Ruhlander, Gregory

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 30, 2019

13662700 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2019)

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.
13/662,700 10/29/2012 Gregory Ruhlander 020.0175PTUS 6658
116992 7590 12/30/2019
Lennox International Inc.
c/o Hubbard Johnston, PLLC
P.O. Box 141228
Dallas, TX 75214
EXAMINER
KOEHLER, CHRISTOPHER M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3726
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2019 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):
docket-rj@hubbardjohnston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GREGORY RUHLANDER

____________

Appeal 2019-003822
Application 13/662,700
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the non-final
rejection of claims 1–5, 7–14, 16–18, and 20 as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gaignard (US 5,683,215, iss. Nov. 4, 1997) and
Ordonio (US 7,581,913 B2, iss. Sept. 1, 2009). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Lennox International Inc. as the
Applicant and real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003822
Application 13/662,700
2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to fastener couplings. See Spec. ¶¶ 1–4.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A system for coupling a first and second item,
comprising:
a threaded fastener comprising a head portion and a
threaded portion;
a damper, the damper comprising a flange portion and an
elongated portion, the damper adapted to deform and inhibit
transfer of vibrational forces, wherein the damper comprises an
opening adapted to receive the threaded portion of the threaded
fastener; and
a nut comprising:
a threaded recess adapted to couple with the threaded
portion of the threaded fastener;
an annular recess disposed about the threaded recess, open
toward the head portion, and adapted to receive at least a
portion of the damper;
wherein the damper can be deformed and coupled to the
threaded fastener and the nut such that the elongated portion
and the flange portion engage opposing sides of the first item
and the flange portion sits between the first item and a first side
of the second item, wherein threading the nut on the fastener
causes the elongated portion to be deformed by and into the
annular recess and causes the head portion to exert force against
a second side of the second item and hold the second item
against the flange portion.
OPINION
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Gaignard discloses the invention
substantially as claimed except for the nut being a singular component.
Non-Final Action 3–4. The Examiner cites to elements 30, 48, 78 of
Gaignard as collectively comprising a “nut assembly” that satisfies
Appeal 2019-003822
Application 13/662,700
3
Appellant’s nut limitation. Id. The Examiner relies on Ordonio as teaching
forming a plurality of components into a single, unitary nut. Id. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form Gaignard’s nut
assembly as a single integral nut component, as Ordonio demonstrates that it
was known in the art to form multi-component assemblies into singular nut
components. Id.
Appellant argues that the claimed nut is a single unitary component,
whereas Gaignard discloses a separate nut 30, gripping ring 48, and
shroud 78, a point already conceded by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 5–8. In
response, the Examiner observes that Appellant never challenges the
Examiner’s interpretation of the components of Gaignard collectively
comprising an assembly that is the equivalent of Appellant’s claimed nut.
Ans. 11.
Gaignard discloses a fastening device that includes a shock absorbing
bush interposed between a bolt and a nut assembly. Gaignard, Abstract.
Gaignard’s bush 38 features an elongated portion and a flange portion. See
Id. Fig. 1. When bush 38 is axially compressed, it deforms into a recess
disposed between shroud 78, ring 48, and carrier plate 24. Id. Fig. 4.
The only difference between Gaignard and Appellant’s invention is
that Appellant discloses a nut with an annular recess to receive a portion of
the damper, whereas Gaignard’s equivalent recess is formed by nut 30,
ring 48, and shroud 78 in combination. It is well settled that the use of one-
piece construction instead of a plurality of mechanically connected
components is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. Application
Appeal 2019-003822
Application 13/662,700
4
of Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1965). Appellant’s choice to use a
unitary structure does not impart patentability to the invention. Id.
Next, Appellant argues that Ordonio “presents nothing close to the
claimed invention.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant argues that the Examiner relies
on Ordonio for the proposition that it is known to form multi-component nut
assemblies into singular components. Id. Appellant, therefore, concludes
that the Examiner’s rejection essentially “stands on Gaignard alone with the
addition of Ordonio to say one can make various parts into a single unitary
nut.” Id.
In response, the Examiner agrees that Ordonio is primarily cited for its
teaching of making various components into a single, unitary nut. Ans. 12.
The Examiner otherwise disagrees with Appellant’s statement that Ordonio
presents “nothing close” to the invention considering that Ordonio is
directed to threaded nut fasteners and protective washers. Id.
We have already cited case law for the proposition that that using one-
piece construction instead of a plurality of components is merely a matter of
obvious engineering choice. Larson, 340 F.2d at 968. Ordonio merely
provides an example of this principle from Appellant’s field of endeavor.
Thus, Appellant’s challenge to Ordonio does not apprise us of error.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we sustain the Examiner’s
unpatentability rejection of claim 1.
Claim 11
Claim 11 is an independent claim that is substantially similar in scope
to claim 1. Claims App. In traversing the rejection, Appellant relies solely
on arguments that we previously considered and found unpersuasive with
Appeal 2019-003822
Application 13/662,700
5
respect to claim 1 and find equally unpersuasive here. Appeal Br. 12. We
sustain the rejection of claim 11.
Claim 18
Claim 18 is an independent claim that is substantially similar in scope
to claim 1, except that it recites a method. Claims App. In traversing the
rejection, Appellant merely rephrases and repeats the same arguments that
we previously considered and found unpersuasive with respect to claim 1.
Appeal Br. 13. We sustain the rejection of claim 18.
Claims 2–5, 7–10, 12–14, 16, 17, and 20
These claims depend, directly or indirectly, from either claim 1, 11,
or 18 and are not separately argued. Claims App. They fall with their
respective independent claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (failure to
separately argue claims).
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
§ Reference(s) Aff’d Rev’d
1-5, 7-14,
16-18, 20
103 Gaignard, Ordonio 1-5, 7-14,
16-18, 20

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED