Ex Parte Wegner

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 19, 2012

11355734 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HARALD WEGNER
____________

Appeal 2010-007298
Application 11/355,734
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
JOHN W. MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Harald Wegner (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 20-28, 30-40, and 42-44. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1-19, 29, and 41 are canceled.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2010-007298
Application 11/355,734

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a wire-winding device for
earphones “wherein the wire-winding unit is designed such that the earphone
wire can be replaced with the wire-winding body pretensioned or biased.”
Spec. 3, ll. 3-9. Claims 20 and 36, reproduced below, are representative of
the subject matter on appeal.
20. A wire-winding device for earphones, especially for
a hands-free kit for a mobile phone, said wire-winding device
comprising:
a wire-winding unit, which comprises a pretensioned rotary
cylindrical wire-winding body for winding up an earphone wire of
the earphones, said rotary cylindrical wire-winding body being
pretensioned in a direction of rotation in which the earphone wire
is to be wound onto the wire-winding body;
a housing for accommodating the wire-winding unit with the
pretensioned rotary cylindrical wire-winding body and the
earphone wire wound on the cylindrical wire-winding body; and
a locking mechanism for releasably locking said rotary
cylindrical wire-winding body to prevent rotation of the wire-
winding body in the wire-winding unit;
wherein said wire-winding body has a wire clamping area for
releasably clamping a section of said earphone wire, and
wherein said wire-winding unit together with the pretensioned
rotary cylindrical wire-winding body is accommodated in the
housing so that said wire-winding unit together with the
pretensioned rotary cylindrical wire-winding body can be radially
displaced and completely taken out of said housing;
whereby access to said wire clamping area is provided so that
the earphone wire can be replaced in a completely unwound rotary
position of the wire-winding body in which the wire-winding body
is locked by said locking mechanism.
Appeal 2010-007298
Application 11/355,734

3
36. A wire-winding device for earphones, especially for
a hands-free kit for a mobile phone, said wire-winding device
comprising:
a wire-winding unit, which comprises a pretensioned rotary
cylindrical wire-winding body for winding up an earphone wire of
the earphones, said rotary cylindrical wire-winding body being
pretensioned in a direction of rotation in which the earphone wire
is to be wound onto the wire-winding body;
a housing for accommodating the wire-winding unit with the
pretensioned rotary cylindrical wire-winding body and the
earphone wire wound on the cylindrical wire-winding body; and
a locking mechanism for releasably locking said rotary
cylindrical wire-winding body to prevent rotation of the wire-
winding body in the wire-winding unit;
wherein said wire-winding body has a wire clamping area for
releasably clamping a section of said earphone wire, and
wherein said housing comprises at least one of a removable
cover and adjustable housing sections connected with each other,
so that said housing can be opened to provide access to said wire
clamping area and the earphone wire can be replaced in a
completely unwound rotary position of the wire-winding body in
which the wire-winding body is locked by said locking
mechanism.
THE REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
1. The Examiner rejected claims 36-40 and 42-44 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 20-26, 30, 32-37, 39, and 42 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Rozon (US 5,354,011; iss. Oct.
11, 1994).
Appeal 2010-007298
Application 11/355,734

4
3. The Examiner rejected claims 27, 28, 31, 40, 43, and 44 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rozon and Chang (US
6,871,812 B1; iss. Mar. 29, 2005).
ISSUES
The issues presented by this appeal are:
Would one skilled in the art understand what is claimed when claim
36 is read in light of the Specification?
Does Rozon disclose a wire-winding device having a wire-winding
unit together with a pretensioned rotary cylindrical wire-winding body
accommodated in the housing so that they can be “radially displaced and
completely taken out of said housing” as called for in independent claim 20?
Does Rozon disclose a wire-winding device having a “wire clamping
area” and “at least one of a removable cover and adjustable housing sections
connected with each other” as called for in independent claim 36?
Does Rozon disclose a torsion spring having one end “actively
connected to a base of the wire-winding unit and the other end being actively
connected with the rotary cylindrical wire-winding body” as called for in
dependent claim 42?
ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 36-40 and 42-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph
The Examiner found that the claim language “at least one of a
removable cover and adjustable housing sections connected with each other”
as recited in independent claim 36 is not clear because the phrases “at least
Appeal 2010-007298
Application 11/355,734

