Ron Zeitler

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 21, 2021

2021002197 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 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.
16/004,540 06/11/2018 Ron Zeitler MSH-1205 1170
8131 7590 10/21/2021
MCKELLAR IP LAW, PLLC
784 SOUTH POSEYVILLE ROAD
MIDLAND, MI 48640
EXAMINER
MORGAN, EMILY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3677
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/21/2021 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 RON ZEITLER
Appeal 2021-002197
Application 16/004,540
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, 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 claim 1. Appeal Br. 1.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Saginaw Control and
Engineering. Appeal Br. 1.
2 The pages of the Appeal Brief are not numbered. We consider the cover
page to be page 1.
Appeal 2021-002197
Application 16/004,540

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A concealed hinge assembly, said concealed hinge assembly
comprising in combination:
an outer door hinge element consisting essentially of a flat
front surface, a flat bottom surface, a configured back surface, a
first side and a second side;
said configured back surface having an upper flat surface
having a first opening therethrough, said configured back
surface having a lower flat surface having a threaded opening
therein, there being a hinge pin opening through the outer door
hinge assembly from said first side to said second side;
an inner door hinge element, said inner door hinge element
having a front, a back, a top, and said inner door hinge element
front having an outer door hinge element opening therein, said
outer door hinge element opening having a back surface, said
back surface having a second opening therethrough in an upper
portion thereof, said inner door hinge element having a first end
and a second end and said inner door hinge element having a
third opening in said inner door hinge element first end and in
said inner door hinge element second end;
a concealed hinge element, said concealed hinge element
having two ends, a top, a back, and a front, said top having at
least two openings therethrough;
said back having a hinge holder mounted therein near an
outside edge thereof, said hinge holder consisting of a
projecting hook structure, a front end of said hook structure
having a third opening therethrough;
an elongated hinge pin having a narrowed portion near a
center thereof;
a hinge pin retainer for insertion in said pin openings in said
concealed hinge element in addition to insertion across said
narrow portion of said hinge pin retainer.

Appeal 2021-002197
Application 16/004,540

3
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Bobrowski US 5,075,928 Dec. 31, 1991
Nicholas US 2017/0268269 A1 Sept. 21, 2017
REJECTIONS
Claim Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References
1 112(b) Indefiniteness
1 103 Bobrowski, Nicholas
OPINION
Indefiniteness
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as indefinite because, e.g., “[a]pplicant
claims the pin openings 24 are in the concealed element, which the drawings
disclose the pin openings 24 are in the inner element 24,” and “applicant
claims the hinge pin retainer 70 somehow is attached to itself.” Final Act. 6.
Appellant does not squarely address the Examiner’s indefiniteness
rejection. Appellant contends that “the amendments and comments in the
December 8, 2019, response overcome [this rejection],” but does not explain
how this amendment does so. Appeal Br. 2. Nor can we discern how the
Appellant’s December 8, 2019, response overcomes the indefiniteness
rejection. Appellant goes on to address some of the Examiner’s objections
to Appellant’s drawings. Id. Objections to drawings, however, are not
appealable matters, but rather are reviewable by way of petition to the
Technology Center Director. See MPEP § 1002.02(c) (Item 4: Petitions
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.113 relating to objections or requirements made by the
examiners). Appellant’s response to the Examiner’s drawing objections are
therefore not directly relevant to this rejection.
Appeal 2021-002197
Application 16/004,540

4
Because Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite on the basis of the
claim language identified above, we sustain the rejection.
Unpatentable over Bobrowski and Nicholas
The Examiner finds that Bobrowski teaches the concealed hinge
assembly of claim 1 substantially as claimed, but “does not disclose that the
pin 54 has a narrowed portion near a center thereof,” or “a hinge pin retainer
for insertion in said pin openings in said concealed hinge in addition to
insertion across said narrow portion of said hinge pin retainer.” Final Act.
7–8; see Bobrowski, Figs. 1–4. The Examiner therefore relies on Nicholas
to teach the missing limitations. Id. at 8. According to the Examiner,
“Nicholas discloses a similar hinge to Bobrowski, including the use of a
hinge pin 48 with a narrowed portion 56 near the center, and a hinge pin
retainer 50 for insertion in pin openings 36 in the concealed element 20 to
engage the narrow part 56 of the hinge pin 48.” Id. The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to include Nicholas’s pin lock 54 (included in retainer 50 “to releasably lock
the hinge pin assembly 16” (Nicholas ¶ 23)) into Bobrowski’s hinge “so that
the pin retainer can lock the hinge pin assembly in the closed position, as
taught by Nicholas.” Id.; (citing Nicholas ¶ 25). The Examiner “notes that
the additional structure of the pin retainer performs an extra function that is
known in the art of concealed hinges, and is known in the art to perform this
function.”
Appellant acknowledges that “the pin retainer function is known in
the prior art of concealed hinges,” but contends that it was not known how to
incorporate “the pin retainer function into what is called a Lid Leaf
Appeal 2021-002197
Application 16/004,540

5
Mounting Plate,” nor was known “the attachment method of this component
to the door itself.” Appeal Br. 3. Appellant further contends that its device
“is unlike any other mounting method on the thin materials of which the
cabinets are made.” Id. Appellant also touts a number of advantages of its
design, including “increased strength and load capacity,” the absence of
“unsightly or visible” welds or screws on the exterior of the door, and
simplified assembly and disassembly of the hinge.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error.
Specifically, Appellant does not identify: (1) where in claim 1 a “Lid Leaf
Mounting Plate” is recited; (2) what language limits the scope of claim 1 to
use with a cabinet door made with thin materials (as the Examiner notes,
Ans. 3, claim 1 recites only a hinge and not the combination of a hinge and a
cabinet); or (3) what claim language corresponds to the specific advantages
of its hinge design. Nor does Appellant directly address the Examiner’s
unpatentability analysis. Appellant does not, for example, expressly dispute
any of the Examiner’s findings regarding what Bobrowski and Nicholas
teach, or dispute the Examiner’s reason to combine these teachings. As a
result, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
as unpatentable over Bobrowski and Nicholas, and therefore we sustain the
rejection.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 112(b) Indefiniteness 1
1 103 Bobrowski, Nichols 1
Overall
Outcome
1
Appeal 2021-002197
Application 16/004,540

6
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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