Ex Parte Splittgerber

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2013

11713357 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013)

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.
11/713,357 03/01/2007 Ute Splittgerber 1717
7590 02/27/2013
UTE SPLITTGERBER
13409 Bonnie Dale Drive
North Potomac, MD 20878
EXAMINER
KIM, SHIN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3611
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2013 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 UTE SPLITTGERBER
____________________

Appeal 2011-003874
Application 11/713,357
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
RICHARD E. RICE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-003874
Application 11/713,357

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-20, and 22-26. App. Br. 5. Claims
3, 4, 9, 21, 27, and 28 have been canceled. Id. An oral hearing was
conducted on February 11, 2013. We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A display system comprising:
(a) a base having a rear surface and an opposing
support surface and at least one side panel
protruding in an angle from said support surface;
(b) an object-holding assembly including:
(i) a cover plate;
(ii) a resting plate having a support surface
and an opposing rear surface; and
(iii) at least one holding device for
releasably attaching said cover plate to said resting
plate; and
(c) a fastener for releasably attaching said
object-holding assembly to said base, said fastener
comprising at least two magnetic fasteners
substantially spaced from each other,
each of said magnetic fasteners including an
attachment piece attached to said base and a
counter-attachment piece attached to said object-
holding assembly, wherein each attachment piece
and each counter-attachment piece comprises a
Appeal 2011-003874
Application 11/713,357

3
member independently selected from magnets and
ferromagnetic materials, wherein said attachment
pieces and said counter-attachment pieces
releasably engage through magnetic force when
said object-holding assembly is attached to said
base,
wherein the display system comprises at least one
gap between said object-holding assembly and said
at least one side panel, said gap sufficient for a
user to insert one or more finger between said
resting plate and said support surface of said base
in order to pull said object-holding assembly away
from said base thereby disengaging said
attachment pieces and said counter-attachment
pieces.

THE REJECTION
Appellant requests review of the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-20,
and 22-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Vampatella (US
5,269,083; iss. Dec. 14, 1993) and Wang (US 5,012,600; iss. May 7, 1991).

ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites "a fastener for releasably attaching said object-holding
assembly to said base, said fastener comprising at least two magnetic
fasteners substantially spaced from each other." Emphasis added.
Regarding this limitation, the Examiner found Vampatella discloses an
object holding assembly 100, and a fastener 13 and a counter attachment
piece 40 that is a magnetic fastener attached to the object holding assembly.
Ans. 4 (citing Vampatella, figs. 1, 3). The Examiner found that the
combination of Vampatella and Wang does not disclose at least two
attachment pieces and at least two counter attachment pieces, but the
Examiner stated that "a mere duplication of parts would provide any number
Appeal 2011-003874
Application 11/713,357

4
of desired attachment pieces and counter attachment pieces[]" and "[s]uch a
modification would provide a better/stronger means to secure the display to
the base." Ans. 5.
Claim 1 also recites:
at least one gap between said object-holding
assembly and said at least one side panel, said gap
sufficient for a user to insert one or more finger
between said resting plate and said support
surface of said base in order to pull said object-
holding assembly away from said base thereby
disengaging said attachment pieces and said
counter-attachment pieces.
Emphasis added. Regarding these limitations, the Examiner found that the
combination of Vampatella and Wang teaches a display system comprising
at least one gap between the object holding assembly and at least one side
panel ("top and bottom regions between [elements] 23 and 100," citing
Vampatella, Figure 3), but that the combination does not disclose that this
gap is sufficient for a user to insert one or more fingers. Ans. 5. The
Examiner concluded that this "dimensional modification" is common and
well known in the art, and that it would have been obvious to provide a
picture 100 that is smaller than the object holding region (citing Vampatella,
Figure 3), or an object holding region that is bigger than picture 100, so as to
provide a spacing between the object holding assembly and display. Id. The
Examiner reasoned that such modification would provide a means of
removing the display with ease. Id.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner failed to articulate an
adequate reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
modify the apparatus of Vampatella such that the fastener for releasably
attaching the object-holding assembly to the base comprises at least two
Appeal 2011-003874
Application 11/713,357

5
magnetic fasteners that are substantially spaced from each other, and also
such that the gap between the object-holding assembly and the side panel is
sufficient for a user to insert one or more fingers between the resting plate
and the support surface of the base to pull the object-holding assembly away
from the base to disengage the attachment and counter-attachment pieces, as
called for in claim 1. See App. Br. 15. "[R]ejections on obviousness
grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there
must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness." See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citation omitted).
Vampatella discloses a picture frame apparatus comprising
compartments 12 formed by sidewalls 23 and divider panels 30, 31, with
each compartment 12 having a magnetically attractive element 13. See
Vampatella, col. 2, ll. 14-18, 38-44; fig. 1. Vampatella also discloses that
each magnetically attractive element 13 comprises a metal plate 40 centrally
disposed within each compartment 12, where the metal plates 40 form a
magnetically attractive surface to which respective magnets 103 on the back
of subframes 100 adhere. See Vampatella, col. 2, ll. 45-51; fig. 3.
Vampatella discloses that one edge of subframe 100 may be depressed to
pivot the magnet 103 away from the opposite edge of the metal plate 40 to
remove the subframe 100 from one of the compartments 12. See
Vampatella, col. 2, ll. 52-61; fig. 3. Vampatella also discloses that "the
metal plate (40) acts as a moveable fulcrum depending upon which edge of
the subframe (100) is depressed towards the back panel (21) of the
mainframe (20) to effect the removal of the subframe (100)." See
Vampatella, col. 2, ll. 62-66; fig. 3 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2011-003874
Application 11/713,357

6
Accordingly, Vampatella's apparatus is constructed for a user to
remove the subframe 100 from the corresponding compartment 12 by
depressing an edge of the subframe 100 (at a location on the front face of
frame 101), and thus avoids the need to insert a finger between the subframe
100 and the front surface of back panel 21. See also, Vampatella, fig. 3. As
such, the Examiner did not articulate an adequate reason to modify
Vampatella's apparatus by making its pertinent gap sufficient for a user to
insert a finger between the subframe 100 and the front surface of back panel
21, as a user does not need to utilize such gap to remove the subframe 100.
See App. Br. 25-29; Reply Br. 25-29.
In addition, as noted supra, Vampatella discloses that the metal plate
40 provided in each compartment 12 is centrally located and acts as a
fulcrum to effect removal of the subframe 100 by pivoting the edge of the
subframe 100 that is depressed by a user toward the front face of frame 101.
As this pivoting motion is provided with a single, centrally-located magnetic
fastener in each compartment 12, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner
did not articulate an adequate reason to modify Vampatella's apparatus by
providing at least one additional magnetic fastener in a compartment 12,
such that the additional magnet is substantially spaced from the existing
magnetic fastener. See App. Br. 18-25; Reply Br. 18-25.
The Examiner relied on Wang for disclosure regarding the claimed "at
least one holding device." As such, the Examiner's application of Wang
does not remedy the deficiencies of the Examiner's reliance on Vampatella.
Ans. 4.
In view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or its
dependent claims 2, 5-8, 10-20, and 22-26.
Appeal 2011-003874
Application 11/713,357

7

DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-20, and 22-26
is reversed.

REVERSED

mls