11634449 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2013)

Ex Parte Reyes

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 2013

11634449 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex Parte ROBERT A. REYES II ____________ Appeal 2011-008860 Application 11/634,449 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before EDWARD A. BROWN, LYNNE H. BROWNE and CARL M. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-008860 Application 11/634,449 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-18 and 20. App. Br. 1. Claims 2, 7 and 19 have been canceled. Id. at 11, 12 and 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter relates to “rolling doors, including sectional overhead, carriage house type doors and others having single or multiple panels usually with light passing glass inserts, typically arranged to tilt or articulate across their widths so as to roll e.g. on wheel and track systems to and from a storage location overhead.” Spec. 1, para. [0002], ll. 10-13. Claims 1, 6, 13 and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 1. A large opening door having multiple horizontally and vertically distributed insulative glass panes supported by a plurality of vertical disposed and horizontally disposed heat transmitting metal frame members arranged in vertical and horizontal regions respectively between adjacent glass panes, said vertical frame members defining an enclosed volume containing an insulator band, said horizontal frame members having opposed edge volumes in the closed condition of the door, and insulator bands within said opposed edge volumes cooperating in the closed condition of the door in insulation defining relation in said horizontal regions, whereby said door, in its said panes, said vertical frame members, and said horizontal frame members, is fully insulated against heat transmission therethrough, whereby the insulator band in the vertical frame member and the insulator bands only within the opposed edge volumes of the horizontal frame members fill the entire enclosed volume and opposed edge volumes and are an insulation material made of a solid, porous, layered, uniform, or Appeal 2011-008860 Application 11/634,449 3 particulate mass of mineral, plastic or cellulosic materials, webs, or fibers. Claims App’x (emphasis added). THE REJECTION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks review of the final rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wentzel (US 4,567,931, iss. Feb. 4, 1986) and Gordon (US 4,463,540, iss. Aug. 7, 1984).1 ANALYSIS Independent claims 1, 6 and 13 recite a large-opening door having “insulative glass panes” supported by “a plurality of vertically disposed and horizontally disposed heat transmitting metal frame members.” Independent claim 20, directed to a method of insulatively closing a large opening, recites essentially identical features. All of the independent claims require that the horizontal metal frame members have: (1) “opposed edge volumes” (claim 1) or “opposed and recessed edge faces” (claims 6, 13, 20), and (2) “insulator bands” (claims 1, 6, 13) or “insulator structures” (claim 20) only within the opposing edge volumes or opposed recessed edge faces. Importantly, the independent claims all require that the insulator band/structure “fill the entire” opposed edge volumes/faces (claims 1, 6) or the “entire area” of the opposed recessed edge faces (claims 13, 20) of the horizontal frame members. In rejecting the claims, the Examiner found that Wentzel teaches an overhead door comprising insulative glass panes supported by vertical and horizontal frame members. Ans. 4. According to the Examiner, Wentzel’s 1 The Examiner originally rejected these claims based on Wentzel, Gordon and a third reference, but subsequently withdrew that rejection in place of the current rejection based only on Wentzel and Gordon. See Ans. 3. Appeal 2011-008860 Application 11/634,449 4 horizontal frame members have opposed edge volumes and “insulator bands (94, 76; Fig. 6) only within said opposed volumes cooperating in closed condition to insulate against heat transmission.” Id. at 4-5. Looking to Figure 6 of Wentzel, the Examiner further found that the “insulator bands fill[] the entire enclosed volume of the opposed edge volumes” of the horizontal frame members. Id. at 5. We disagree with the Examiner’s finding with respect to Wentzel’s insulator bands “filling the entire enclosed volume” of the opposed edge volumes of Wentzel’s horizontal frame members. As Appellant notes, “[i]t can be clearly seen in Fig. 6 that seals 94 and 76 do not fill the entire horizontal edge volumes as the majority of the edge volume contains no insulation in the void space.” Reply Br. 2; see also App. Br. 9. In arguing that the enclosed edge volumes are “in fact, completely filled by the insulator bands,” the Examiner noted that Appellant is “not claiming edge volumes that are fully or completely enclosed.” Ans. 11. While the Examiner may be correct that the claim language does not require that the edge volumes be entirely enclosed, the Examiner nevertheless overlooked the claim language requiring that the insulator band fill the entirety of the edge volume that is defined and claimed. “[A]ll words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.” In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). Here, the sealing strips 76, 94 do not occupy the entire volume within the U-shaped channels defined by Wentzel’s opposing horizontal members. See Wentzel, fig. 6. Rather, Wentzel’s sealing strips are, in reality, “beading” strips that are threaded into a T-shaped groove and occupy only a portion of the volume of the U-shaped channels. See id. fig. Appeal 2011-008860 Application 11/634,449 5 6, and col. 4, ll. 17-28. Because Wentzel’s beading strips do not satisfy the claim limitation requiring that the insulator bands “fill the entire volume” of the opposing edges, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Each of the other independent claims 6, 13 and 20 recites language that similarly requires that the insulation material fill the entire volume/area of the opposed recessed edges of the horizontal member.2 As such, we likewise cannot sustain the rejections of claims 6, 13 and 20. The Examiner also relied upon the tertiary reference of Gordon in rejecting the claims at issue. Ans. 5. The Examiner did not rely on Gordon for teaching any aspect of the claimed horizontal members, but rather relied on Gordon for teaching aspects of the claimed vertical frame members. Id. None of the reasons discussed by the Examiner with respect to Gordon overcome the aforementioned deficiencies with the Examiner’s reliance on Wentzel. As such, the rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-18 and 20 cannot be sustained. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-6, 8-18 and 20. REVERSED mls 2 Claim 6 recites “said insulation defining relation of . . . the insulator bands is by filling the entire enclosed volume . . . [of] the recessed edge faces of the horizontal frame members”; claim 13 recites “male and female plastic foam insulator structures . . . that fill[] and engage[] an entire area one of said opposed recessed edge faces”; and claim 20 recites “preformed, self- supporting and cooperating male and female insulator bands that interfit only within an entire area of said recessed edge faces in the closed condition of the door in insulation defining relation in said horizontal regions.”