Ex Parte Richardson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2017

13394725 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 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.
13/394,725 04/17/2012 Robert Richardson 519-001.002-3/08914787US 4142
4955 7590 12/01/2017
WARE, FRESSOLA, MAGUIRE & BARBER LLP
BRADFORD GREEN, BUILDING 5
755 MAIN STREET
MONROE, CT 06468
EXAMINER
DUNWOODY, AARON M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
mail @ warefressola. com
uspatents @ warefressola. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
+NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT RICHARDSON
Appeal 2017-001510
Application 13/394,7251
Technology Center 3600
Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Robert Richardson (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner’s decision in the Final Action (dated Feb. 23, 2016, hereinafter
“Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1—13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (hereinafter “Appeal Br.”), filed
May 31, 2016, Mercedes Textiles, Ltd. is the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-001510
Application 13/394,725
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to high-visibility locking levers for fire
hose couplings. Spec. para. 5.
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 10 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter and reads as follows:
1. A fire hose coupling for improved visibility comprising:
a substantially annular body having a first end connected
to a fire hose and a second end for connecting to another
coupling; and
at least one locking lever movable between an unlocked
position and a locked position, the lever locking the annular body
of the coupling to the other coupling, wherein the at least one
locking lever comprises a light-reflecting surface to improve
visibility of the at least one lever relative to the body,
wherein the at least one locking lever points in a direction
to turn the coupling to connect the coupling to the other coupling.
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. Claims 1—11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Terzini (US 5,301,985, issued Apr. 12, 1994), Nelson et
al. (US 6,519,901 Bl, issued Feb. 18, 2003, hereinafter “Nelson”), and
Schipani et al. (US 6,672,792 Bl, issued Jan. 6, 2004, hereinafter
“Schipani”).
II. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Terzini, Schipani, Nelson, Kozey (US 6,102,444, issued Aug. 15,
2000), and DeMoss et al. (US 5,251,940, issued Oct. 12, 1993, hereinafter
“DeMoss”).
2
Appeal 2017-001510
Application 13/394,725
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Independent claims 1 and 6 require, inter alia, a locking lever having
“a light-reflective surface.”2 Appeal Br. 19-20 (Claims App.). Similarly,
independent claims 8 and 10 require “high-visibility” locking levers. Id. at
20-21.
The Examiner finds that Terzini discloses most of the limitations of
independent claim 1, including a locking lever 50, but does not disclose that
locking lever 50 has a light-reflecting surface. Final Act. 2. Nonetheless,
the Examiner finds that “Schipani illustrates the state of the art of applying
reflective elements on members,” and states that “[o]ne having ordinary skill
in the art would know and understand the application of reflective elements
to more easily determine objects in a dark area.” Id. at 3. The Examiner
further finds that Nelson discloses various light-reflecting materials “to alter
the detectability of the surface.” Id. (citing Nelson, col. 11,11. 1—37). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to provide Terzini’s
“locking lever [50] with a light-reflecting surface [as taught by Schipani]. . .
to alter the detectability of the surface, as taught by Nelson.” Id.
Appellant argues that because Nelson relates to a reflective sheath for
an exposed structure, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not just take
the reflective paint of the sheath and apply it to one specific component on a
fire hose coupling, as the Examiner proposes. See Appeal Br. 11—12.
According to Appellant, because “Nelson does not provide any suggestion of
2 Appellant’s Specification describes “[t]his light reflecting surface [as]
mak[ing] the lever more visible in conditions of poor visibility (e.g. at night
or in a dark or smoke-filled environment).” Spec. para. 5.
3
Appeal 2017-001510
Application 13/394,725
highlighting a specific component of a device, particularly a locking lever of
a fire hose coupling, to aid a user in operating that component of the device
in low visibility conditions.” Id. at 12. Appellant further argues that
because Schipani uses a reflective element to determine whether a device is
properly fastened, when modifying Terzini’s locking lever, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would “place the reflective elements inside the levers
so that they are visible when the levers are not properly locked down but
become invisible when the levers are properly locked down,” which is “the
opposite of the claimed invention.” Id. at 14.
The Examiner responds that Appellant’s arguments regarding the
disclosures of Nelson and Schipani are not persuasive because “one cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references.” Examiner’s Answer 5
(dated Sept. 6, 2016, hereinafter “Ans.”) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413
(CCPA 1981).
Appellant replies that although Nelson and Schipani disclose
reflective elements, nonetheless, “neither reference uses reflective elements
. . . [for] increasing the visibility of a locking lever of a fire hose coupling, or
any object, that a person needs to locate and grasp in a low-visibility
environment.” Reply Brief 4 (dated Nov. 7, 2016, hereinafter “Reply Br.”).
According to Appellant, the Examiner has merely identified individual
elements in the prior art and then used impermissible hindsight to combine
these elements. Id.
We agree with Appellant for the following reasons. Nelson’s
invention relates to “the protection of exposed structures,” such as “cables,
poles, and pipes,” by employing a sleeve-like sheath that encompasses the
4
Appeal 2017-001510
Application 13/394,725
exposed structure, wherein the sheath includes “phosphorescent, fluorescent,
or reflective paints” components that alter the detectability of the exposed
structure, i.e., a cable. Nelson, col. 1,11. 12—17, col. 11,11. 16—23.
Schipani’s disclosure relates to positioning reflectors 420, 422, 424 at
various positions on elements 102, 108 of connecting assembly 100 for
providing visual confirmation that fastener 102 is properly engaged. See
Schipani, col. 6,11. 48—61, Fig. 4A.
As such, although Nelson discloses components for altering the
detectability of a structure, nonetheless, we agree with Appellant that Nelson
relates to highlighting (increasing the visibility) of an entire structure, and
the Examiner does not adequately explain why a person of ordinary skill in
the art would apply a reflective coating only to a specific element of
Terzini’s coupling in general, and specifically would choose locking lever
50 as that element. See Appeal Br. 12.
Similarly, even though the disclosure of Schipani relates to reflectors
on elements of connecting assembly 100 for “improving visibility of an
article in a dark area,” as the Examiner asserts, (see Ans. 6), the Examiner
does not adequately explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would
improve the visibility of Terzini’s locking lever 50, specifically, rather than
other elements of Terzini’s couplings 22, 24, to indicate whether the
couplings are properly connected.
Schipani discloses that “safety markings 420, 422, 424 are . . . visible
when the fastener 102 is in the disengagement position, but are obscured
(see FIG. 4B) when the fastener 102 is in the engagement position” so as to
“provid[e] a visual cue of unsafe conditions.” Schipani, col. 6,11. 54—61; see
also Final Act. 3. Thus, in view of Schipani’s teachings, we agree with
5
Appeal 2017-001510
Application 13/394,725
Appellant that a person skilled in the art, when modifying Terzini, would
place elements, having Nelson’s reflective components, at a position where
they are visible when coupling 22, 24 is not properly connected, but become
invisible when coupling 22, 24 is properly connected. See Appeal Br. 14.
For example, elements having Nelson’s reflective components would be
placed on Terzini’s outer face 36 or on cam locks 34 so that a person skilled
in the art would be able to determine whether left and right couplings 22, 24
are properly connected. See Schipani, col. 7,11. 9—12; Terzini, Fig. 1. As
Terzini’s locking lever 50 is always visible regardless of whether left and
right couplings 22, 24 are properly connected, because it is positioned on the
exterior of coupling 24, the same person of ordinary skill in the art, in light
of Schipani’s teachings, would not be encouraged to place Schipani’s
reflective elements on Terzini’s locking lever 50, as in the Examiner’s
rejection.
In conclusion, the Examiner’s reasoning to provide Terzini’s lever 50
with a light-reflecting surface having Nelson’s reflective components, as
taught by Schipani, namely, “to alter the detectability of the surface,” lacks
rational underpinnings because the Examiner fails to provide persuasive
technical reasoning or evidence that would lead a person of ordinary skill in
the art to provide the reflective coating having Nelson’s components solely
on Terzini’s lever 50. Without an articulated reasoning based on rational
underpinnings for modifying the disclosure of Terzini with the teachings of
Nelson and Schipani, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s rejection
is the result of improper hindsight analysis. See Reply Br. 4; see also In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
6
Appeal 2017-001510
Application 13/394,725
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 1—11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Terzini, Schipani, and Nelson.3
Rejection II
The Examiner’s use of the disclosures of Kozey and DeMoss does not
remedy the deficiency of the Examiner’s combination of the teachings of
Terzini, Schipani, and Nelson discussed supra. See Final Act. 5—6.
Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, we also do not
sustain the rejection of claim 12 over the combined teachings of Terzini,
Schipani, Nelson, Kozey, and DeMoss.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
3 Because we have determined that the Examiner failed to articulate an
adequate reasoning with rational underpinnings to support the combination
of the teachings of Terzini, Schipani, and Nelson in the manner claimed, we
do not need to reach the merits of the evidence presented in the “Declaration
of Denys Prevost under 37 C.F.R. 1.132” dated June 5, 2014, and filed in the
instant application on June 12, 2014. See Appeal Br. 14; see also Reply Br.
5.
7