Ex Parte BennettDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesApr 22, 200811067875 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 22, 2008) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte PAUL NICHOLAS BENNETT _____________ Appeal 2008-0185 Application 11/067,875 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Decided: April 22, 2008 _______________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, HUBERT C. LORIN, and JOHN C. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellant appeals from a rejection of claims 1-9, which are all of the pending claims. THE INVENTION The Appellant claims a hinge for pivotable connection of a first panel to a second panel. Claim 1 is illustrative: Appeal 2008-0185 Application 11/067,875 2 1. A hinge for attaching a first panel to a second panel such that the first panel is pivotable relative to the second panel from a closed position when the hinge is contracted to an open position, the hinge comprising: a hinge base for connecting to the first panel, the hinge base having a base link member pivotable relative to the hinge base, a support member for connecting to the second panel, a first member connected to an end of the base link member, a second member connected to the hinge base, the first member and second member being pivotable relative to one another about a central pivot means, a biasing means connected to the central pivot means and the support member for biasing the first member relative to the support member, a pivot support means about which the support member is pivotable relative to the first member, a link member connected to the second member and the support member at opposite ends of the link member, a first pivot link means about which the second member is pivotable relative to the link member, a second pivot link means about which the support member is pivotable relative to the link member. Appeal 2008-0185 Application 11/067,875 3 THE REFERENCES Goto US 3,351,975 Nov. 14, 1967 Salice US 6,141,832 Nov. 7, 2000 THE REJECTION Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Salice in view of Goto. OPINION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection. The Appellant does not separately argue any of the claims (Br. 3-6; Reply Br. 2-5). Hence, we limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1, which is the sole independent claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2007). It is undisputed that Salice discloses all of the limitations in claim 1 except “a biasing means connected to the central pivot means and the support member for biasing the first member relative to the support member”. That is, Salice lacks only a biasing means (i.e., spring, Appellant’s Spec. 5) connected to Salice’s hinge bolt 8 and hinge cup 1’ for biasing lever 2’ relative to hinge cup 1’ (fig. 6). Goto discloses a hinge having a spring (11) connected at one end to notch 18a in locus member 5 and at the other end to notch 18b in locus member 6 (col. 4, ll. 59-61; figs 4, 6). Locus member 5 is connected to pivot pin 4c adjacent to notch 18a, and locus member 6 is connected to bracket 9 adjacent to notch 18b (col. 4, ll. 40-46; figs. 4, 6). The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s combination wherein Salice’s hinge is provided with Goto’s spring 11 to facilitate movement Appeal 2008-0185 Application 11/067,875 4 toward the open and closed positions (Ans. 4) would defeat or at least compromise the intended function of Salice’s hinge which is to provide an attractive, uniform arc-shaped appearance in the open position (Br. 3). The Appellant also argues that it would be impractical or impossible for Goto’s spring to be included in Salice’s hinge, particularly when Salice’s hinge is opened to its maximum open position in figure 7 (Br. 4). The Examiner argues that 1) what is unattractive is subjective, and Salice does not disclose that springs are unattractive, 2) the Appellant has not explained how including a spring in Salice’s hinge would render the hinge unattractive, and 3) in an alternative embodiment Salice discloses a bent leaf spring (55) biasing means (col. 4, ll. 48-50; fig. 15) (Ans. 4-5). The Examiner explains how Goto’s spring would be incorporated into Salice’s hinge, and argues that the hinge would be substantially hidden from view and, therefore, would not frustrate Salice’s purpose of providing an attractive, uniform arc-shaped appearance in the open position (Ans. 5-6). The Examiner’s arguments are reasonable and are not challenged by the Appellant except to point out that Salice’s leaf spring 55 is not connected in the manner required by the Appellant’s claim 1 (Reply Br. 2). The Appellant does not explain why, regardless of Salice’s use of a leaf spring, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Goto’s spring to be unattractive and, consequently, frustrating to Salice’s goal of providing an attractive hinge. Hence, we are persuaded that the Examiner’s argument is in error. The Appellant argues in the Reply Brief: Even if we accept that item 4c corresponds to the claimed central pivot means and that item 9 corresponds to the claimed support Appeal 2008-0185 Application 11/067,875 5 member, Goto clearly shows that the spring 11 is connected to the first member 5 and link member 6 and not as the Examiner contends to the central pivot 4c and the support member 9. Accordingly, the biasing provided by the spring 11 in Goto is for biasing the first member 5 relative to the link member 6 rather than support member 9 as asserted by the Examiner. Therefore, Goto and Salice, either alone or in combination, do not teach all of the limitations of the invention of claim 1 and the Examiner has failed to make out a prima facie case of obviousness [Reply Br. 3]. The Appellant’s claims do not require that the biasing means is connected directly to the central pivot means and the support member. Hence, the claims encompass connection of Goto’s spring 11 to notch 18a connected to pivot pin 4c and to notch 18b connected to bracket 9 (figs. 4, 6). Regardless, the Appellant’s argument is not persuasive even if the Appellant’s claims are interpreted as requiring direct connection of the biasing means to the central pivot means and the support member. Goto’s prior art figures 1-3 show spring 11 connected directly to bracket 9. Hence, Goto would have led one of ordinary skill in the art, through the use of no more than ordinary creativity, to connect an end of Goto’s spring either to a notch adjacent to Salice’s hinge cup 1’ or directly to hinge cup 1’ itself, and similarly, to connect the other end of Goto’s spring either to a notch adjacent to Salice’s hinge bolt 8 or to hinge bolt 8 itself. See KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) (In making the obviousness determination one “can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”). Appeal 2008-0185 Application 11/067,875 6 For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. DECISION The rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Salice in view of Goto is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED vsh PAUL AND PAUL 2000 MARKET STREET SUITE 2900 PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation