col. 5, ll. 26-27), and (2)
shows in Figure 2 that the elements 38, 40 are the outer main surfaces of the
slats 14, which is part of the closure element 12.
We find that in Rejc, the numeral 14 denotes the whole slat, not just
the central section of the slat, as found by the Examiner (Rejc, passim).
We find that in Rejc, since the elements found to constitute the
flexible hanging (the plurality of outer main surfaces) 38, 40 are part of the
elements found to be the stiffening profile members (slats) 14; they are not a
separate element that extends across the stiffening profile members (slats)
14, as called for in independent claim 1.
Thus, we reverse the rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent
claims 2-4, 8 and 10-12.

Appeal 2009-011184
Application 10/523,631

5
Rejection of claims 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rejc and Aquilina
The Examiner has not relied on Aquilina for any teaching that would
remedy the deficiency in Rejc as to independent claim 1, from which claims
5-7 depend (Ans. 5-7).
Thus, for the same reasons set forth supra regarding independent
claim 1, we reverse the rejection of dependent claims 5-7.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner has erred in finding that Rejc describes a flexible
hanging that extends across the stiffening profile members, as called for in
independent claim 1.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-8 and 10-12 is
reversed.

REVERSED

mls