11250699 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 27, 2010)

Ex Parte Vendetti

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 27, 2010

11250699 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 27, 2010)

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. 11/250,699 09/20/2005 Vincent J. Vendetti 96052 5064 23501 7590 07/27/2010 NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER OFFICE OF COUNSEL CODE C7 17632 DAHLGREN ROAD SUITE 158 DAHLGREN, VA 22448-5110 EXAMINER KENNEDY, JOSHUA T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3679 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/27/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte VINCENT J. VENDETTI ____________ Appeal 2009-007656 Application 11/250,699 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before: LINDA E. HORNER, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.52, begins to run from the "MAIL DATE" (paper delivery mode) or the "NOTIFICATION DATE" (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-007656 Application 11/250,699 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Vincent J. Vendetti (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 (2002) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15 as unpatentable over McDougal (US 4,438,911, issued Mar. 27, 1984) and Kelley (US Pub. 2003/0205903 A1, published Nov. 6, 2003). We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6 (2002). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed invention. 1. An alignment and locking system, comprising: a male portion dovetailed in at least one dimension thereof, said male portion having partial female threads formed in a surface thereof; a housing having a female dovetailed notch formed therein for slidingly receiving said male portion wherein a wedge fit is formed therebetween when said notch is nearly fully engaged by said male portion; a screw assembly coupled to said housing, said screw assembly including a rotatable rod having a threaded region that partially extends into said notch, said threaded region including a partially threaded portion and a fully threaded portion with said partially threaded portion being encountered by said male portion before said fully threaded portion as said male portion is slid into said notch, said partially threaded portion defined by (i) a first region that cannot engage said partial female threads of said male portion as said male portion slides in said notch, and (ii) a second region that can engage said partial female threads of said male portion as said male portion slides in said notch, said second region and said fully threaded portion being defined by screw threads for corresponding engagement with said partial female threads; and means for biasing rotational movement of said rod to align said first region of said partially threaded portion with said notch when said male portion is not engaged in said notch. Appeal 2009-007656 Application 11/250,699 3 SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. OPINION Contentions The Examiner rejected independent claims 1, 7, and 13 as unpatentable over McDougal's hydraulic vice and the rotational biasing means described in the window latch of Kelley. In relevant part, the Examiner found that McDougal describes each element of the independent claims, including a rod (shaft 35) having a "partially threaded portion and a fully threaded portion." Ans. 3-4. Appellant argues that McDougal's shaft 35 does not have a "fully threaded portion" because the shaft is "partially-threaded along its entire extent." Reply Br. 3; see also Appeal Br. 12, 15; Reply Br. 2-4. Issue Whether McDougal describes a rod having a "partially threaded portion and a fully threaded portion" as recited in claims 1, 7, and 13. Analysis Claims 1, 7, and 13 require a rod having a "partially threaded portion and a fully threaded portion." Both Appellant and the Examiner agree that McDougal teaches a rod (shaft 35) having threads (38) on the top but not on the bottom (flat portion 37),2 and that McDougal describes a rod with a "partially threaded portion." See, e.g., Ans. 5; Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 3; see also McDougal, figs. 4, 5. However, the Examiner identifies the shaft 2 The threads 38 and flat 37 are on worm gear locking member 34 mounted on shaft 35. McDougal, col. 3, ll. 19-33. Appeal 2009-007656 Application 11/250,699 4 35 as having a "fully threaded portion" on the top half of the shaft, and a "partially threaded portion" on the bottom half of the shaft (see, e.g., Ans. 5, 11), whereas Appellant identifies the shaft 35 as without a "fully threaded portion" because no portion (i.e., length) of the shaft has threads forming a helical spiral (i.e., extending all the way around the circumference) (see, e.g., Reply Br. 3, "McDougal[] â€¦ [is] partially-threaded along its entire extent" and "[fully threaded] for male threads denotes angularly continuous to form either a helical spiral or â€¦ rings along a longitudinal direction"). Thus, the meaning of a "fully threaded portion" is determinative. When claim terminology is construed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, reading claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant's Specification states that "[p]artially threaded portion 48A is threaded just like fully threaded portion 48B except that partially threaded portion 48A includes a section 48C that is defined by reduced thread depth/height or a flat [sic] (as shown)." Spec. 6:2-5 (emphasis added). These numbered labels directly correlate to the figures, wherein "portion 48A" depicts a certain length of the rod. See figs. 1, 3A. Thus, read in light of the Specification, a "fully threaded portion" is a portion of the rod having threads extending uninterrupted about its entire circumference, while a "partially threaded portion" is a portion having interruptions in the threads (i.e., reduced height/depth or flat). In this light, McDougal's shaft 35 does not have a "fully threaded portion" because McDougal does not have a portion of the shaft having threads extending uninterrupted about its entire Appeal 2009-007656 Application 11/250,699 5 circumference. Instead, as pointed out by Appellant, McDougal describes a shaft with threads interrupted along its entire length. Conclusion We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that McDougal's shaft 35 has a "fully threaded portion." The Examiner relies on this finding in rejecting each independent claim. See Ans. 3-4, 6-7, 9. The Examiner does not make any finding with respect to Kelley regarding a "fully threaded portion" or articulate any reason why it would have been obvious to modify McDougal to overcome the above deficiency. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision regarding claims 1-15. REVERSED hh NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER OFFICE OF COUNSEL CODE C7 17632 DAHLGREN ROAD SUITE 158 DAHLGREN, VA 22448-5110