Ex Parte RejcDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 6, 201110523631 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 6, 2011) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation