13621586 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2017)

Ex Parte Stelter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 8, 2017

13621586 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 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. 13/621,586 09/17/2012 Michael Stelter 015005-9595-US01 2262 114586 7590 11/13/2017 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP (Bemis) 100 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 3300 Milwaukee, WI 53202 EXAMINER DEERY, ERIN LEAH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3754 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/13/2017 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): mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL STELTER, BRIAN LE MAHIEU, and JOHN SEAMAN Appeal 2016-005476 Application 13/621,586 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Michael Stelter et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1—21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2016-005476 Application 13/621,586 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a toilet seat hinge. Spec. 11. Claims 1, 13, and 21 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A toilet seat hinge for mounting a toilet seat to a toilet bowl, the toilet seat hinge comprising: a hinge post; a pin extending through the hinge post and defining an axis, the pin configured to attach the toilet seat to the hinge post for pivotal movement about the axis; and a quick release mechanism for releasably securing the hinge post to the toilet bowl, the quick release mechanism including a mounting post configured to extend from the toilet bowl, a first member coupled to the hinge post, the first member engageable with the mounting post to secure the hinge post to the toilet bowl, and a second member mounted on the pin for pivotal movement relative to the first member and relative to the hinge post about the axis, the second member pivotable about the axis between a first position in which the second member engages the first member so that the hinge post is secured to the toilet bowl, and a second position in which the second member is spaced apart from the first member so that the hinge post is released from the toilet bowl. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on REFERENCES appeal is: Baillie Twomey Zhou US 4,326,307 Apr. 27, 1982 US 6,826,803 B2 Dec. 7, 2004 US 2009/0000017 A1 Jan. 1, 2009 2 Appeal 2016-005476 Application 13/621,586 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1—5 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Twomey and Baillie. II. Claims 1—21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Twomey, Zhou, and Baillie. DISCUSSION Rejection I The Examiner finds that Twomey and Baillie disclose or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. See Final Act. 2—3. In particular, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to “provide [] a ring to couple the second member [(i.e., bolt cover 11)] of Twomey to the pin in order to make a securer connection between the first member [(i.e., base portion 1)] and second member.” Id. at 3. Appellants contend that the proposed modification would not result in the invention as claimed. See Appeal Br. 8. In support of this contention, Appellants note that in Twomey the second member (i.e., bolt cover 11) does not rotate “relative to the hinge post about the same axis as the toilet seat/cover.” Id. at 9. In other words, the bolt cover pivots at one side of the base and the toilet seat pivots at the hinge post on the opposite side. Appellants are correct. Assuming that it would be obvious to modify Twomey by replacing its living hinge with a ring as taught by Baillie, such modification would not result in “a second member mounted on the pin for pivotal movement relative to the first member and relative to the hinge post about the axis” as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). Rather, this 3 Appeal 2016-005476 Application 13/621,586 modification would merely result in Twomey’s bolt cover 11 being pivotally attached to Twomey’s first member (identified by the Examiner as corresponding to the portion of Twomey’s base portion 1 labeled “first member” in the annotated copy of Twomey’s Figure 3 provided on page 3 of the Final Action) by a ring. Although, the rejection as articulated by the Examiner contemplates coupling Twomey’s bolt cover 11 to Twomey’s pin 29 (see Ans. 3—4), the Examiner provides no reasoning in support of this additional modification. Thus, the Examiner fails to set forth a prima facie case obviousness. For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1 and claims 2—5 which depend therefrom as unpatentable over Twomey and Baillie. Claim 21 also requires “a second member mounted on the pin for pivotal movement relative to the first member and relative to the hinge post about the axis.” Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 21 for the same reason. Rejection II Claims 1—12 and 21 Rejection II differs from Rejection I in that it relies on Zhou, rather than Twomey to meet the limitations pertaining to the first and second members recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 5. However, like Rejection I, Rejection II relies upon Baillie’s teaching of a quick release mechanism. See id. at 6. Rejection II suffers from the same deficiencies as Rejection I because it also does not address the limitation requiring “a second member mounted on the pin for pivotal movement relative to the first member and relative to the hinge post about the axis” as set forth in claims 1 and 21. 4 Appeal 2016-005476 Application 13/621,586 Accordingly, for the reasons discussed supra, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 21. Claims 2—12 depend from claim 1, and thus, suffer from the same deficiency. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2—12 for the same reason. Claims 13—20 Although claim 13 does not recite the same language as claims 1 and 21, claim 13 requires a cap member that pivots about the same axis as the toilet seat. See Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). The Examiner admits that Twomey fails to disclose this limitation. See Final Act. 5. For the reasons discussed supra, neither Zhou not Baillie cure this deficiency in Twomey. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 13, and claims 14—20 which depend therefrom. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—21 are REVERSED. REVERSED 5