Ex parte Zehrung

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 10, 2001

09151003 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 10, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte RAYMOND E. ZEHRUNG
____________
Appeal No. 2001-0207
Application No. 09/151,003
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before COHEN, McQUADE, and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
McQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Raymond E. Zehrung appeals from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 12, all of the claims pending in the
application.
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to “an emergency exit device for
unlocking a door for an emergency using either a push bar or a
Appeal No. 2001-0207
Application No. 09/151,003
2
remotely actuated solenoid” (specification, page 1).
Representative claims 1 and 7 read as follows:
1. An emergency exit device having a mounting side for
attachment on a door and an opposed emergency use side,
comprising:
a star wheel door latch for alternatively locking or
unlocking said door;
a sliding catch formed in a single member having a lock
position engaged directly to the star wheel door latch for
locking said door and a free position disengaged from the star
wheel door latch for unlocking said door;
a solenoid having a plunger engaged directly to the
sliding catch for sliding the sliding catch to said free
position in response to electrical power; and
a push bar linkage operable from said emergency use side
and coupled to the sliding catch for sliding the sliding catch
to said free position in response to an inward pushing force.
7. A method for alternatively locking or unlocking a
door in an emergency exit device having an emergency use side,
comprising steps of;
providing a sliding catch formed in a single member, said
sliding catch having a lock position and a free position;
engaging a first end of said sliding catch in said lock
position directly to a star wheel door latch, said star wheel
door latch for locking said door when engaged by said first
end;
coupling a push bar linkage to said sliding catch for
sliding said sliding catch from said locked position to said
free position for disengaging said first end from said star
wheel door latch in response to an inward pushing force of
Appeal No. 2001-0207
Application No. 09/151,003
3
said push bar linkage, said star wheel door latch for
unlocking said door when disengaged from said first end;
engaging a second end of said sliding catch directly to a
plunger of a solenoid; and
operating said plunger in response to a change in
electrical power for sliding said sliding catch to said free
position for disengaging said first end from said star wheel
door latch.
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Miller 4,801,163 Jan. 31,
1989
Smith et al. (Smith) 4,824,150 Apr. 25,
1989
Choi 4,968,070 Nov.
6, 1990
Cross et al. (Cross) 4,976,476 Dec. 11,
1990
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 5 through 7, 9, 11 and 12 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith in
view of Cross.
Claims 2 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Smith in view of Cross and Choi.
Appeal No. 2001-0207
Application No. 09/151,003
4
Claims 4 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Cross and Miller.
Attention is directed to the appellant’s main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 14 and 16) and to the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 15) for the respective positions of the appellant
and the examiner with regard to the merits of these
rejections.
DISCUSSION
Smith, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses a fire
door 11 which is rendered unopenable upon exposure to high
temperatures to prevent a fire from spreading. To this end,
the door includes a door retention assembly 10 comprising a
starwheel latch 14 for engaging a strike 13 on the door frame,
a keeper composed of a holder plate 21 and a bracket 22 for
lockingly engaging the starwheel, a spring 30 for urging the
keeper into engagement with the starwheel, a release link 23
coupled to the keeper, and a panic bar 27 operatively
associated with the release link for retracting the keeper
from the starwheel so that the door may be opened. The keeper
carries a heat fusible part 20 having a steel pin 24 disposed
therein. The high temperatures generated by a fire cause the
Appeal No. 2001-0207
Application No. 09/151,003
5
fusible part to melt and drop the steel pin into jamming
relationship with the keeper to prevent it from being
retracted.
As conceded by the examiner (see pages 3 and 4 in the
answer), Smith does not respond to the limitations in claims 1
and 7 requiring (1) a solenoid and (2) the sliding catch to be
“formed in a single member.” The Smith device does not
include a solenoid, and its keeper, which corresponds to the
sliding catch recited in the claims, is formed of two members,
i.e., holder plate 21 and bracket 22. Nonetheless, the
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art “to modify Smith et al. by providing
a solenoid so that the exit device may be operated by remote
control, as taught by Cross” (answer, page 4), and to form
Smith’s holder plate 21 and a bracket 22 as a single member
because “forming in one piece an article which has formerly
been formed in two pieces and put together involves only
routine skill in the art” (answer, page 4).
Cross discloses “a panic exit or fire door latch manually
unlockable by a pushbar but also electrically unlockable from
a remote position” (column 1, lines 10 through 12). The latch
Appeal No. 2001-0207
Application No. 09/151,003
6
comprises a bolt 27, a drawbar 25 and a spring 29 for urging
the bolt 27 into a recess in a door frame. A linkage
connector 24 couples the drawbar to the pushbar and to the
armature 82 of a remotely actuable solenoid 76.
Arguably, Cross would have suggested the addition of a
solenoid to Smith’s door retention assembly to allow it to be
remotely actuated. There is nothing in the combined teachings
of these references, however, that would have suggested
directly engaging the plunger of the solenoid and Smith’s
sliding catch or keeper as required by claims 1 and 7. The
examiner’s determination (see page 3 in the answer) that
Cross’ linkage connector 24 is a sliding catch has no basis in
fact.
There is also nothing in the combined teachings of Smith
and Cross that would have suggested forming Smith’s sliding
catch or keeper (holder plate 21 and bracket 22) in a single
member as required by claims 1 and 7. Contrary to the
position taken by the examiner (see page 7 in the answer), the
disclosed structural relationship between Smith’s keeper and
the heat fusible part 20 carried thereby (see Figure 9)
indicates that the two-part construction of the keeper is
Appeal No. 2001-0207
Application No. 09/151,003
As a result, it is not necessary to delve into the1
merits of the objective evidence of non-obviousness made of
record by the appellants.
7
necessary to permit the heat fusible part to be attached
thereto.
Hence, the combined teachings of Smith and Cross fail to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
the subject matter recited in claims 1 and 7. Therefore, we1
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 1 and 7, and dependent claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 11 and 12, as
being unpatentable over Smith in view of Cross.
As neither Choi nor Miller cures the foregoing flaws in
the basic Smith-Cross combination, we also shall not sustain
the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 2 and 8
as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Cross and Choi,
and of claims 4 and 10 as being unpatentable over Smith in
view of Cross and Miller.
Appeal No. 2001-0207
Application No. 09/151,003
8
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through
12 is reversed.
REVERSED
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. McQUADE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2001-0207
Application No. 09/151,003
9
DAVID R. GILDEA
MENLO PATENT AGENCY LLC
435 HERMOSA WAY
MENLO PARK, CA 94025
GJH
Appeal No. 2001-0207
Application No. 09/151,003
APJ McQUADE
APJ COHEN
APJ NASE
REVERSED
June 24, 2002