Ex Parte Brown et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 2012

12109930 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte VICTORIA VOGT BROWN, JOHN DENIS LEWIS, MICHAEL A. REED, and PHILIP M. DEWEY ____________________ Appeal 2011-006530 Application 12/109,930 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-006530 Application 12/109,930 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, 18, and 21-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ claimed invention is related to portable or temporary power distribution cabinets or panels for use at construction sites. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A temporary power distribution panel for use at a construction site and comprising: a box-like cabinet with an interior, an exterior, and a rear side, the box-like cabinet defining an interior fire extinguisher closet for receiving a fire extinguisher therein; a fire extinguisher removably received within the interior fire extinguisher closet; a movable door for covering and uncovering the fire extinguisher closet to provide access to the fire extinguisher in the event of a fire; an electric power inlet for electrically coupling to a source of electric power; a plurality of electric power outlets for providing electric power to the construction site and internally coupled to the electric power inlet; an emergency alarm bell; and Appeal 2011-006530 Application 12/109,930 3 an emergency alarm bell arming switch for manually activating the emergency alarm bell. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Beasley (U.S. Patent Number 6,956,733 B2, issued Oct. 18, 2005). The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Beasley, Agnese (U.S. Patent Number 3,827,039, issued July 30, 1974), and Taylor (U.S. Patent Number 4,418,336, issued Nov. 29, 1983). The Examiner rejected claims 3, 7, 18, and 21-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Beasley, Agnese, Taylor, and the Examiner’s Official Notice – hereinafter, “Official Notice.” ISSUES Appellants argue that Beasley does not anticipate claims 11-14 because Beasley does not explicitly recite a fire extinguisher (App. Br. 5). With respect to the § 103 rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 10, Appellants repeat their argument that Beasley does not teach a fire extinguisher. Appellants further contend that Beasley does not teach a carrying handle, support leg, or removable partition (App. Br. 8). With respect to the § 103 rejection of claims 3, 7, 18, and 21-24, Appellants contend that the references do not teach an arming switch including shutoff deterrence, or support legs for supporting the interior of the cabinet several inches above the ground (App. Br. 9). Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issues: Appeal 2011-006530 Application 12/109,930 4 1. Does the claim limitation “an interior fire extinguisher closet for receiving a fire extinguisher therein” (claim 1) affirmatively require the presence of a fire extinguisher? 2. Does the combination of Beasley, Agnese, and Taylor teach a fire extinguisher? 3. Does the combination of Beasley, Agnese, Taylor, and Official Notice teach an arming switch including shutoff deterrence? 4. Does the combination of Beasley, Agnese, Taylor, and Official Notice teach support legs for supporting the interior of the cabinet several inches above the ground? PRINCIPLES OF LAW “A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art reference.” See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal 2011-006530 Application 12/109,930 5 Appeal Brief. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. CLAIMS 11-14 We are wholly unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that Beasley must explicitly recite a fire extinguisher to anticipate the claims. Representative claim 11 recites only “an interior fire extinguisher closet for receiving a fire extinguisher therein” (emphasis added). The Examiner correctly finds that a fire extinguisher could fit within the interior space of Beasley’s cabinet, which is all that this claim language requires. We find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 11-14 under § 102 and we will sustain the rejection. CLAIMS 1, 4-6, 8, AND 10 Appellants’ arguments, directed solely to Beasley rather than the Examiner’s combination of references, are not persuasive in showing that the Examiner erred. Although claim 1, in contradistinction to claim 11, affirmatively recites a fire extinguisher, Taylor provides an explicit teaching of a fire extinguisher. We further agree with the Examiner’s statements concerning the utility of Beasley’s upper and lower brackets, as “hangers” and “support legs” (Ans. 6). We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 10 as unpatentable over Beasley in view of Agnese and Taylor. We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection. CLAIMS 3, 7, 18, AND 21-24 As noted supra, we concur with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. We note further, with respect to the rejection of claims 3 and 7, Appellants state only that the applied references do not show the claimed features (App. Appeal 2011-006530 Application 12/109,930 6 Br. 9). Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 3, 7, 18, and 21-24. CONCLUSIONS 1. The claim limitation “an interior fire extinguisher closet for receiving a fire extinguisher therein” (claim 1) does not affirmatively require the presence of a fire extinguisher. 2. The combination of Beasley, Agnese, and Taylor teaches a fire extinguisher. 3. The combination of Beasley, Agnese, Taylor, and Official Notice teaches an arming switch including shutoff deterrence. 4. The combination of Beasley, Agnese, Taylor, and Official Notice teaches support legs for supporting the interior of the cabinet several inches above the ground. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, 18, and 21-24 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R.§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2010). AFFIRMED Vsh/llw