Brian Schofield

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 8, 2021

2020003280 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 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. 16/182,528 11/06/2018 Brian Schofield SCHOFIELD_BRIAN.001U_IC 5845 16424 7590 04/08/2021 Bruce A Lev 22276 N 103rd Dr Peoria, AZ 85383 EXAMINER PAPE, ZACHARY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2835 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/08/2021 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): levdoctor@yahoo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRIAN SCHOFIELD Appeal 2020-003280 Application 16/182,528 Technology Center 2800 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 6–9. We have jurisdiction. 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 Brian Schofield. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-003280 Application 16/182,528 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to circuit breaker systems containing a circuit breaker box with multiple colored circuit breakers with identically colored electrical wires connected thereto. Sole independent claim 6, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 6. An improved circuit breaker system comprising: a plurality of circuit breakers including: at least one circuit breaker formed having an orange color; wherein said orange color is used to represent an area to be provided electricity chosen from a list of areas to be provided electricity consisting of construction, research, fiber optics systems, and auto repair and maintenance; at least one circuit breaker formed having [a] green color; wherein said green color is used to represent an area to be provided electricity chosen from a list of areas to be provided electricity consisting of a hospital, healthcare, nurse call stations, and critical circuits; at least one circuit breaker formed having [a] purple color; wherein said purple color is used to represent systems to be provided electricity chosen from a list of systems to be provided electricity consisting of specialty wiring systems, and security systems; at least one circuit breaker formed having [a] red color; wherein said red color is used to represent systems to be provided electricity chosen from a list of systems to be provided electricity consisting of emergency circuits, and fire alarm and security systems; at least one circuit breaker formed having [a] yellow color; wherein said yellow color is used to represent an area to be provided electricity chosen from a list of areas to be provided electricity consisting of high voltage wiring, caution, and special equipment; and at least one circuit breaker formed having [a] blue color; wherein said blue color is used to represent systems to be provided electricity chosen from a list of systems to be provided electricity consisting of low voltage wiring, data, video communications, and network security; Appeal 2020-003280 Application 16/182,528 3 a circuit breaker box; wherein said circuit breaker box is adapted to securely and releasably hold said plurality of circuit breakers therein in a spaced relationship; and a plurality of electrical wires comprising: at least one electrical wire formed having an orange color; wherein said at least one orange colored electrical wire is used [to] supply power from said at least one orange colored circuit breaker; at least one electrical wire formed having [a] green color; wherein said at least one green colored electrical wire is used [to] supply power from said at least one green colored circuit breaker; at least one electrical wire formed having [a] purple color; wherein said at least one purple colored electrical wire is used [to] supply power from said at least one purple colored circuit breaker; at least one electrical wire formed having [a] red color; wherein said at least one red colored electrical wire is used [to] supply power from said at least one red colored circuit breaker; at least one electrical wire formed having [a] yellow color; wherein said at least one yellow colored electrical wire is used [to] supply power from said at least one yellow colored circuit breaker; and at least one electrical wire formed having [a] blue color; wherein said at least one blue colored electrical wire is used [to] supply power from said at least one blue colored circuit breaker; wherein when in use said improved circuit breaker system is adapted to aid in identifying individual circuit breakers and their respective areas to be provided electricity, such that when there are technical problems the appropriate circuit breaker or electrical wire can be more easily identified and the problems resolved more easily. REJECTION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6–9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is detailed on pages 2–6 of the Final Office Action dated September 24, 2019 (“Final Act.”). Appeal 2020-003280 Application 16/182,528 4 In rejecting claim 6, the Examiner finds that Landsberg teaches a plurality of multi-colored circuit breakers which are color coded logically based on the devices they protect, as well as a breaker box designed to house such breakers. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds, however, that Landsberg does not disclose the specifically claimed colors (e.g., orange, green, purple) and further does not teach or suggest color coded wires connected to similarly colored circuit breakers. Id. To address the differences between Landsberg and claim 1, the Examiner finds Buell discloses that circuit breakers can be any color, and finds further that Carlson teaches wires that are color-coded based on their respective electrical functions. Id. Based on these findings, the Examiner determines it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Landsberg and Buell because doing so would allow Landsberg’s “circuit breakers to have easily distinguishable colors so as not to confuse the user or technician.” Id. The Examiner also determines that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Landsberg and Carlson such that the wires used in Landsberg are color coded because “doing so would allow for a user to quickly identify the load attached to a particular wire,” and would “further allow the color coded circuit breakers . . . to be correctly affixed to the correct conductor.” Id. at 3–4. OPINION We review the appealed rejection for reversible error based on the arguments and evidence presented by Appellant. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the Examiner had failed to make a prima Appeal 2020-003280 Application 16/182,528 5 facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”). Appellant focuses its arguments on claim 6. Appeal Br. 5–6. Therefore, consistent with our rule, we select claim 6 and decide this appeal on the basis of claim 6 alone. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant argues that Carlson’s colored wires do not connect to circuit breakers or to an electrical item that is color-coded to be matched to such wire. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant also asserts that Landsberg does not specifically state that its multi-colored circuit breaker is logically based on the devices that the breakers protect, and also “has no guide or index to explain color representation to devices being protected.” Id. Appellant contends Buell gives “no sense of why a specific color is used or what it represents.” Id. Appellant concludes by asserting that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of the Landsberg, Carlson, and Buell references. Id. at 6. We are unpersuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claim 6 for the reasons well-stated by the Examiner. Final Act. 2–7; Ans. 3–7. We add the following for emphasis only. While Appellant’s arguments address the individual teachings of the relied-upon prior art, the obviousness inquiry does not end there. Rather, the references “must be read, not in isolation, but for what [they] fairly teach[] in combination with the prior art as a whole.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.”). This reference-by-reference approach is particularly problematic here because Appellant asserts that a given reference does not teach an aspect of the claim for which that reference was Appeal 2020-003280 Application 16/182,528 6 not relied upon. Compare Appeal Br. 5 (arguing Buell fails to teach “specific designations of use” for specific colors), with Final Act. 3 (finding that choosing specific colors to represent specific loads is an obvious design choice). Moreover, Appellant does not direct us to any erroneous factual findings by the Examiner based on the prior art of record. Because Appellant fails to identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection, we sustain it. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 6−9 103 Landsberg, Buell, Carlson 6−9 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