Ex Parte Weston

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2018

13828569 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/828,569 03/14/2013
59582 7590 04/30/2018
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
2600 WEST BIG BEA VER ROAD
SUITE 300
TROY, MI 48084-3312
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Frederick T. Weston
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.
55623-1 7050
EXAMINER
WANG, MICHAEL H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3647
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/30/2018 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 FREDERICK T. WESTON
Appeal2017-006209
Application 13/828,569
Technology Center 3600
Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 12-14 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Rochette (US 6,886,498 Bl, iss. May 3, 2005), Maier (US 4,508,371, iss.
Apr. 2, 1985), Lorentz (3,965,866, iss. June 29, 1976), and Anderson
(US 7,040,255 Bl, iss. May 9, 2006). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2017-006209
Application 13/828,569
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to restraint systems for dogs. Spec. ,r 1.
Claim 12, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
A dog leash and run system comprising:
a main line comprising a wire or rope member;
a detachable housing member positioned on said main line,
said housing member comprising two snap-together portions;
a pulley member for positioning on said main line and
moveable therealong;
said pulley member positioned inside said housing member;
a first detachable fastening member attached to said pulley
member;
a pair of aligned openings in said housing member for
positioning of said main line through said housing member;
a third opening in said housing member substantially
orthogonal to said pair of aligned openings, said third opening
being vertically below said pair of aligned openings;
said first detachable fastening member attached to said
pulley member through said third opening;
a retractable leash mechanism detachably secured to said
first detachable fastener member;
said retractable leash mechanism comprising a leash
member with a second detachable fastener member at the distal
end thereof; and
at least one stop member, said stop member adapted for
selective attachment to said main line in order to limit
movement of said pulley member;
wherein said housing member fully encompasses said
pulley member except for said pair of aligned openings for said
main line and said third opening, and protects said pulley
member from environmental conditions.
OPINION
Appellant argues claims 12-14 as a group. Appeal Br. 3--4. We
select claim 12 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
2
Appeal2017-006209
Application 13/828,569
The Examiner finds that Rochette discloses the invention substantially
as claimed except for: (1) a detachable housing member; (2) a retractable
leash mechanism; and (3) a stop member that limits movement of a pulley
member. Final Action 2--4. The Examiner relies on Maier as disclosing a
detachable housing member. Id. at 3. The Examiner relies on Lorentz as
disclosing a retractable leash mechanism. Id. at 4. The Examiner relies on
Anderson as disclosing a stop member. Id. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention to modify Rochette with the teachings of Maier, Lorentz,
and Anderson to achieve the claimed invention. Id. According to the
Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to: (1)
protect the pulleys; (2) to keep the dog from tripping; and (3) to keep the
pulley from hitting attachments for the main line. Id.
Appellant traverses the Examiner's rejection by arguing that the
individual references differ from the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 3. In
particular, Appellant argues that: (1) Rochette has a fixed-length leash;
(2) Lorentz has a motorized and continuously driven belt member; and
(3) Anderson has anchor members at the two ends of the main line. Id.
According to Appellant, all of references are "related to significantly
different systems." Id. In response, the Examiner points out, correctly, that
nonobviousness cannot be shown by attacking references individually where
the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.
Ans. 2 (citing In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981)).
The obviousness statute expressly contemplates that there may be
differences between the prior art and the claimed invention. See 35 U.S.C.
3
Appeal2017-006209
Application 13/828,569
§ 103(a). Rochette is directed to an animal leash and running device that
exhibits a runner (or pulley member) mounted on an elongated flexible
member. Rochette, col. 1, 11. 33-39; col. 2, 11. 43---66. Maier is directed to
an easy access housing for a pulley. Maier, col. 1, 11. 4--9, col. 2, 11. 33-52.
Lorentz is directed to an overhead animal exercising device that features a
retractable cord connected to an animal's leash. Lorentz, Abstract. 1
Anderson is directed to a pet restraint system that features a trolley with a
pet leash attachment that slides along a cable until inhibited by trolley
stops 123. Anderson, col. 3, 11. 46-57. While there may be a few minor
differences between the prior art and the claimed invention, we do not share
Appellant's view that these references involve "significantly different
systems."
Appellant argues that the references are not combinable for purposes
of an obviousness analysis. Appeal Br. 3. Appellant then argues that the
claimed invention provides a "unique, beneficial, easy to install and use
synergistic system" for allowing a dog to run freely. Id. In response, the
Examiner observes, correctly, that Appellant's arguments about being
"beneficial," and "easy to install," etc. fail to point out, with any specificity,
how the claims patentably distinguish over the prior art. Ans. 2-3. The
Examiner reminds us that the rejection is based on findings that the proposed
combination of references teaches all of the claim limitations of the
invention. Id. at 3. Appellant fails to rebut such findings with either
1 Contrary to Appellant's position, we do not view Lorentz's teaching of a
retractable cord as being inseparable from Lorentz's teaching of motorized
drive mechanism. Id. Fig. 1 & 2.
4
Appeal2017-006209
Application 13/828,569
evidence or persuasive technical reasoning. See generally, Appeal Br.,
Reply Br.
Finally, Appellant accuses the Examiner of engaging in impermissible
hindsight reasoning, alleging that the Examiner has taken "isolated pieces
from four references and thrown them all together asserting various
obviousness opinions." Appeal Br. 4. We disagree. An assertion of
hindsight is of no moment where the Examiner provides a sufficient, non-
hindsight reason to combine the references. See In re Cree, 818 F.3d 694,
702, n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, the Examiner has furnished sufficient
articulated reasoning, based on rational underpinnings, to support the
proposed combination. Final Action 3--4; see KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (requiring that an obviousness rejection be based
on articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings).
In conclusion, Appellant's invention is a simple mechanical device
that combines familiar elements such as a pulley, a housing, a cable with
stops, and a retractable leash to achieve a predictable result. However, it is
well settled that the combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. That is certainly the case here.
We sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of claims 12-14.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 12-14 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5