5
one” and “connected with each other” are incompatible expressions. Ans. 3,
7. We disagree with the Examiner’s reading of the claim language. A
modifying phrase attaches to its closest referent. Thus, the claim phrase
“connected with each other” modifies the phrase “adjustable housing
sections” adjacent to it in the claim. As such, the plain language used in the
claim is properly interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation to
mean that the housing comprises (1) a removable cover and/or (2) adjustable
housing sections connected with each other. We find that one skilled in the
art would understand what is claimed by the plain language of the claim.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 36-40 and 42-44
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Rejection of claims 20-26, 30, 32-37, 39, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Independent Claim 20
The Examiner found that Rozon’s wire-winding device anticipates
claim 20 because Rozon’s spool assembly 20 is capable of being “radially
displaced and completely taken out of said housing” as called for in claim 20
as follows:
Removing inner and outer covers 11, 12, and moving the spool
assembly axially by slowly prying spring 40 together with spool
assembly outwardly in the axial direction while carefully holding
spring 40 in a pretensioned state, and once the spring 40 is off
spindle 31, the spool assembly and pretensioned spring can be
moved further in any directions, including in a radial direction as
recited in claim 20.
Ans. 8. The Examiner’s application of Rozon to claim 20 implies an
interpretation of the phrase “radially displaced” that is unreasonably broad.
Appeal 2010-007298
Application 11/355,734

6
Claim 20 recites that “said wire-winding unit together with the pretensioned
rotary cylindrical wire-winding body is accommodated in the housing so that
said wire-winding unit together with the pretensioned rotary cylindrical
wire-winding body can be radially displaced and completely taken out of
said housing.” Thus, the claim calls for the pretensioned rotary cylindrical
wire-winding body to be accommodated in the housing so that the body can
be radially displaced. As noted by Appellant, Rozon’s spool assembly 20 is
attached to the spindle 31 within the housing 10. Maintaining tension on the
spool of Rozen as the spool is removed from the spindle appears to be
impossible without use of some undisclosed means for accomplishing the
task. Thus, the spool assembly 20 is not accommodated in the housing so
that it can be radially displaced, as called for in claim 20. Br. 20. As such,
we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 20, or its dependent claims 21-26,
30, and 32-35, as anticipated by Rozon.
Independent Claim 36
Appellant argues that Rozon does not anticipate claim 36 because
“Rozon does not disclose or suggest that their equivalent of the wire-
winding unit (the spool assembly) is accommodated in a housing, which
comprises adjustable housing parts that are connected with each other so that
the housing can be simply and easily opened to provide access to the wire
clamping area[.]” Br. 23. This argument is not persuasive because, as noted
by the Examiner (Ans. 9) and as argued by Appellant in response to the
indefiniteness rejection (Br. 13), the broadest reasonable interpretation of “at
least one of” in claim 36 encompasses a housing comprising only a
Appeal 2010-007298
Application 11/355,734

7
removable cover. We agree with the Examiner’s uncontested finding that
Rozon discloses a housing 10 having a removable cover 11, 12. Ans. 4, 9.
Appellant further argues that Rozon does not anticipate claim 36
because “Rozon does not disclose a ‘wire-winding body with a wire
clamping area for releasably clamping a section of the earphone wire[.]’”
Br. 23. The preamble of claim 36 does not recite the wire-winding device
and earphone wires in combination. Rather, the plain language of the
preamble suggests claim 36 is directed to a wire-winding device, and the
intended use of that device is for winding earphone wires. The body of the
claim further recites that the wire-winding body has a wire clamping area
“for releasably clamping a section of said earphone wire.” We interpret the
language of claim 36 calling for “a wire clamping area for releasably
clamping a section of said earphone wire” as merely requiring an area within
the wire-winding body capable of releasably clamping a section of an
earphone wire. Ans. 10 (“‘a wire clamping area’ is readable as an area that
can be used for clamping a wire.”)
Based on this claim interpretation, we agree with the Examiner’s
determination that Rozon discloses the claimed wire clamping area. The
Examiner found that the area in Rozon’s spool assembly 20 between post 30
and the adjacent curved wall that has slot 35 is capable of releasably
clamping a wire having a thickness that is greater than this gap. Ans. 10.
Appellant’s wire clamping area 26 is similarly formed by a gap between an
arch-shaped curved side wall 24 and a circumferential side wall 25 of
cylinder 20. Spec. 7, ll. 15-16; fig. 1. We find no structural difference
Appeal 2010-007298
Application 11/355,734

