Youn Jae. Lee

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 25, 2019

14711799 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 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.
14/711,799 05/14/2015 Youn Jae Lee ZIN-008-1P-1P-1P 7851
47713 7590 11/25/2019
IMPERIUM PATENT WORKS
P.O. BOX 607
Pleasanton, CA 94566
EXAMINER
POLITO, NICHOLAS F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3673
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/25/2019 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 YOUN JAE LEE

Appeal 2019-002605
Application 14/711,799
Technology Center 3600

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JILL D. HILL, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREENHUT, 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 21–27 and 35–39. See Non-Final Act.
1. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Zinus, Inc. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002605
Application 14/711,799

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a mattress supporting system with locking
mechanism for leg supports. Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
21. An apparatus comprising:
a bed frame assembly with a hinge at which a first
portion of the bed frame assembly is adapted to unfold from a
second portion of the bed frame assembly, wherein the bed
frame assembly has a first cross bar, a second cross bar and
longitudinal bars, and wherein opposite ends of the first cross
bar are attached to the longitudinal bars;
a leg support pivotally attached to the first cross bar;
a slotted bracket with a rounded slot attached to the
second cross bar, wherein the rounded slot has a terminal end
and an entrance, and wherein the terminal end is wider than the
entrance; and
a diagonal strut with a bolt and a conical washer on the
bolt, wherein the diagonal strut is attached to the leg support
and to the slotted bracket, and wherein the conical washer is
pressed into the terminal end of the rounded slot.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Hannon US 4,148,724 Apr. 10, 1979
Choi US 2010/0235990 A1 Sept. 23, 2010
Oh US 2016/0157621 A1 June 9, 2016
REJECTION
Claims 21–27 and 35–39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Oh, Hannon, and Choi.

Appeal 2019-002605
Application 14/711,799

3
OPINION
Claim 21
In rejecting claim 21, the Examiner relied on Oh for the basic bed
frame structure (Non-Final Act. 3), Hannon for teaching the use of a conical
washer (Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Hannon, Figs. 2, 4)), and Choi for teaching
a rounded end of a bolt-accommodating slot (Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Choi,
Fig. 4)).
Appellant’s arguments begin by pointing out that no single reference
teaches a conical washer being pressed into the end of a slot. App. Br. 6.
Appellant makes similar arguments repeatedly. See, e.g., App. Br. 6 (“A
washer in [Hannon’s] hole does not teach a washer in [Oh’s] slot.”).
However, unlike anticipation, the obviousness inquiry is not whether the
claimed invention is expressly disclosed or suggested in any one of the
references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious
to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of
those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); see also
In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references” (citation omitted)); Ans. 3 (quoting MPEP § 2145(IV)). Thus,
no single reference teaching a conical washer being pressed into the end of a
slot is not indicative of Examiner error.
Appellant next argues there was no reason to make the modification
proposed by the Examiner. App. Br. 6–7. Appellant recognizes and
acknowledges the conical washer will “permit movement” during fastening.
App. Br. 7 (emphasis omitted). Appellant contends this is undesirable
Appeal 2019-002605
Application 14/711,799

4
because Appellant’s goal of using the conical washer is to prevent the bolt
from slipping out of the rounded slot. App. Br. 7 (citing Spec. paras. 119,
127).
First, it is not necessary for the prior art to serve the same purpose as
that disclosed in Appellant’s Specification in order to support the conclusion
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious. See In re Lintner,
458 F.2d 1013, 1016 (CCPA 1972); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007) (“[N]either the particular motivation nor the
avowed purpose of the [Appellant’s] controls” in an obviousness analysis.).
“[A]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of
invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining
the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420.
Second, as Appellant also appears to recognize (App. Br. 7
(annotating Hannon, Fig. 4)), the movement referred to in Hannon and by
the Examiner relates to the ability of the bolt to fasten adequately while
tolerating some degree of non-perpendicular alignment:
Rail mounting holes 55 are larger than the diameter of bolt
shank 38 and the outer circumference of conical washer 58
(FIG. 4) so as to permit movement of conical washer 58 with
respect to the edges of holes 55. Enlarged holes 55 permit the
continued movement of lower angled flange 10 toward frame
wall 44 when tensioning screen 2, even when insulator
protective strip 63 is engaged with vertical wall 44.
Hannon, col. 6, ll. 19–27 (cited at Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 4). This would be
advantageous to accommodate any misalignment or lack of perfect
perpendicularity in Oh. Although it is not expressly argued, to the extent it is
Appellant’s position that such an arrangement could potentially lead to
Appellant’s suggested adverse consequence of permitting or encouraging the
Appeal 2019-002605
Application 14/711,799

5
bolt to slip out of Oh’s slot (e.g., in the particular case the bolt alignment
couples with the conical washer to create a wedge force that happens to
coincide with the direction of the slot) it must be remembered that the
Examiner also proposed to incorporate Choi’s rounded bolt-accommodating
slot end which would prevent any such slippage. In the Examiner’s proposed
combination Hannon’s conical washer would still cooperate with a largely
circular opening, albeit one arranged at the end of a slot as in Choi, and thus,
be expected to provide similar benefits to those described in Hannon.
Appellant’s arguments concerning the absence of a pressing force
exerted in Hannon (App. Br. 8) are again improperly focused on a single
reference as opposed to the Examiner’s proposed combination of reference
teachings.
Appellant provides a skeletal non-analogous-art argument on pages 8–
9 of the Appeal Brief. The Examiner provides an analogous art analysis on
pages 5–7 of the Examiner’s Answer (citing MPEP § 2141.01(a)). The only
issue raised by Appellant with regard to the Examiner’s analogous art
analysis is:
The [E]xaminer’s argument lacks credibility because Hannon's
conical washer 58 does not prevent bolt 36 from moving out of
hole 55. A bolt can move out of a slot, but a bolt can never
move out of a hole. A washer is conventionally used to prevent
a threaded connection from untightening. But no conventional
washer or even Hannon’s conical washer has ever been used to
prevent a bolt from moving out of a slot.
Reply Br. 9.
The comments “a bolt can never move out of a hole” and “no
conventional washer . . . has ever been used to prevent a bolt from moving
out of a slot” appear to suggest either Appellant is referring to transverse
Appeal 2019-002605
Application 14/711,799

6
movement of the bolt or Appellant is considering the washer alone,
neglecting its cooperation with a nut. Reply Br. 9.
As mentioned above, Hannon’s conical washer serves to fill the
enlarged hole 55 allowing Hannon’s bolt to properly seat and be fastened
therein. Ans. 6. It is true that the relative sizes of Hannon’s hole 55 and nut
61 are not discussed, but based on Figure 2 of Hannon, and the associated
description of enlarged holes 55, it seems very reasonable for the Examiner
to conclude that Hannon’s conical washer 58 plays a significant role in
preventing the withdrawal of bolt 36 from hole 55. This is not changed by
the fact that the washer 58 cooperates with an additional structure, nut 61, to
do so.
The Examiner’s quotation of MPEP § 2141.01(a)(IV) is appropriate
here where patentability is premised upon a very simple arrangement of very
common mechanical components such as nuts, bolts, slots, and washers:
In a simple mechanical invention a broad spectrum of prior art
must be explored and it is reasonable to permit inquiry into
other areas where one of ordinary skill in the art would be
aware that similar problems exist.
Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized, “familiar items may have
obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420; see also
In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F. 3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(“[A]n inventor considering a hinge and latch mechanism for portable
computers would naturally look to references employing other ‘housings,
hinges, latches, springs, etc.,’ which in that case came from areas such as ‘a
desktop telephone directory, a piano lid, a kitchen cabinet, a washing
machine cabinet, a wooden furniture cabinet, or a two-part housing for
Appeal 2019-002605
Application 14/711,799

7
storing audio cassettes’”) (discussing In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1481–82
(Fed. Cir. 1994).).
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 21. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 22 and 27 which
are not separately argued. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Independent claim 35 and dependent claims 24 and 25
Regarding claim 35, Appellant repeats the arguments addressed above
with regard to claim 21. App. Br. 10–12. These arguments remain
unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Claim 35 additionally recites a limitation pertaining to a round
opening at the terminal end of the slot. Claims 24 and 25 contain similar
limitations. In regard to this aspect of the claimed subject matter, Appellant
argues, “Oh’s notch 82 does not have a round opening at its end with a
diameter that is larger than the width of the rest of the notch.” App. Br. 10.
This argument is inapposite. The Examiner clearly stated this feature was
lacking from Oh and relied on Choi in this regard. Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 7.
Arguments must address the Examiner’s action. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)
(“The arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of
rejection contested by appellant.”).
Accordingly, we are not apprised of any errors in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 35, dependent claims 24 and 25, or claims 36,
38, and 39 which depend from claim 35 and are not separately argued.

Appeal 2019-002605
Application 14/711,799

8
Dependent claim 26
In addition to the rounded opening discussed above with regard to
claims 24, 25, and 35, claim 26 recites that “the round opening has a
diameter that is . . . smaller than the largest diameter of a coned portion of
the conical washer.” Appellant argues that “[t]here is no basis to compare
the size of a slot of one reference (Oh) with the size of a conical washer of
another.” App. Br. 10. This argument again stems from the absence of a
single reference teaching the combination claimed. As the Examiner points
out, Hannon teaches the washer 58 must be larger than the hole 55. Were
this teaching not applied to the opening at the end of Choi’s slot, the washer
would fall through the hole and be rendered unsuitable for its intended
purpose. The fact that judgment and mechanical skill may be required to
arrive at a particular combination does not necessarily mean that particular
combination constitutes a nonobvious invention. Graham v. John Deere Co.
of Kansas City, 383 US 1, 10–12 (1966). Appellant’s argument that one
would not know to size a washer bigger than the bolt-receiving opening fails
to attribute the requisite level of skill to the hypothetical artisan of § 103(a).
In re Sovish, 769 F. 2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (concluding an argument
that “presumes stupidity rather than skill” is not persuasive).

Dependent claims 23 and 37
Claims 23 and 37 recite that the conical washer is pressed into the slot
by a wing nut. Appellant again argues the references individually, pointing
out that no single reference combines a wingnut with a washer. App. Br. 9,
12. Appellant argues Hannon’s wrench-tightened nut would work better for
holding Hannon’s screen. App. Br. 9, 12; Reply. Br. 10. This is inapposite
Appeal 2019-002605
Application 14/711,799

9
because the question is not whether it would have been obvious to
incorporate Oh’s wing nut into Hannon’s device and application but whether
it would have been obvious to incorporate Hannon’s washer into Oh’s
device, where Oh already employs a wing nut (see Oh, Fig. 8). Non-Final
Act. 5 (citing Oh, para. 33). That issue has been addressed above with regard
to claim 21.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21–27, 35–
39
103(a) Oh, Hannon, Choi 21–27, 35–39
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