Ex Parte BRÄNNSTRÖM et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 26, 2019

14486681 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/486,681 09/15/2014
21839 7590 03/28/2019
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
POST OFFICE BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hans BRANNSTROM
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1033462-000365 2130
EXAMINER
WILKENS, JANET MARIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3637
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2019 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):
ADIPDOC 1@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANS BRANNSTROM, AGNE P ALSSON, and
PETER DERELOV
Appeal2017-007164
Application 14/486,681 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). Appellants argued before the Board on March 19, 2019.
We REVERSE.
According to Appellants, their invention "relates to an assembled
product, ... provided with a locking device." Spec. 1, 11. 7-10. Claim 1 is
the sole independent claim on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as
representative of the appealed claims.
1 Appellants identify "Valinge Innovation AB" as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-007164
Application 14/486,681
1. An assembled product compnsmg at least three
elements arranged in three different planes, including:
a first element connected perpendicular to a second
element at a first edge of the second element; and
a third element connected perpendicular to the second
element and perpendicular to the first element, wherein
the assembled product comprises at least two locking
devices each comprising a flexible tongue arranged in an
insertion groove at one of the at least three elements,
said flexible tongue cooperates with a tongue groove at an
adjacent one of the at least three elements, for locking the one
element and the adjacent element together, and
a second edge of the second element is connected to a first
edge of the third element by a first of said locking devices, and
a first edge of the first element is connected to the first
edge of the second element by a second of said locking devices.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: 2
I. Claims 1-11 and 13-18 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Susnjara (US 2010/0173122 Al, pub. July 8,
2010) and Pervan et al. (WO 2012/154113 Al, pub. Nov. 15,
2012) (hereinafter "Pervan '113");
II. Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Susnjara, Pervan '113, and Salice (US 4,752,150, iss. June 21,
1988);
2 See, e.g., Advisory Action 2--4 (mailed June 3, 2016).
2
Appeal2017-007164
Application 14/486,681
III. Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Susnjara, Pervan '113, and Fehre (US 2012/0286637 Al, pub.
Nov. 15, 2012);
IV. Claims 1-9 and 13-18 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Susnjara and Pervan et al.
(WO 2007/015669 A2, pub. Feb. 8, 2007) (hereinafter
"Pervan '669");
V. Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Susnjara, Pervan '669, and Salice;
VI. Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Susnjara, Pervan '669, and Fehre;
VII. Claims 1-11 and 13-18 as provisionally rejected on the ground
of nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-
17 of Application no. 14/158, 165;
VIII. Claim 12 as provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-17
of Application no. 14/158, 165 and Salice;
IX. Claim 19 as provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-17
of Application no. 14/158,165 and Fehre;
X. Claims 1-18 as provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-14
of Application no. 14/573,473 and Susnjara;
XI. Claim 19 as provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-14
of Application no. 14/573,473, Susnjara, and Fehre;
3
Appeal2017-007164
Application 14/486,681
XII. Claims 1-9 and 13-18 as rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-16 of
Hakansson et al. (US 8,887,468 B2, iss. Nov. 18, 2014)
(hereinafter "Hakansson"), and Susnjara;
XIII. Claim 12 as rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-16 of Hakansson,
Susnjara, and Salice; and
XIV. Claim 19 as rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-16 of Hakansson,
Susnjara, and Fehre.
ANALYSIS
Re;ection I
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 based on a combination of
Susnjara and Pervan' 113. See Final Action 11-13. In particular, the
Examiner relies on Susnjara's panels 34, 32, and 30 to disclose the claimed
first, second, and third elements, respectively. Id. at 11. The Examiner finds
that it would have been obvious to replace Susnjara's cooperating mortises
and tenons, which are on panels 34 and 32 (i.e., the claimed first and second
elements), with Pervan '113 's locking device. Id. at 12.
The Examiner also finds, however, that it would have been obvious to
addPervan '113's locking device to Susnjara's panel 30 (i.e., the claimed
third element), even though there is no cooperating mortise-and-tenon
arrangement on panels 32 and 30 which locks these panels together.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that it "would have been obvious" "[t]o
modify the panel connections of Susnjara by adding" Pervan '113's locking
4
Appeal2017-007164
Application 14/486,681
device to panel 30, "to provide a more secure attachment between the[se]
panels." Answer 3 (italics added). Conversely, Appellants argue that the
Examiner errs because there is no rational reason to add a locking device to
Susnjara's panel 30, when panel 30 does not include any mortise or tenon
and does not connect to panel 32 by a corresponding tenon or mortise, and
when Susnjara does not require any such arrangement to retain panel 30.
