H. Mantelmacher

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 18, 2021

2021002194 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2021)

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.
15/708,801 09/19/2017 H. Lee Mantelmacher 54440.140158 4550
155571 7590 10/18/2021
Gordon Feinblatt LLC
233 E Redwood St
Baltimore, MD 21202
EXAMINER
WOZNICKI, JACQUELINE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3774
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/18/2021 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
usptopatents@gfrlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte H. LEE MANTELMACHER
Appeal 2021-002194
Application 15/708,801
Technology Center 3700

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.

WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–13, 16, 17, 20, and 21. Final Act. 1
(Summary). Claims 14, 15, 18, and 19 have been withdrawn from
consideration. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the named inventor, H. Lee
Mantelmacher. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-002194
Application 15/708,801

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a prosthetic suspension mounting assembly.
Claim 1,2 reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An anchoring system for securing a prosthetic liner inside a
socket, comprising:
a centering cup seated in said socket for seating said liner
thereon, said centering cup comprising a disk formed with a
concave top rim encircling a circular recess, said circular recess
having a flat recessed circular floor having a first diameter; and
a weight-bearing flathead bolt screwed into a distal end of
said liner and having a flat circular head of a second diameter at
least 50% smaller than said first diameter, the flat head of said
bolt slidably contacting the flat recessed circular floor of said
circular recess and constrained to slide thereon within a limited
degree of sliding freedom limited to said first diameter.

REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Ihmels US 3,828,370 Aug. 13, 1974
Hoerner US 5,443,526 Aug. 22, 1995
Mantelmacher US 6,793,682 B1 Sept. 21, 2004
Kohler et al., A new in-built device for one-point stepless prosthetic
alignment, Prosthetics and Orthotics International (1988) (“Kohler”).

2 We reproduce the most recent version of claim 1. The claims reproduced
in the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief reflect a July 15, 2020
Amendment that was not entered. See Advisory Act. (mailed July 23, 2020),
at 1.
Appeal 2021-002194
Application 15/708,801

3
REJECTIONS
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References
1–9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 20,
21
103 Mantelmacher, Kohler,
Hoerner
10, 11 103 Mantelmacher, Kohler,
Hoerner, Ihmels
OPINION
Claims 1–9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 20, and 21—
§ 103—Mantelmacher, Kohler, and Hoerner
Claims 1 and 21 are independent, and claims 2–9, 12, 13, 16, 17, and
20 ultimately depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 13–15 (Claims App.). In all
aspects relevant to this appeal, independent claims 1 and 21 are identical.
Compare Appeal Br. 13 (claim 1), with id. at 15 (claim 21). Further,
Appellant argues claims 1–9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 20, and 21 as a group. Id. at 8–
12. Therefore, we select claim 1 as representative of the group, with claims
2–9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 20, and 21 standing or falling with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Mantelmacher teaches all of the limitations
of independent claim 1, but acknowledges that Mantelmacher:
is silent with regards to the screw head having a second
diameter at least 50% smaller than the recess first diameter so
that [the] bolt slideably contacts the floor of the recess and
constrained to slide thereon within a limited degree of sliding
freedom to said first diameter[;] and the screw being a flathead
bolt with a flat circular head.
Final Act. 9–10. The Examiner relies on Kohler for the missing limitations.
The Examiner finds that Kohler teaches a prosthetic limb anchoring system,
and specifically finds, among other things, that “item A” depicted in Figure
1 of Kohler corresponds to a centering cup with a disk having a recess
having a first diameter. Id. at 11 (citing Kohler Fig. 1). The Examiner
Appeal 2021-002194
Application 15/708,801

