Ex Parte Romero

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 29, 2004

09732641 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 29, 2004)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte OSCAR ROMERO

Appeal No. 2004-0765
Application 09/732,641

ON BRIEF

Before GARRIS, WARREN, and POTEATE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the final
rejection of claims 1-14. On page 2 of the Answer, the examiner
states that “the rejection of claim 5 has been withdrawn.”
Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the appeal as to claim 5, thereby
leaving for our consideration only claims 1-4 and 6-14.
Appeal No. 2004-0765
Application 09/732,641
2
The subject matter on appeal relates to a two piece
faucet hub and handle assembly. With reference to the
appellant’s drawing, the assembly 10 comprises a hub 14 having a
bearing surface 68 and a threaded portion 56 (see figures 5
and 6) and a handle 12 having a plurality of fingers 38 for
engaging the bearing surface 68 for rotational movement of the
handle relative to the hub. This appealed subject matter is
adequately represented by independent claim 1, which reads as
follows:
1. A two piece faucet hub and handle assembly
comprising:
a hub having a bearing surface and a threaded portion;
and
a handle coupled to the hub and having a plurality of
fingers for engaging the bearing surface for rotational movement
of the handle relative to the hub.

The reference set forth below is relied upon by the
examiner in the § 102 rejection before us:
Mark 5,947,149 Sep. 7, 1999
Appeal No. 2004-0765
Application 09/732,641
1 As indicated on page 5 of the Brief, independent claims 1,
7, 12, 13 and 14 have been separately grouped and argued by the
appellant. We shall separately consider, therefore, each of
these independent claims. However, because they have not been
separately grouped and argued, the dependent claims on appeal
will stand or fall with their respective parent independent
claims. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2002).
3
Claims 1-4 and 6-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Mark.1
We refer to the Brief and to the Answer for a complete
exposition of the contrary viewpoints expressed by the appellant
and by the examiner concerning the above-noted rejection.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain the § 102
rejection advanced on this appeal.
We share the examiner’s finding that Mark discloses a
faucet hub and handle assembly which anticipates each of the
independent claims on appeal. In support of his opposing view,
the appellant argues that patentee’s assembly does not satisfy
the here claimed requirements that the assembly be “two piece”
and that the handle include a means for engaging the hub
Appeal No. 2004-0765
Application 09/732,641
4
including an integral means for axially retaining the handle on
the hub such as a plurality of fingers. The appellant’s
arguments are unpersuasive.
While we understand that Mark’s assembly includes a
number of individual components in excess of two, nevertheless
it is appropriate to consider patentee’s construction as a “two
piece” hub and handle assembly in accordance with the appealed
claims. This is because it is proper to regard one piece as
patentee’s hub 40 and the other piece as patentee’s handle
subassembly 36, 38, 52, 84 and 42 (which subassembly inter-
connects with the aforementioned hub 40). Concerning this handle
subassembly, we here emphasize that nothing in the appellant’s
appealed independent claims excludes an embodiment wherein the
here claimed handle comprises a subassembly of multiple
components. Further in this regard, the appellant is reminded
that, during examination proceedings, claims are to be given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification (In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000)) and that limitations from the specifica-
tion are not to be read into the claims (Comack Communications,
Appeal No. 2004-0765
Application 09/732,641
5
Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187, 48 USPQ2d 1001, 1005
(Fed. Cir. 1998)).
As for the appellant’s position that Mark’s handle does
not include the aforementioned means for engaging the hub such as
a plurality of fingers, we reiterate with approval the examiner’s
point that the snap ring 42 of patentee’s previously mentioned
handle subassembly includes a plurality of fingers or tangs 82
for engaging the hub in order to retain the handle thereon
pursuant to each of the independent claims before us. Contrary
to the appellant’s belief and analogous to our reasoning above,
nothing in these claims excludes an embodiment wherein the
recited engaging/retaining means or plurality of fingers
comprises a discrete component such as patentee’s snap ring 42.
With specific respect to the independent claim 7 requirement for
“a handle having integral means for axially retaining the handle
on the hub,” we consider, as did the examiner, the term
“integral” to be sufficiently broad as to embrace a construction
of constituent parts which have been unified as in Mark’s handle
subassembly. See In re Hotte, 475 F.2d 644, 647, 177 USPQ 326,
328 (CCPA 1973); In re Kohno, 391 F.2d 959, 960 n.4, 157 USPQ
Appeal No. 2004-0765
Application 09/732,641
6
275, 276 n.4 (CCPA 1968); In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 967-68,
144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); Henderson v. Grable, 339 F.2d 465,
470, 144 USPQ 91, 96 (CCPA 1964); and In re Clark, 214 F.2d 148,
150, 102 USPQ 241, 243 (CCPA 1954).
In light of the foregoing, we hereby sustain the
examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-14 as being
anticipated by Mark.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in con-
nection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHARLES F. WARREN ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LINDA R. POTEATE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
BRG:psb
Appeal No. 2004-0765
Application 09/732,641
7
Richard J. Veltman, Esq.
The Black & Decker Corporation
701 East Joppa Road TW 199
Towson, MD 21286