Ex Parte Zimmer

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 8, 2009

10427149 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 8, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HERBERT ZIMMER
____________

Appeal 2009-0367
Application 10/427,149
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided:1 April 8, 2009
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and
STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-0367
Application 10/427,149

2
Herbert Zimmer (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We reverse.
Appellant’s claimed invention is an arrangement for damping the
pivot movement of a pivotally supported furniture part (e.g., lids and doors).
Spec. 1:1-4, 11-12.
Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8,
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over U.S. Patent No.
4,075,735 to Röck (issued Feb. 28, 1978) and U.S. Patent No. 5,012,551 to
Beneke (issued May 7, 1991), and of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6
and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Röck and Beneke, and
further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,553,617 B1 (issued Apr. 29, 2003) to
Salice.
The Examiner found Röck discloses a toggle hinge assembly for a
furniture component that includes a slide wedge drive comprised of a piston
operating member with a slide wedge connected to a piston so that the piston
is engaged by a hinge lever near an end position. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner
also found that Beneke teaches a furniture hinge including a damping device
with a piston and piston rod enclosed by a cylinder with fluid. Ans. 4. The
Examiner concluded:
[I]t would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s
invention to modify the toggle hinge of Rock et al
to incorporate the dampening hinge of Beneke et al
to provide a regulating toggle hinge where impact
sounds are precluded and the rate of a door is
Appeal 2009-0367
Application 10/427,149

3
automatically controlled preventing damage to the
door and or stationary frame. Ans. 4.
Appellant contends that the combined references would not have
rendered obvious the limitation of claim 1 that a hinge lever engages a slide
wedge connected to a piston so that the movement of the furniture door is
damped as it approaches the end position. App. Br. 4-7; Reply Br. 2.
The issue presented by this appeal is whether Appellant has shown the
Examiner erred in determining that the combined references would have led
one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to a hinge
lever that engages a slide wedge connected to a piston so that the movement
of the furniture door is damped as it approaches the end position.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim before us, recites “said hinge
lever and said piston operating member forming a slide wedge drive
including a slide wedge connected to said piston and being engaged by said
hinge lever near the end position thereof for actuating the piston to dampen
the movement of the movable furniture component when it approaches the
end position.” A proper understanding of what is meant by the slide wedge
“being engaged by” the hinge lever is important to resolving the issue in this
appeal.
We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely
on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims “their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” and “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.
Appeal 2009-0367
Application 10/427,149

4
2004). We must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in
the written description into the claim if the claim language is broader than
the embodiment. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358
F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The challenge is to interpret claims in view
of the specification without unnecessarily importing limitations from the
specification into the claims. See E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343
F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Appellant’s Specification does not contain a lexicographic definition
of the term “engage” with regard to the claimed interaction between the slide
wedge and the hinge lever; however, Appellant’s Specification describes
that the slide wedge engages the hinge lever by coming into contact with it.
Figs. 9, 10; Spec. 8:28-31. This description in the Specification of how the
parts engage one another is consistent with the ordinary and customary
meaning of the term “engage,” which is “to come into contact or interlock
with.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (1961).
Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art, reading claim 1 in light of
the Appellant’s Specification would conclude that the hinge lever “engages”
the slide wedge only by coming into contact with it.
The Examiner found that Röck discloses the claimed slide wedge
drive comprised of a piston operating member (toggle segment 12) with a
slide wedge (projection 14). The Examiner determined that when the
device of Röck is modified to include the damping piston as taught by
Beneke, then the piston is engaged by the hinge lever (pivot arm 6 of Röck),
thereby damping the movement of the movable furniture component (e.g.
Appeal 2009-0367
Application 10/427,149

5
door) as it approaches the end position. Ans. 6-7. The Examiner erred in
determining that the references, when combined, would have rendered
obvious the claimed slide wedge drive.
Röck discloses a snap-toggle hinge for furniture doors (or the like)
that resists the initial portion of movement for opening of the door. Röck,
col. 1, ll. 5-9; col. 2, ll. 40-44. Toggle segment 12 is pivotally connected to
casing 5 through shaft 26 and has a T-shaped projection 14. Röck, col. 2,
ll. 19-24, 29-34. Pivot arm 6 is pivotally connected at one end to
intermediate arm 9 and pivotally connected at the other end to guide member
17 and pivot arm 7.2 Röck, col. 2, ll. 10-13, 29-31; Figs. 1, 2. Guide
member 17 has an opening 18 configured to receive projection 14 as the
hinge nears the closed position. Röck, col. 2, ll. 29-40, Figs 3, 4.
As the door disclosed in Röck nears the end position (nears closing),
the hinge lever (pivot arm 6) remains pivotally connected to guide member
17 and arm 7 (at the end nearest the door), and the hinge lever (pivot arm 6)
does not engage (come into contact with) the slide wedge (projection 14 on
toggle segment 12). Thus, in the modified device of Röck, which includes a
damping piston as taught in Beneke, the slide wedge (projection 14 on
toggle segment 12 of Röck) is not engaged by the hinge lever (pivot arm 6 of
Röck) near the end position thereof for actuating the piston to dampen the
movement of the movable furniture component as claimed. Rather, what the
rejection refers to as a slide wedge (projection 14 on toggle segment 12) is

2 The three pivot points in pivot arms 6, 7, and 8 are referred to as “pivot
shafts 10.” Röck, col. 2, ll. 13-15; Figs. 1, 2.
Appeal 2009-0367
Application 10/427,149

6
engaged by (contacted by) guide member 17 as projection 14 enters opening
18 in guide member 17. Röck, col. 2, ll. 37-44.
Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Röck and Beneke because the
combined teachings would not have led one having ordinary skill in the art
to the claimed slide wedge drive having a slide wedge that is “engaged by
said hinge lever near the end position thereof for actuating the piston to
dampen the movement of the movable furniture component when it
approaches the end position” as required by claim 1. The Examiner’s
decision to rejection dependent claims 2-9 also must be reversed by virtue of
their dependence on claim 1.3
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-10 is reversed.

REVERSED

Vsh

KLAUS J. BACH & ASSOCIATES
PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS
4407 TWIN OAKS DRIVE
MURRYSVILLE, PA 15668

3 While claims 6 and 9 were rejected over Röck and Beneke and further in
view of Salice, the Examiner did not rely on Salice to correct the deficiency
of the base rejection of Röck and Beneke. Ans. 5-6.