4
further finds that Kohler’s 6 mm bolt (“item C” in Figure 1) has a flat head3
having “a second diameter which is at least 50% smaller than said first
diameter,” and “is situated within and lying at against an opening within the
recess, wherein the bolt head is screwed into a distal end of a socket (Figure
1 item H).” Id. (citing Kohler Fig. 1). According to the Examiner, Kohler’s
bolt “is capable of slidably contacting the floor of the disc and constrained
within a limited degree of sliding freedom limited by the first diameter.” Id.
In support of this latter finding, the Examiner relies on an excerpt from
Kohler (id.), which reads:
A 6mm screw bolt (C) through the half-sphere holds the plate
(D), which, cast in plastic, forms the socket bottom. There is a
31mm hole in the plate, covered by a 36mm washer (E). The
6mm screw bolt can be moved horizontally in the hole of the
plate, permitting up to ± 12.5mm slide.
Kohler, 103–104. The Examiner determines that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have modified Mantelmacher’s alignment means “by having the
screw be sized so that it is much smaller than the opening in the plate
through which it passes, in order to allow lateral movement, which allows
for sliding adjustment, thereby allowing the device greater flexibility in fit,
providing more custom fit for the wearer of the system.” Final Act. 11.
Appellant responds, inter alia, that “if half-sphere A is correlated to
Appellant’s ‘centering cup’ it has no ‘circular recess having a flat recessed
circular floor having a first diameter.’” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant also
asserts that “the head of Kohler’s bolt C does not slidably contact any flat

3 The Examiner also finds that “Hoerner teaches the known use of flat
circular headed flathead bolts (Figures 3, 5-6) for connecting anchoring
prosthetic sockets to attached components.” Final Act. 11–12.
Appeal 2021-002194
Application 15/708,801

5
recessed circular floor of any circular recess and is not constrained to slide
thereon within a limited degree of sliding freedom limited to said first
diameter.” Id. Appellant further submits that the Examiner’s reason to
combine “attempts to explain why a POSA would use a smaller bolt in
Kohler,” but “fails to explain why a POSA would modify Mantelmacher” to
satisfy the limitations of claim 1. Id. at 10. According to Appellant, the
Examiner’s reason to combine “also fails to explain how a POSA could
modify Mantelmacher . . . vis-à-vis Kohler, or why a POSA would have
been motivated to modify Mantelmacher . . . with Kohler inasmuch as
Mantelmacher has no fixation plate through which the screw passes, nor any
lateral adjustment capability at all for custom fit.” Id.
Regarding Appellant’s argument that Kohler’s half-sphere A does not
correspond to the claimed centering cup because it has no circular recess
having a flat recessed circular floor having a first diameter, the Examiner
responds that “since Mantelmacher has already disclosed these particular
limitations, the requirement for Kohler to have an identical cup is of course,
not valid.” Ans. 17. The Examiner also disagrees with Appellant’s
contention that Kohler’s bolt C does not slidably contact any flat recessed
circular floor of any circular recess; according to the Examiner, “Kohler
actually teaches precisely what Appellant is arguing is not possible: the
sliding movement of the screw within its anchoring/centering cup.” Id. As
for Appellant’s assertion that the Examiner did not adequately explain how
one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Mantelmacher vis-à-vis
Kohler, or propose an adequate reason to combine Mantelmacher and
Kohler, the Examiner replies that “the dimensions of the screw and centering
cup of Mantelmacher are simply adjusted in light of the teachings of Kohler
Appeal 2021-002194
Application 15/708,801

6
for the purpose of allowing lateral adjustment and thus a better fitting
prosthetic.” Id. at 18–19. According to the Examiner, while Mantelmacher
does not teach “the dimensions of the screw relative to the centering cup,”
Kohler provides this teaching. Id. at 19.
We begin with Appellant’s contention that Kohler’s item A is not a
centering cup. Although we acknowledge that the Examiner finds that
Mantelmacher teaches a centering cup comprising a disk having a circular
recess with a flat floor of a first diameter (Final Act. 10), the Examiner also
expressly finds that Kohler teaches “a centering cup with a disk (Figure 1
item A) having a recess having a first diameter” (id. at 11), and the rejection
relies on this subsequent finding. For example, the Examiner finds that the
flat head of Kohler’s bolt “is capable of slidably contacting the floor of the
disc and constrained within a limited degree of sliding freedom limited by
the first diameter.” Id. (emphasis added). The terms “disc” (i.e., disk) and
“first diameter” refer to the centering cup recited in claim 1, which
comprises a “disk” with a flat recessed circular floor having a “first
diameter.” Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). The Examiner’s reliance on this
finding to support the rejection is also evident from the Examiner referring
in the Answer to “the real fact that Kohler specifically teaches Appellant’s
claim limitation of having a screw with a smaller diameter than its
centering/anchoring cup in order to allow sliding.” Ans. 18. Indeed, the
Examiner explains that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 can be
summarized as the simple adjustment of the dimensions of the screw and
centering cup of Mantelmacher in light of dimensions of the screw and
centering cup of Kohler. Id. at 19.
Appeal 2021-002194
Application 15/708,801

