Ex Parte Ritchey

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2017

12728759 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 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.
12/728,759 03/22/2010 Thomas W. Ritchey 346464-991162 5945
26379 7590 06/02/2017
DLA PIPER LLP (US )
2000 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
EAST PALO ALTO, CA 94303-2248
EXAMINER
MCPARTLIN, SARAH BURNHAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2017 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):
PatentDocketingU S -Palo Alto @ dlapiper. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS W. RITCHEY
Appeal 2015-007768
Application 12/728,759
Technology Center 3600
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-007768
Application 12/728,759
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant Thomas W. Ritchey1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action mailed
February 25, 2014 (“Final Act.”), rejecting claims 1—8. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
THE CFAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a seat attachment device. Claim 1, the only
independent claim, is reproduced below:
1. An outer clamp for a seat attachment device, comprising:
a curved channel region having a curved inner surface into
which a seat rail may be positioned;
a bore, located underneath the channel region, through
which a securing mechanism may be passed; and
an interface surface sloping towards a post, located only
below the bore, that may be pressed against the post in order to
secure the outer clamp to the post.
REFERENCES
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
Kao US 5,295,727 Mar. 22, 1994
Voss US 5,988,741 Nov. 23, 1999
McColligan US 7,131,350 B2 Nov. 7, 2006
Shook US 7,318,623 B2 Jan. 15, 2008
Lin US 2006/0006707 A1 Jan. 12, 2006
1 Appellant identifies Ritchey Designs as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief (“Br.”), 1.
2
Appeal 2015-007768
Application 12/728,759
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 1—3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Lin.
2. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lin and Shook.
3. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lin and Kao.
4. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lin and McColligan.
5. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lin, Voss, and McColligan.
Appellant seeks our review of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
The Rejection of Claims 1—3 and 5 as Anticipated By Lin
Claim 1
In response to the Examiner’s rejection that Lin discloses all of the
limitations of independent claim 1, Appellant argues that “each claim
element of claim 1 is not found in Lin.” Br. 5. According to Appellant,
Claim 1 recites “a curved channel region having a curved inner
surface into which a seat rail may be positioned” and “an
interface surface sloping towards a post, located only below the
bore, that may be pressed against the post in order to secure the
outer clamp to the post” that are not found, expressly or
inherently, in Lin for two reasons. Lirst, as shown in Lin, the
element that corresponds to the channel region is not the claimed
curved channel region having a curved inner surface. Second,
3
Appeal 2015-007768
Application 12/728,759
the element corresponding to the claimed interface surface (the
jointing surface) in Lin does not slope towards the post.
Br. 5.
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner made detailed
findings and annotated Figures 2 and 4 of Lin illustrating the two disputed
limitations. The Examiner’s annotated Figure 2 of Lin is reproduced below:
£08
/
FIG. 2
Ans. 4. Figure 2 is an exploded view of Lin’s seat and seat post assembly.
Lin 113. Referring to annotated Figure 2 above, the Examiner finds that:
Elements (30)(30) constitute the claimed outer clamp.
Upper portions of each of the clamp elements (30) cooperate to
form the claimed curved channel region. The semi-circle shaped
surfaces, located at an inside of each of the clamp elements (30)
and labeled in the above Figure 2, constitute curved inner
surfaces. The Examiner therefore maintains that Lin clearly
discloses “a curved channel region having a curved inner
surface.” Furthermore, seat rail (110) is positioned within the
curved channel region and between the curved inner surfaces.
Ans. 4—5.
4
Appeal 2015-007768
Application 12/728,759
The Examiner’s annotated Figure 4 of Lin is reproduced below:
interface surface
"X.
shoulder region
HI 4
Ans. 5. Figure 4 is an assembly cross-sectional view of Lin’s bicycle seat
and seat post assembly. Lin 114. Referring to annotated Figure 4, the
Examiner states that:
The Examiner has labeled the surface which she equates
to the claimed “interface surface.” Using the lower left end of
the surface as a point of reference, the interface surface slopes
upward and toward the post (20). Further, the interface surface
is located only below the bore (32) and may be pressed against
the post (20) in order to secure the outer clamp to the post. The
Examiner maintains that Lin discloses an element equivalent to
the claim interface surface.
Ans. 6.
Appellant does not address the Examiner’s findings, and, thus, does
not identify error by the Examiner. The rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
5
Appeal 2015-007768
Application 12/728,759
Claim 2
Because Appellant does not address the rejection of claim 2, the
rejection is summarily sustained.
Claims 3 and 5
Appellant argues that claims 3 and 5 are “not anticipated by Lin for
the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1 above.” Br. 5. As discussed
above, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
Appellant also argues that “the ‘interface surface further comprises a
shoulder region at a bottom end of the interface surface’ is not found in Lin
and the anticipation rejection of claim 5 should be withdrawn for this
additional reason.” Br. 5. Appellant’s argument that these dependent claims
recite additional elements that support patentability is not persuasive. See
In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (37 C.F.R. § 41.37
requires “more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art.”). Appellant does not identify any
patentable distinctions for claims 3 and 5, and fails to apprise us of error in
the Examiner’s findings or reasoning. The rejection of claims 3 and 5 is
sustained.
