11351634 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 15, 2012)

Ex Parte Richter

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 15, 2012

11351634 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 15, 2012)

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. 11/351,634 02/10/2006 Harald Richter RI 206 4466 7590 03/15/2012 KLAUS J. BACH & ASSOCIATES PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS 4407 TWIN OAKS DRIVE MURRYSVILLE, PA 15668 EXAMINER SMITH, NKEISHA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3632 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/15/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte HARALD RICHTER ____________ Appeal 2010-006741 Application 11/351,634 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, GAY ANN SPAHN, and MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1-7. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2010-006741 Application 11/351,634 2 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Elliott (US 6,619,599 B2, issued Sep.16, 2003). Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Elliott. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Elliott and Carnahan (US 6,588,717 B2, issued Jul. 8, 2003). CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is the sole independent claim, is representative of the subject matter on appeal, and recites: 1. A support device supporting a coat hanger for use in a motor vehicle having seats with headrests supported by head rest support columns, said support device comprising a support sleeve (1) having an axis (1'), a two-part mounting structure (2) including divided, along a plane extending transverse to the axis (1') of the support sleeve (1), into a support part (21) connected to the support sleeve (1), and a mounting part (22) for receiving between the two parts (21, 22) a headrest support column, and parallel screws (5) extending through the support part (21) and the mounting part (22) for firmly engaging the mounting structure (2) with the head rest column disposed therebetween, the coat hanger having at least one rod end (31) with an end sleeve (3) mounted onto the at least one rod end (31) of the coat hanger for reception in the support sleeve (1). Appeal 2010-006741 Application 11/351,634 3 OPINION The Appellant argues against the rejection of claims 1 and 2 as anticipated by Elliott.1 App. Br. 3-5. The Appellant does not offer separate arguments for the rejections of claims 4 and 5 as anticipated by Elliott, claim 3 as unpatentable over Elliott, and claims 6 and 7 as unpatentable over Elliott and Carnahan, but merely relies on the dependency of claims 3-7 from independent claim 1. App. Br. 6. Elliott discloses a mounting adapter 200 having mating clamp members 44, 202, wherein clamp member 202 has a recess 204 that engages with a tubular member 26 for hanging medical equipment. See Figs. 10A, 10B; col.1, ll. 21-26, col. 12, ll. 8-18; see also col 2, ll. 13-17. Additionally, clamp members are firmly clamped together via threaded bolts through threaded passageways 50, 52 (col. 7, ll. 6-14), and tubular member 26 supports pole extension 28 and member 30 (col. 6, ll. 18-21). The Examiner finds by a preponderance of the evidence that: Elliott teaches a support device (Figs 10A, 10B) supporting a coat hanger (30, Fig. 1) comprising a support sleeve (204) having an axis, a two part mounting structure (200), included divided, along a plane extending transverse to an axis of the support sleeve, into a support part (202) connected to the support sleeve and a mounting part (44), and parallel screws (bolts, col. 7, line 8) extending through the support part and the mounting part (through passageways 50, 52), the coat hanger having at least one rod end (end of member 28) 1 The Examiner correctly indicates that the Appellant’s argument against a rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Elliott is not relevant because such a rejection was not made by the Examiner. Ans. 9; see also App. Br. 3, 5. Appeal 2010-006741 Application 11/351,634 4 with an end sleeve (26) mounted onto the at least one rod end of the coat hanger. Ans. 3. Thus, the Examiner’s findings establish a reasonable basis that Elliott is capable of performing the claimed function of “firmly engaging the mounting structure with the headrest column disposed therebetween,” to shift the burden to Appellants to show that Elliott is not capable of performing the claimed function. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Appellant contends that the function of the mounting part of claim 1 is “for firmly engaging the mounting structure (2) with the head rest column disposed therebetween”, and this function determines the engagement requirements of the mounting part including the orientations of the connecting structures. App. Br. 4-5. The Appellant points out that the claimed firm engagement is to prevent the mounting structure from becoming loose due to vehicle vibrations. App. Br. 4. However, claim 1 does not recite that the motor vehicle vibrates, that the motor or the vehicle is operating, or that the vehicle is in motion. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification concerning “firmly engaging” does not require vehicle vibrations as implied by the Appellant. The Appellant also points out that Elliott’s support post 26 extends vertically from a mounting adapter and is held into position by gravity, which is different than an essentially horizontally received support sleeve and extending car coat hanger. See App. Br. 4, Reply Br. 2. However, the Examiner determines a head rest column can be placed through bore 48, formed by “firmly clamped” clamp members 44, 202, to securely anchor the mounting adapter 200. See Ans. 8, col. 7, ll. 2-5. Additionally, Elliott Appeal 2010-006741 Application 11/351,634 5 discloses that a locking mechanism can be added to or retained by first clamp member 202 to secure the lower end 32 of tubular member 26 to clamp member 202. Col. 12, ll. 19, 20, 30-34; see Ans. 4, 8. As such, the Appellant’s contention does not explain why Elliott’s clamp member 44 is not capable of performing the claimed function attributed to the “mounting part” of claim 1. The Appellant also contends that medical equipment and motor vehicle accessories are involved in completely different technical areas that are not related, i.e., are different fields of endeavor. See App. Br. 4, Reply Br. 2. This argument is not persuasive because “a reference may be from an entirely different field of endeavor than that of the claimed invention or may be directed to an entirely different problem from the one addressed by the inventor, yet the reference will still anticipate if it explicitly or inherently discloses each and every limitation recited in the claims.” State Contracting & Eng'g Corp. v. Condotte Am., Inc., 346 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citations omitted); see Ans. 6-7. As far as the Appellant’s contention that Elliott’s “end sleeve 28 is not received in the ‘insertion member 54’, but extends around it” (App. Br. 5), the Examiner does not rely on Elliott’s insertion member 54 to teach the claimed invention, but identifies tubular member 26 as the “end sleeve” recited in claims 1 and 2 (Ans. 8-9). Thus the rejection of claims 1 and 2 as anticipated by Elliott is sustained. Additionally, for the reasons provided above, the rejections of claims 4 and 5 as anticipated by Elliott, claim 3 as unpatentable over Elliott, and claims 6 and 7 as unpatentable over Elliott and Carnahan are sustained. Appeal 2010-006741 Application 11/351,634 6 DECISION We affirm the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Elliott, claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Elliott, and claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Elliott and Carnahan. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Klh