7
Further, we agree with Appellant that Kohler’s half-sphere A does not
satisfy the centering-cup limitation. The Examiner does not identify where
on the half-sphere the claimed “circular recess” having a “flat recessed
circular floor” can be found, and none is discernable to us. Half-sphere A
does have an internally threaded bore, but if that is considered the recess, it
is evident from Figure 1 of Kohler that the bore’s diameter (the claimed
“first diameter”) is smaller than the “second diameter” of the flat head of
Kohler’s bolt, rather than larger, contrary to the Examiner’s finding.
Despite identifying half-sphere A as corresponding to the claimed
centering cup, the Examiner suggests in other aspects of the rejection that
plate D is actually considered Kohler’s centering cup. For example, the
Examiner relies on Kohler’s teaching regarding the ability to move the 6 mm
bolt C within a 31 mm hole in plate D to support the finding that Kohler’s
bolt head diameter is at least 50% smaller than the recess floor diameter.
Final Act. 11 (citing Kohler 103–104). Although not specifically identified
by the Examiner as such, plate D may be considered the centering cup, and
the 31 mm hole in plate D, with the unidentified structure below the hole,
may therefore be considered the recess and recess floor.
If so, we would still not be persuaded that the combination of
Mantelmacher and Kohler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. As an
initial matter, there is a discrepancy between Kohler’s teaching that the
“6mm screw bolt can be moved horizontally in the hole of the plate,
permitting up to ± 12.5 mm slide,” and Figure 1 of Kohler. As depicted in
Figure 1, Kohler’s bolt C secures plate D (and therefore socket H) to the
prosthesis tube via washer E, which spans the 31 mm hole in plate D.
Kohler, Fig. 1; see id. at 104 (stating that washer E is 36 mm in diameter).
Appeal 2021-002194
Application 15/708,801

8
Thus, the movement of the bolt with respect to plate D is limited by the size
of the washer, not the size of the bolt: the bolt/washer combination cannot be
moved so much that the washer fails to span the recess. Therefore, the size
of the bolt head is not particularly relevant to the adjustability of Kohler’s
alignment device, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be unlikely to
make any changes to Mantelmacher’s bolt size or centering cup size in
accordance with Kohler’s bolt size.
In any event, even if bolt C could be moved anywhere within the 31
mm hole of plate D, we would not be persuaded that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to adjust the size of Mantelmacher’s bolt
or centering cup in accordance with Kohler. As noted above, Kohler’s bolt
C and washer E secure plate D—and therefore socket H—to a tube on which
is mounted the prosthetic foot. Kohler Fig. 2. The socket can be adjusted
with respect to the tube by moving the bolt within the plate opening. Id. at
103–104. Mantelmacher’s bolt (screw 43), on the other hand, does not
secure the socket to the tube, but rather secures lower strap anchor 6 to liner
10. It is unclear why one of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the size of
a bolt that holds a strap to a liner based on the size of a bolt that holds a
socket to the prosthesis tube.
Because we are not persuaded that claim 1 is unpatentable over
Mantelmacher, Kohler, and Hoerner, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2–9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 20, and 21 on this
basis.
Claims 10 and 11—§ 103—Mantelmacher, Kohler, Hoerner, and Ihmels
Claims 10 and 11 ultimately depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 14
(Claims App.). The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 11 relies on the
Appeal 2021-002194
Application 15/708,801

9
combination of Mantelmacher, Kohler, and Hoerner rendering claim 1
unpatentable. Final Act. 17–18. Because we are not persuaded that claim 1
is unpatentable over these references, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 10 and 11 as unpatentable over Mantelmacher, Kohler,
Hoerner, and Ihmels.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–9, 12, 13,
16, 17, 20,
21
103 Mantelmacher,
Kohler, Hoerner
1–9, 12, 13,
16, 17, 20,
21
10, 11 103 Mantelmacher,
Kohler, Hoerner,
Ihmels
10, 11
Overall
Outcome
1–13, 16,
17, 20, 21

REVERSED