Wickham, Henry

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 31, 2020

15432816 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2020)

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.
15/432,816 02/14/2017 Henry Wickham 617_001US2 1019
97462 7590 03/31/2020
Mark A. Litman & Associates, P.A.
7001 Cahill Road, Ste. 15A
Edina, MN 55439
EXAMINER
SCHMIDT, EMILY LOUISE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3783
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2020 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 HENRY WICKHAM
Appeal 2019-004828
Application 15/432,816
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JAMES P. CALVE, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, 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 1–8 and 10–17.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Henry Wickham.
Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claim 9 was indicated as reciting allowable subject matter. Final Act. 6.
Appeal 2019-004828
Application 15/432,816

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to safety guards to protect against needle stick
injuries. Spec. 1:9–11.
Claims 1 and 12 are independent, and claim 1, reproduced below with
formatting to include indentations for separate clauses added, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter.
1. A segmented safety cover comprising:
a) a proximal segment combined with a needle hub;
b) a needle cannula that extends from the proximal needle
hub to a distal sharpened end;
c) a distal end cap with a hollow bore through which the
needle cannula passes;
d) a centrally mounted toggle locking mechanism,
separating the proximal needle hub from the distal end cap,
hingedly connected to both and maintaining the segmented
safety cover in a position where it completely covers a needle tip
on a needle;
e) wherein the toggle locking mechanism is resistively
bias-assisted and comprises a proximal cover segment and a
distal cover segment which overlay the needle cannula and is
linked together through a central hinge;
f) said proximal cover segment and said distal cover
segment of said toggle locking mechanism being configured with
abutting faces that contact each other above said central hinge
when the segmented safety cover is in a safety mode;
g) wherein the proximal cover segment is connected to the
hub via a proximal hinge and the distal cover segment is
connected to the end cap via a distal hinge; and
h) wherein the proximal hinge, abutting faces and distal
hinge are in line and the central hinge is below the abutting faces
in the safety mode so that a force exerted on the distal end cap is
translated onto the abutting faces above the central hinge thereby
maintaining the device in a secured state wherein the segmented
safety cover is in a position where it completely covers the needle
tip, while maintaining the distal end cap’s position covering the
needle tip extending through the needle cannula.
Appeal 2019-004828
Application 15/432,816

3
Corrected Appeal Br. (Claims App.).3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Ferguson US 6,280,420 B1 Aug. 28, 2001
Ward US 2002/0165498 A1 Nov. 7, 2002

REJECTION
Claims 1–8 and 10–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ward and Ferguson.4

OPINION
Ward and Ferguson
Claims 1–8, 10, and 11
The Examiner finds that Ward discloses many of the elements recited
in claim 1, including a proximal hinge, abutting faces and distal hinge in line
with each other. Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner finds “[Ward] does not
clearly show abutting faces in contact above the hinge.” Id. at 3. The
Examiner finds Ferguson discloses the use of “various latching means so the

3 In response to a Notice of Defective Appeal Brief dated February 22, 2019,
Appellant filed a corrected copy of the claims on appeal. See Corrected
Appeal Brief dated April 17, 2019.
4 The heading for this rejection does not include claim 17. See Final Act. 2.
However, the Examiner explains how claim 17 is rejected over Ward and
Ferguson on page 6 of the Final Office Action. See id. at 6.
Appeal 2019-004828
Application 15/432,816

4
shield can be secured in various positions for protection during the entire use
process which include abutting faces above the hinge.” Id. (citing Ferguson
4:1–5, 7:54–57, Fig. 6 (components 148 and 164)). The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to use such latching faces in the
device of Ward because Ferguson teaches that this arrangement is
“beneficial for securing the shield in various positions to enhance safety.”
Id.
Appellant argues that face 148 and latch hook 162 (which includes
face 164) of Ferguson, implemented in the device of Ward as proposed by
the Examiner, do not meet a functional requirement of claim 1. See Appeal
Br. 18–19. Specifically, Appellant contends the proposed structure does not
meet the requirement in claim 1 “that a force exerted on the distal end cap is
translated onto the abutting faces above the central hinge thereby
maintaining the device in a secured state wherein the segmented safety cover
is in a position where it completely covers the needle tip.” See id.
The Examiner responds by stating, “[i]f the end cap is pushed this
force is translated to the latch [faces 148 and 164 of Ferguson] such that the
catch remains engaged to keep the cover in place.” Ans. 5.
The Examiner falls short of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that faces 148 and 164 of Ferguson transfer force in the manner
recited in claim 1. As shown in Figure 4 of Ferguson, needle-hub-shield
assembly 30 includes two primary segments, distal segment 110 and
proximal segment 120, pivotably connected to one another at hinge 144. See
Ferguson 6:60–7:6. Face 148 moves together with distal segment 110. See
Ferguson, Figs. 4, 6. In contrast, face 164 appears to move in unison with
proximal segment 120. See id. Thus, it appears that any axial force applied
Appeal 2019-004828
Application 15/432,816

5
to the end of needle-hub-shield assembly 30 (for example, at closed end 126)
of Ferguson would be translated from distal segment 110 to proximal
segment through hinge 144. To the extent that there is any play in hinge
144, such axial force would urge segment 110, including face 148, toward
the right of Figure 6, i.e., away from face 164. Thus, the axial force exerted
on the end cap would not be translated onto the structures (faces 148 and
164) on which the Examiner relies for the claimed “abutting faces.”
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–8, 10,
and 11, which require all the elements of claim 1, as unpatentable over Ward
and Ferguson.
Claims 12–17
Independent claim 12 recites, in part, “a vector force passing through
the central hinge towards the abutting faces, the vector forces causes the
central hinge to elevate and rotate and the abutting faces to rotate away from
each other.” Corrected Appeal Br. (Claims App.).
The Examiner again relies on faces 148 and 164 of Ferguson as a
disclosure of “abutting faces” and finds that Ferguson also teaches that “[a]
force applied to the latch [which includes faces 148 and 164], which would
also necessarily pass through the hinge, causes the hinge to rotate and
elevate the faces away from each other.” Final Act. 5 (citing Ferguson 7:58–
67).
Appellant argues that this rejection is in error for reasons similar to
those discussed for the functional limitation recited in claim 1. Appeal Br.
20.
In response, the Examiner states, “as combined with Ferguson
ultimately a vector force passing through the central hinge causes the
Appeal 2019-004828
Application 15/432,816

6
elevation and rotation to expose the needle.” Ans. 5. The Examiner also
provides annotated versions of Figures 5 and 6 of Ferguson (titled Reference
Figures 1 and 2, respectively) and a composite drawing based on a
combination of Figure 4 of Ward and Figure 6 of Ferguson (Reference
Figure 3) in order to illustrate how Ward and Ferguson are applied in the
rejection. Ans. 6–7.
Commenting on the above-noted drawings, Appellant argues that the
faces relied upon by the Examiner for “abutting faces” will be urged toward
each other by any vector meeting the requirements of the one recited in
claim 12. See Reply Br. 5.
We reproduce the Examiner’s Reference Figure 3 below.

Reference Figure 3 is a combination of Figure 4 of Ward and Figure 6 of
Ferguson. See Ans. 7. Reference numbers 42 and 48 in Reference Figure 3
identify the same faces as faces 148 and 164 in Ferguson’s Figure 6. See
Ans. 7; Ferguson Fig. 6.
Based on a comparison of Figures 4 and 6 of Ferguson, it is apparent
that a force along a vector as recited in claim 12, i.e., a vertical force at the
central hinge, will cause clockwise rotation of the structure that supports
face 48. The same force will cause counter-clockwise rotation of the
structure that supports face 42. These two structures overlap each other in a
hooking arrangement as shown in Reference Figure 3. Thus, such a force
Appeal 2019-004828
Application 15/432,816

7
would urge faces 42 and 48 toward each other, contrary to what is recited in
claim 12. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 12, and
claims 13–17 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Ward and
Ferguson.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

DECISION SUMMARY

Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 10–
17
103 Ward, Ferguson  1–8, 10–
17

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