The Rejection of Claim 4
as Being Unpatentable Over Lin and Shook
Appellant argues that:
the combination of Lin and Shook do not disclose or suggest each
claim element of this claim.
6
Appeal 2015-007768
Application 12/728,759
Since claim 1 is not anticipated by Lin, claim 4, which
depends from claim 1, is not obvious over Lin and Shook for at
least the same reasons since Shook does not solve the disclosure
defects of Lin noted above.
Br. 5. As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Appellant does not
identify any deficiencies in Lin and the rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
Because Appellant does not identify any error in the Examiner’s findings,
the rejection of claim 4 is sustained.
The Rejection of Claim 6
as Being Unpatentable Over Lin and Kao
Appellant argues that:
the combination of Lin and Kao do not disclose or suggest each
claim element of this claim.
First, since claim 1 is not anticipated by Lin, claim 6,
which depends from claim 1, is not obvious over Lin and Kao for
at least the same reasons since Kao does not solve the disclosure
defects of Lin noted above.
Br. 6. As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Appellant does not
identify any deficiencies in Lin and the rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
Appellant also argues that:
Second, it is admitted that Lin does not disclose this claim
element.2
Third, . . . Claim 6 requires “wherein the shoulder region
further comprise one of a knurled surface and a set of teeth”
wherein the claimed shoulder region is an element of the
interface surface which in turn is an element of the outer clamp.
Therefore, Kao does not disclose this claim element. As a result,
the combination of Lin and Kao, alone or in combination, do not
disclose or suggest the claim element of claim 6 and the
2 Appellant’s argument about “this claim element” does not reference
any claim element and, thus, is unclear and unpersuasive.
7
Appeal 2015-007768
Application 12/728,759
obviousness rejection should be withdrawn for this additional
reason.
Br. 6. In response, the Examiner responds that:
Kao shows an outer clamp element (4) with an inner surface
which engages a seat post portion (21). The entire inner surface
of the clamp element (4) below rail groove (41) is covered with
ribs (42) thereby creating a knurled surface. The Examiner
contends that it would have been obvious to add the ribbed
surface features taught by Kao to the vertical shoulder portion of
the outer clamp elements (30) disclosed by Lin since such a
modification helps create a “sliding proof’ (Kao, column 2,
line 5) interface.
Ans. 6—7. Appellant does not address the Examiner’s findings and
reasoning, and, thus, does not identify any error in the Examiner’s findings.
The rejection of claim 6 is sustained.
The Rejection of Claim 7
as Being Unpatentable Over Lin and McColligan
Appellant argues that:
the combination of Lin and McColligan do not disclose or
suggest each claim element of this claim.
First, since claim 1 is not anticipated by Lin, claim 7,
which depends from claim 1, is not obvious over Lin and
McColligan for at least the same reasons since McColligan does
not solve the disclosure defects of Lin noted above.
Br. 6. As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Appellant does not
identify any deficiencies in Lin and the rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
8
Appeal 2015-007768
Application 12/728,759
Appellant also argues that:
Second, it is admitted that Lin does not disclose this claim
element.3
Third, McColligan discloses a bicycle stem that may have
aluminum bolt clamps as disclosed at col. 4, lines 12-17 of
McColligan. However, the bicycle stem (and the bolt clamps)
are not the claimed outer clamp of the seat attachment device.
As a result, the combination of Lin and McColligan, alone or in
combination, do not disclose or suggest the claim element of
claim 7 and the obviousness rejection should be withdrawn for
this additional reason.
Br. 6. In response, the Examiner responds that:
McColligan expressly discloses “a two bolt aluminum clamp of
EA 70 material configured as shown in FIGS. 1-5” (column 4,
lines 16-17). McColligan disclosed of an aluminum clamp
structure, not necessarily aluminum bolts or aluminum stem.
The Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to use
the aluminum material taught by McColligan to form the clamp
members disclosed by Lin since such material proves to be
strong, as indicated by a failure test described by McColligan in
column 4, lines 23-26.
Ans. 7. Appellant does not address the Examiner’s findings and reasoning,
and, thus, does not identify any error in the Examiner’s findings. The
rejection of claim 7 is sustained.
The Rejection of Claim 8
as Being Unpatentable Over Lin, Voss, and McColligan
Appellant argues that:
the combination of Lin, McColligan and Shook do not disclose
or suggest each claim element of this claim.
3 Appellant’s argument about “this claim element” does not reference
any claim element and, thus, is unclear and unpersuasive.
9
Appeal 2015-007768
Application 12/728,759
Since claim 1 is not anticipated by Lin, claim 8, which
depends from claim 1, is not obvious over Lin, McColligan and
Shook for at least the same reasons since McColligan and Shook
do not solve the disclosure defects of Lin noted above.
Br. 7.4 As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Appellant does not
identify any deficiencies in Lin and the rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
Because Appellant does not identify any error in the Examiner’s findings,
the rejection of claim 8 is sustained.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—8 are
AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
4 We note that the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Lin,
Foss, and McColligan for this rejection. See Final Act. 5.
10