Timothy Eubanks

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 14, 2021

2021001318 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 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.
15/697,131 09/06/2017 Timothy Eubanks SR. BBD1362 6390
44088 7590 09/14/2021
KAUFHOLD DIX PATENT LAW
P. O. BOX 89626
SIOUX FALLS, SD 57109
EXAMINER
RAMSEY, JEREMY C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3634
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2021 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):
jason@kaufholdlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TIMOTHY EUBANKS SR.

____________

Appeal 2021-001318
Application 15/697,131
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LISA M. GUIJT, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision in the Final Office Action (dated Oct. 21, 2019, hereinafter “Final
Act.”) rejecting claims 1–8, 10, and 13.2 We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. The sole inventor, Timothy Eubanks Sr., is identified as the
real party in interest in Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed June 22, 2020,
hereinafter “Appeal Br.”). Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 9, 11, and 12 are canceled. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-001318
Application 15/697,131

2

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.

INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a “blind device for self powering a
multisectional blind.” Spec. 2, l. 3.
Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows (with paragraph formatting added):
1. A multi-sectional blind and solar collector combination
device comprising:
a plurality of housings, each said housing having a back
face, said housings being parallel and vertically spaced apart,
said plurality of housings including a primary housing, said
back face of said primary housing comprising a fixed solar
panel;
a power module, said power module being coupled to
and positioned in said primary housing, said power module
being operationally coupled to said fixed solar panel;
a plurality of slats, said slats being positioned in a
plurality of sections, said slats of each said section being
coupled to a respective one of said plurality of housings, each
of said slats comprising a respective solar panel electrically
coupled to said power module, said slats being positioned
extending vertically perpendicular to said respective one of said
plurality of housings;
a plurality of slat spacing motors, each slat spacing motor
being positioned in a respective one of said plurality of
housings, each slat spacing motor being electrically coupled to
said power module, each said slat spacing motor being
operationally coupled to said slats of a respective one of said
sections whereby activation of said slat spacing motor adjusts
positioning between at least an adjacent pair of said slats of said
respective one of said sections relative to said respective one of
said housings; and
Appeal 2021-001318
Application 15/697,131

3

a plurality of slat rotation motors, each slat rotation
motor being positioned in a respective one of said plurality of
housings, each slat rotation motor being electrically coupled to
said power module, each said slat rotation motor being
operationally coupled to said slats of a respective one of said
sections whereby activation of said slat rotation motor adjusts
an angle of each of said slats of said respective one of said
sections relative to said respective one of said housings.

Appeal Br. 11 (Appendix I).

REJECTIONS
I. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson,3 Kates,4 Oh,5
Almodovar,6 and Wen.7
II. The Examiner rejects claims 2, 3, 5–7, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson, Kates, Oh,
Almodovar, Wen, and Lai.8

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Appellant does not present arguments for the patentability of claims 4,
8, and 10 apart from independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 10. Therefore, in
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we select claim 1 as the

3 Jackson, US 6,196,292 B1, issued Mar. 6, 2001.
4 Kates, US 7,389,806 B2, issued June 24, 2008.
5 Oh et al., US 2010/0154999 A1, published June 24, 2010.
6 Almodovar et al., US 5,927,365, issued July 27, 1999.
7 Wen et al., US 2003/0168187 A1, issued Sept. 11, 2003.
8 Lai, US 6,516,856 B2, issued Feb. 11, 2003.
Appeal 2021-001318
Application 15/697,131

4

representative claim to decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims,
with claims 4, 8, and 10 standing or falling with claim 1.
The Examiner finds Jackson discloses a multi-sectional blind system
including, inter alia, a plurality of housings 14, 24 oriented parallel to each
other and vertically spaced, wherein each housing 14, 24 includes a back
face and housing 14 constitutes a primary housing (head housing),9 a
plurality of slats 18 assembled in a plurality of sections A, B parallel to
housings 14, 24, a plurality of slat spacing chords 30, 32 (lift chords) for
adjusting position between a pair of slats relative to at least one of housings
14, 24, and a plurality of slat rotation members 34, 48 (tilt control arm) for
adjusting an angle of each slat 18 with respect to one of housings 14, 24.
Final Act. 3 (citing Jackson, Fig. 1).
The Examiner further finds that although Jackson fails to disclose that
the back face of primary housing 14 includes a solar panel and a power
module coupled to the solar panel, nonetheless, Kates discloses a blind
system housing (i.e., tube 202)10 including, inter alia, fixed solar panel 307
(solar cell) and power module 301 (controller), 305 (power source) coupled
to motor 303. Final Act. 3–5; see also Kates, col. 5, ll. 25–50, 65–66, Figs.
2, 3. Hence, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art “to modify the device of Jackson . . . to
include a solar panel and power module as taught by Kates . . . in order to
provide mechanized power with a sustainable power supply to operate the
system.” Final Act. 6.
The Examiner further finds that even though Jackson fails to disclose

9 Parenthetical nomenclature refers to Jackson.
10 Parenthetical nomenclature refers to Kates.
Appeal 2021-001318
Application 15/697,131

5

that each of slats 18 includes a solar panel electrically coupled to the power
module, nonetheless, Oh discloses a blind system, wherein each slat 120,
121(blade, plate)11 includes solar panel 122 (solar battery) electrically
coupled to power module 150 (control box). Final Act. 4–5; see also Oh,
paras. 54–57, Fig. 1. As such, the Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art “to modify the device of
Jackson . . . to include a respective solar panel on each of the slats as taught
by Oh . . . in order to provide means to generate as much electrical energy to
operate the device as possible.” Final Act. 6.
The Examiner further finds that although Jackson fails to disclose
vertically positioned slats 18, nonetheless, Almodovar discloses a blind
system wherein slats 16 can be oriented with respect to housing 12 either
horizontally, as per Figure 9, or vertically, as per Figure 11. Final Act. 5.
Thus, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art “to modify the device of Jackson . . . to orient the
slats vertically perpendicular to the housing as taught by Almodovar . . . in
order to provide a different aesthetic appearance for a user.” Id. at 6.
The Examiner further finds that although Jackson fails to disclose a
plurality of slat spacing motors and slat rotation motors, nonetheless, Wen
discloses slat spacing motor 131, 133 (amplitude modulation control unit),12
and slat rotation motor 132, 133 (frequency modulation control unit), located
within housing 11 (headrail), electrically coupled to power module 134, and
operationally coupled to slats 121, for adjusting the position and angle of the

11 Parenthetical nomenclature refers to Oh.
12 Parenthetical nomenclature refers to Wen.

Appeal 2021-001318
Application 15/697,131

6

slats 121 with respect to housing 11. Final Act. 4–6; see also Wen, paras.
19, 20, Fig. 3. Therefore, the Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art “to modify the device of
Jackson . . . to include a slat rotation motor and a slat spacing motor as
taught by Wen . . . in order to provide a means to easily operate the
movement of the slats.” Final Act. 6.
Relying on KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007),
Appellant argues that because the Examiner’s reasoning “is not directed to a
problem that has been shown to be 1) ‘known in the art’ 2) ‘at the time of the
invention’ and 3) ‘addressed by the patent’,” the Examiner’s “rejection is
based merely upon speculation as to what benefit might result from a
modification of the Jackson structure with Kates, Oh, Almodovar, and
Wen.” Appeal Br. 7–8 (emphasis added). According to Appellant,
the line of argument in the rejection appears to be whether the
teachings of the cited references can be combined for any
reason that can be speculated, and not whether one of ordinary
skill in the art, considering the disclosures of the cited
references, would attempt to make the allegedly obvious
combination based upon what is disclosed by the art.

Id. at 8 (emphasis added). Thus, Appellant takes the position that “but for
the disclosure of the present application, one of ordinary skill in the art
viewing the cited references collectively could not find it obvious to pick
and choose the various elements to provide for the specific combination of
elements as claimed.” Id. at 9.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because Appellant
fails to adequately explain why the reasoning set forth by the Examiner to
combine the teachings of Jackson, Kates, Oh, Almodovar, and Wen is
Appeal 2021-001318
Application 15/697,131

7

speculative and conclusory. For example, given that Wen discloses a slat
spacing motor and a slat rotation motor, the Examiner’s reasoning to modify
Jackson’s structure to include Wen’s motors “in order to provide a means to
easily operate the movement of the slats” has rational underpinnings.
Examiner Answer (dated Sept. 29, 2020, hereinafter “Ans.”) 17. Moreover,
a skilled artisan would readily appreciate that “[u]sing a motor to do a
previously manual operation would have been an obvious modification for
the purpose of reducing the amount of effort required by a user.” Id.; see
also In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962) (An artisan must be
presumed to know something about the art apart from what the reference
discloses.).
Furthermore, given that Kates discloses a solar panel and a power
module, the Examiner’s reasoning to modify Jackson’s blind system, as
modified by Wen, to include Kates’s solar panel and power module “in order
to provide . . . [the] motors [of Jackson and Wen] with a sustainable power
supply” has rational underpinnings. Ans. 17.
Similarly, given that Oh discloses placing solar panels on each slat,
the Examiner’s reasoning to modify Jackson’s blind system, as modified by
Wen and Kates, to include Oh’s solar panels on each slat “in order to allow
the device [of Jackson, Wen, and Kates] to generate as much electrical
energy as possible to operate” has rational underpinnings. Ans. 17.
Finally, given that Almodovar discloses vertical and horizontal
oriented slats as alternate configurations, the Examiner’s reasoning to
modify Jackson’s blind system, as modified by Wen, Kates, and Oh to
reorient the slats vertically, as taught Almodovar, “in order to provide a
Appeal 2021-001318
Application 15/697,131

8

different aesthetic appearance for a user” has rational underpinnings. Ans.
17.
As such, in light of the above, we agree with the Examiner that the
reasoning for combining the teachings of Jackson, Kates, Oh, Almodovar,
and Wen is not merely conclusory, but rather sets forth clear and explicit
rational underpinnings why a skilled artisan would make the combination.
Ans. 18. Although Appellant asserts the Examiner’s reasoning is
speculative because the Examiner has failed to point to evidence,
nonetheless, Appellant does not adequately challenge the truth of the
findings. See In re Fox, 471 F.2d 1405, 1406–07 (CCPA 1973) (affirming
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 without citation of any prior art based on
facts that were unchallenged by the appellant). The Examiner provides
cogent reasoning for combining the teachings of Jackson, Kates, Oh,
Almodovar, and Wen, and, moreover, provides an informed explanation and
analysis as to the combination.
In particular, the Examiner’s rejection represents an improvement to
Jackson’s multi-sectional blind system to include Wen’s slat spacing motor
and slat rotation motor, Kates’s solar panel and power module, Oh’s solar
panels on each slat, and Almodovar’s vertically oriented slats in the same
manner as taught by Wen, Kates, Oh, and Almodovar, respectively, to lead
to a predictable result, and the modification is well within the skill of one
having ordinary skill in this art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has
been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way,
using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or
her skill.”). Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner relied on
Appeal 2021-001318
Application 15/697,131

9

impermissible hindsight, as Appellant contends (see Appeal Br. 9), rather
than the knowledge of those skilled in the art at the time of the invention.
Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
reasonable expectation of success in modifying Jackson’s multi-sectional
blind system to include Wen’s slat spacing motor and slat rotation motor,
Kates’s solar panel and power module, Oh’s solar panels on each slat, and
Almodovar’s vertically oriented slats. Appellant presents neither evidence
nor persuasive technical reasoning that making the Examiner’s
modifications requires more than ordinary skill or produces unexpected
results. See Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Broad Inst., Inc., 903 F.3d 1286,
1291 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“An obviousness determination requires finding that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
or modify the teachings in the prior art and would have had a reasonable
expectation of success in doing so.”).
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, the Examiner’s findings of
fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and the Examiner’s
legal conclusion of obviousness is well-founded. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent claim 1 as unpatentable
over Jackson, Kates, Oh, Almodovar, and Wen. Claims 4, 8, and 10 fall
with claim 1.

Rejection II
Appellant relies on the arguments discussed supra in Rejection I. See
Appeal Br. 10 (“By virtue of dependence on claim 1, or including the same
limitations as claim 1, the other pending claims are believed to be
allowable.”). Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above, we are not
Appeal 2021-001318
Application 15/697,131

10

persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, and, thus, we sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 2, 3, 5–7, and 13 as unpatentable over
Jackson, Kates, Oh, Almodovar, Wen, and Lai.

CONCLUSION

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 8, 10 103 Jackson,
Kates, Oh,
Almodovar,
Wen
1, 4, 8, 10
2, 3, 5–7,
13
103 Jackson,
Kates, Oh,
Almodovar,
Wen, Lai
2, 3, 5–7, 13
Overall
Outcome
1–8, 10, 13

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