Appeal Br. 8. More specifically, according to Appellants, "there is no
reason for [Pervan'l 13's locking device to be added to] Susnjara's bottom
panel 30 because that panel is already secured to the other four panels
simply by having an edge thereof inserted into" slots formed in each of
panels 31, 32, 33, and 34. Id. at 10.
Based on our review, the Examiner does not provide the required
rational reason to modify Susnjara to add Pervan '113 locking device to
panel 30, which does not include a mortise-and-tenon arrangement or other
similar locking device. Consistent with Appellants' argument, as stated
above, it appears that "Susnjara's bottom panel 30 ... is already secured to
the other four panels simply by having an edge thereof inserted into" slots
formed in each of panels 31, 32, 33, and 34. Id. Conversely, it is unclear
whether adding Pervan '113's locking device to panel 30 would, in fact,
"provide a more secure attachment between the panels," as the Examiner
states. Answer 3. Thus, the Examiner does not support adequately that
there is any reason to add Pervan '113's locking device to Susnjara's
panel 30. Inasmuch as the Examiner does not adequately support this
finding, it appears that Appellants correctly state that adding Pervan '113 's
locking device to Susnjara's "bottom panel would increase complexity of the
5
Appeal2017-007164
Application 14/486,681
drawer, add loose parts[,] and increase production costs," without providing
any apparent benefit. Reply Br. 3 ( emphases omitted).
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain this rejection of
independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection, based
on Susnj ara and Pervan '113, of claims 11 and 13-18 that depend from, and
which the Examiner rejects with, claim 1.
Re;ections II and III
Claims 12 and 19 depend from claim 1. Inasmuch as the Examiner
does not demonstrate how either Salice or F ehre remedies the above
deficiency in claim 1 's rejection, we do not sustain these rejections of
claims 12 and 19.
Re;ections IV-VI
In claim 1 's rejection based on Susnjara and Pervan '669, the
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to add Pervan '669 's
locking device to Susnjara's panel 30 (i.e., the claimed third element), even
though there is no cooperating mortise-and-tenon arrangement on Susnjara's
panels 32 and 30 which locks these panels together. See Answer 3. Thus,
this rejection suffers from the same deficiency as Rejection I, supra.
Therefore, for reasons similar to those discussed above regarding
Rejection I, we do not sustain this rejection of independent claim 1. We also
do not sustain the Examiner's rejections, based at least on part on Susnjara
and Pervan '669, of dependent claims 2-9 and 12-19.
6
Appeal2017-007164
Application 14/486,681
Reiections VII-XI
The Examiner provisionally rejects claims 1-19 based on grounds of
nonstatutory double patenting. We note that Appellants amended the claims
in each of Application nos. 14/158,165 and 14/573,473 (now issued as
US Patent nos. 9,726,210 and 9,714,672, respectively), subsequent to the
issuance of the Final Office Action in this case. Thus, to allow the Examiner
to determine whether the rejections remain applicable, we decline to reach
these double-patenting rejections.
Reiections XII-XIV
In claim 1 's double-patenting rejection based on a combination of
Susnjara and Hakansson, the Examiner finds that it would have been
obvious to add Hakansson's locking device to Susnjara's panel 30 (i.e., the
claimed third element), even though there are no cooperating mortise-and-
tenon arrangement on Susnjara's panels 32 and 30 which locks these panels
together. See Answer 4 ("[T]he examiner contends that the combination of
[Hakansson] with Susnjara teaches the claimed panel arrangement, i.e.[,]
five connected panels forming a back and four sides, as taught by Susnu]ara,
with the locking devices, as taught by [Hakansson], added as part of the
connections.") (italics added)). Thus, this rejection suffers from the same
deficiency as Rejection I, supra. Therefore, for reasons similar to those
discussed above regarding Rejection I, we do not sustain this rejection of
independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner's double-
patenting rejections, which rely at least in part on Hakansson and Susnjara,
of dependent claims 2-9 and 12-19.
7
Appeal2017-007164
Application 14/486,681
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-19.
We REVERSE the Examiner's double-patenting rejections, based on
Hakansson, of claims 1-19.
As set forth above, we decline to reach the Examiner's remaining
double-patenting rejections.
REVERSED
8