Ex Parte Sabrowski

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 1, 2016

12082827 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/082,827 04/15/2008
25889 7590 03/01/2016
COLLARD & ROE, P,C
1077 NORTHERN BOULEVARD
ROSLYN, NY 11576
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Uwe Sabrowski
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
SABROWSKI - 1 9710
EXAMINER
0 BRIEN, JEFFREY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3677
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte UWE SABROWSKI
Appeal2013-007538
Application 12/082,827
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JILL D. HILL, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's Final rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-8. App. Br. 2. Claim 4 has
been cancelled. See Amendment in Response to Final Office Action mailed
Sept. 29, 2011. Appellant provided oral argument on February 23, 2016.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
AppealNo.2013-007538
Application No. 12/082,827
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter "relates to a door hinge having a first
hinge plate that is connected with a second hinge plate." Spec. 1. 1 Claim 1
is the sole independent claim; is illustrative of the claims on appeal; and, is
reproduced below:
1. A door hinge comprising:
a first hinge plate;
a second hinge plate that is connected with the first hinge
plate;
a hinge accommodation element in which said second
hinge plate is adjustably disposed, so as to pivot, with a pin, on
a hinge roll, said hinge accommodation element being formed
from a front part and a rear part that are connected by a
connection screw;
wherein the second hinge plate is guided in the hinge
accommodation element so as to move in a vertical direction,
and has projections on its end facing away from the hinge roll,
said projections being guided in vertical slits on a bent section
of the rear part;
\'I/herein the second hinge plate can be tilted in a
horizontal direction, relative to the hinge accommodation
element, with an adjustment screw, said adjustment screw
having an outside thread and being held in a corresponding
threaded bore of the second hinge plate with said outside
thread; and
wherein the second hinge plate is clamped in place
between the front part and the rear part of the accommodation
element by the adjustment screw, so that the second hinge plate
cannot be displaced in the vertical direction, after the
connection screw has been tightened.
REFERENCE RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Lueffe US 2007 /0028420 Al Feb. 8,2007
1 Appellant's Specification does not provide line or paragraph numbering.
Accordingly, reference will only be made to the page number.
2
AppealNo.2013-007538
Application No. 12/082,827
THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Lueffe.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 includes the limitation "wherein the second hinge plate is
guided ... so as to move in a vertical direction." The Examiner correlates
the claimed "second hinge plate" to items 3 6 and 7 of Lueffe. Final Act 2,
6; Ans. 9. Regarding vertical movement of the second hinge plate, Lueffe
relies on oblong holes 38 in plate 36 through which screws 10 pass. Lueffe
i-f 39; Figures 4, 5. Screws 10 initially pass through a beveled hole in plate 7
(Lueffe figures 4, 5), then through oblong holes 38 in plate 36, before being
tightened in plate 8 (Lueffe i-f 39). Accordingly, plate 36 is moved vertically
via oblong holes 38 with respect to plate 7. See Lueffe Figures 4, 5.
Because only Lueffe's plate 36 is vertically adjusted, we agree with
Appellant's contention that "the clamping plate (7) is not vertically
displaceable." App. Br. 12; see also App. Br. 8, Reply Br. 4.
"It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found
only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim." In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We are further instructed that
disclosures in a reference relied on to prove anticipation must be so clear and
explicit that those skilled in the art will have no difficulty in ascertaining
their meaning. In re Turlay, 304 F.2d 893, 899 (CCPA 1962). Additionally,
"[a] claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference." Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
3
AppealNo.2013-007538
Application No. 12/082,827
In the matter before us, the Examiner has correlated both plates 3 6
and 7 to the claimed "second hinge plate." Final Act. 2; Ans. 9. There is no
indication that one skilled in the art, upon reading Lueffe, would have
difficulty in ascertaining that only plate 36 moves vertically, not also plate 7.
Hence, because claim 1 requires the "second hinge plate" to move vertically,
yet only Lueffe's corresponding component 36 actually does so, we are not
persuaded that Lueffe discloses each and every element (whether expressly
or inherently) as required. We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1,
and also dependent claims 2, 3, and 5-8, as being anticipated by Lueffe.
Because we reverse the Examiner's anticipation rejection, we need not
address Appellant's additional arguments to the effect that the claim terms
"connected" and "clamped" (when referring to the front and rear parts of the
hinge accommodation element), preclude an indirect connection or an
indirect clamping between these components when these claim terms are
broadly construed in light of Appellant's Specification. App. Br. 9-10,
13-15; Reply Br. 3-5; In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-8 as being anticipated
by Lueffe is reversed.
REVERSED
4