8
between the wire clamping area called for in claim 36 and the gap formed in
Rozon’s spool assembly 20. As such, we agree with the Examiner’s
determination that Rozon anticipates independent claim 36. Appellant
presented no further arguments for dependent claims 37 and 39. These
dependent claims fall with independent claim 36. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Dependent Claim 42
Claim 42 depends from claim 36 and recites that the wire-winding
unit comprises a torsion spring having one end “actively connected to a base
of the wire-winding unit and the other end being actively connected with the
rotary cylindrical wire-winding body.” Appellant argues that Rozon does
not anticipate dependent claim 42 because the two ends of Rozon’s torsion
spring are not both connected to parts of the wire-winding unit. Br. 24-25.
The Examiner found that Rozon’s housing body 10 is the claimed “housing
for accommodating the wire-winding unit” and Rozon’s spool assembly 20
and rim 23 comprise the claimed “rotary cylindrical wire-winding body.”
Ans. 4.
Rozon discloses that an inner end of coil drive spring 40 is engaged
within a groove 33 recessed into the free end of the spindle 31, and the outer
end is engaged by a slot 42 extending through the rim 23 of spool assembly
20. Rozon, col. 3, l. 65 - col. 4, l. 2; fig. 2. Since spindle 31 extends
laterally from the rear wall of the housing body 10 (Rozon, col. 3, ll. 31-32;
fig. 2), one end of spring 40 is actively connected to the housing body 10.
As such, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Rozon discloses “one
Appeal 2010-007298
Application 11/355,734

9
end of said spring being actively connected to a base of the wire-winding
unit and the other end being actively connected with the rotary cylindrical
wire-winding body” as called for in claim 42. Rozon’s housing body 10
cannot be both the claimed “housing” and the claimed “base of the wire-
winding unit.” As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 42 as
anticipated by Rozon.
Rejection of claims 27, 28, 31, 40, 43, and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 27, 28, and 31
The Examiner does not rely on Chang to disclose a wire-winding unit
together with the pretensioned rotary cylindrical wire-winding body that is
accommodated in a housing so that said wire-winding unit together with the
pretensioned rotary cylindrical wire-winding body can be radially displaced
and completely taken out of said housing, as called for in claim 20. As such,
the combination of Rozon and Chang does not result in the subject matter of
claims 27, 28, and 31, which depend from claim 20. Accordingly, we
cannot sustain the rejection of claims 27, 28, and 31 as being unpatentable
over Rozon and Chang.
Claim 40
Appellant does not appear to dispute the Examiner’s findings as to the
relevant scope and content of Chang or the Examiner’s proposed
combination of Chang and Rozon. Rather, Appellant argues that Chang
does not make up for the asserted deficiencies in Rozon. Br. 29-30. Finding
no deficiency in Rozon as it pertains to anticipation of claim 36, we sustain
the rejection of dependent claim 40.
Appeal 2010-007298
Application 11/355,734

10
Claims 43 and 44
Claims 43 and 44 depend from dependent claim 42. The Examiner
does not rely on Chang to disclose a torsion spring attached on both ends to
the wire-winding unit, as called for in claim 42. As such, the combination of
Rozon and Chang does not result in the subject matter of claims 43 and 44,
which depend from claim 42. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection
of claims 43 and 44 as being unpatentable over Rozon and Chang.
CONCLUSIONS
One skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when claim
36 is read in light of the Specification.
Rozon does not disclose a wire-winding device having a wire-winding
unit together with a pretensioned rotary cylindrical wire-winding body
accommodated in the housing so that they can be “radially displaced and
completely taken out of said housing” as called for in independent claim 20.
Rozon discloses a wire-winding device having a “wire clamping area”
and “at least one of a removable over and adjustable housing sections
connected with each other” as called for in independent claim 36.
Rozon does not disclose a torsion spring having one end “actively
connected to a base of the wire-winding unit and the other end being actively
connected with the rotary cylindrical wire-winding body” as called for in
dependent claim 42.
Appeal 2010-007298
Application 11/355,734

11
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 36, 37, 39,
and 40. We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 20-28,
30-35, 38, and 42-44.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

mls