Ex Parte Burgess et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2017

14531108 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2017)

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.
14/531,108 11/03/2014 Roddy Burgess CAP2491-054B 1210
8698 7590 07/03/2017
STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP
6300 Riverside Drive
Dublin, OH 43017
EXAMINER
ROERSMA, ANDREW MARK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3637
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/03/2017 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):
standley docketing @ standleyllp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RODDY BURGESS, IAN CUNNINGHAM, and
ROBERT GRANT MCRORIE
Appeal 2017-000870
Application 14/531,108
Technology Center 3600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—14 and 16—20. App. Br. 3.1 Claim 15 has been
withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection (“Final Act.”)
mailed November 13, 2015, (2) the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed May 10,
2016, (3) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed September 6, 2016, and
(4) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed October 18, 2016.
Appeal 2017-000870
Application 14/531,108
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is a work station that has a bracket for mounting
the work station to a surface and a vertically displaceable carriage to support
a monitor and keyboard. Abstract.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A work station comprising:
a mounting bracket adapted to be mounted to a surface;
an upper arm and a lower arm mounted to the mounting
bracket for pivoting motion about a first vertical axis;
a track pivoted to the upper arm and the lower arm about
a second vertical axis, said track supporting a vertically
displaceable carriage.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Viera US 3,796,170 Mar. 12, 1974
O’Neill US 6,102,348 Aug. 15,2000
Sweere et al. US 6,189,849 B1 Feb. 20, 2001
Boele US 6,752,363 B2 June 22, 2004
Oddsen Jr. US 6,783,105 B2 Aug. 31,2004
(“Oddsen ’105”)
Boks et al. US 2004/0262474 Al Dec. 30, 2004
Oddsen Jr. US 6,409,134 B1 June 25, 2002
(“Oddsen ’134”)
Bradbury et al. WO 2006/078961 A2 July 27, 2006
Mullen US 2007/0159035 Al July 12, 2007
Clark et al. US 2007/0055116 Al Mar. 8, 2007
We assign a number to each rejection, and we refer to these numbers
throughout this opinion:
1. Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Oddsen ’105 and Boele. Final Act. 3—5.
2
Appeal 2017-000870
Application 14/531,108
2. Claims 3, 4, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Oddsen ’105, Boele, and Clark. Final Act. 5—6.
3. Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Oddsen ’105, Boele, and Nelson. Final Act. 6—7.
4. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Oddsen ’105, Boele, and Bradbury. Final Act. 7—8.
5. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Oddsen ’105, Boele, and Powell. Final Act. 8.
6. Claims 16 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Oddsen ’105, Boele, and Clark. Final Act. 8—9.
7. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Oddsen ’105, Boele, Clark, and Sweere. Final Act. 9.
8. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Oddsen ’105, Boele, Clark, Bradbury, and Miller. Final Act. 9-10.
9. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Oddsen ’105 and Oddsen ’134. Final Act. 11.
10. Claims 1—7, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sweere, Boele, and Viera. Final Act. 12—16.
11. Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sweere, Boele, Viera, and Mullen. Final Act. 16.
12. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sweere, Boele, Viera, and Bradbury. Final Act. 17.
13. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sweere, Boele, Viera, and Powell. Final Act. 17—18.
14. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sweere, Boele, Viera, and Clark. Final Act. 18.
3
Appeal 2017-000870
Application 14/531,108
15. Claims 16—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sweere, Boele, Viera, and Clark. Final Act. 19—20.
16. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sweere, Boele, Viera, Clark, Bradbury, and Miller.
Final Act. 20—21.
17. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sweere, Boele, Viera, and Mullen. Final Act. 21—22.
18. Claims 1—7 and 10—12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sweere, Bradbury, and Viera. Final Act. 23—26.
19. Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sweere, Bradbury, Viera, and Mullen. Final Act. 26—27.
20. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sweere, Bradbury, Viera, and Powell. Final Act. 27—28.
21. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sweere, Bradbury, Viera, and Clark. Final Act. 28.
22. Claims 16—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sweere, Bradbury, Viera, and Clark. Final Act. 29-30.
23. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sweere, Bradbury, Viera, Clark, and Miller.
Final Act. 30—31.
24. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over O’Neill and Oddsen ‘134. Final Act. 31.
25. Claims 1—5, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over O’Neill and Sweere. Final Act. 32—34.
26. Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over O’Neill, Sweere, and Nelson. Final Act. 34.
4
Appeal 2017-000870
Application 14/531,108
27. Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over O’Neill, Sweere, and Mullen. Final Act. 34—35.
28. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over O’Neill, Sweere, and Bradbury. Final Act. 35—36.
29. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over O’Neill, Sweere, and Powell. Final Act. 36.
30. Claims 14 and 16—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over O’Neill, Sweere, and Clark. Final Act. 36—38.
31. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over O’Neill, Sweere, Clark, Bradbury, and Miller.
Final Act. 38—39.
32. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Boks and Oddsen ’134. Final Act. 39-40.
33. Claims 1—5, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Boks and Sweere. Final Act. 40-42.
34. Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Boks, Sweere, and Nelson. Final Act. 42-43.
35. Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Boks, Sweere, and Mullen. Final Act. 43.
36. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Boks, Sweere, and Bradbury. Final Act. 44.
37. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Boks, Sweere, and Powell. Final Act. 44-45.
38. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Boks, Sweere, and Clark. Final Act. 45.
5
Appeal 2017-000870
Application 14/531,108
39. Claims 16—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Boks, Sweere, and Clark. Final Act. 46.
40. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Boks, Sweere, Clark, Bradbury, and Miller.
Final Act. 47-48.
I.2 THE REJECTION OVER ODDSEN ’105 AND BOELE
Claim 1 recites, in part, “an upper arm and a lower arm mounted to
the mounting bracket for pivoting motion about a first vertical axis; a track
pivoted to the upper arm and the lower arm about a second vertical axis.”
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as being obvious over Oddsen ‘105 and
Boele. Final Act. 3. In the proposed combination, the Examiner finds
Oddsen3 teaches an upper arm, a lower arm, and a track. Id. But the
Examiner finds that Oddsen’s arms and track are not in the claimed
configuration. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to rearrange the parts to have the upper and lower arms secured to a wall-
mounted bracket because doing so involves only routine skill. Id.
Appellants argue that Oddsen does not teach a track pivoted to the
upper and lower arm about a second vertical axis. App. Br. 9 (reproducing
Oddsen’s Figure 14 with annotations). According to Appellants, the
Examiner relies on the housing to teach a track, which is completely isolated
and disconnected from arms 136 and 138. Reply Br. 5.
We agree with Appellants.
2 We have ordered the sections in this decision according to the sections
presented by Appellants, which are also used by the Examiner in the
Answer.
3 In this section, Oddsen refers to Oddsen ’105.
6
Appeal 2017-000870
Application 14/531,108
Appellants’ Figure 3 is reproduced below alongside Oddsen’s Figure
14.
Appellants’ Figure 3 (left) and Oddsen’s Figure 14 (right) and show a
sides view of the respective assemblies.
Appellants’ upper arm (2) and lower arm (4) are attached to track (6) and
mounting bracket (12). Although Oddsen’s arms 136 and 138 are attached
to a mounting bracket, Oddsen lacks a track pivoted to the upper arm and the
lower arm about a second vertical axis. Oddsen ’105 Fig. 14; accord Ans. 3.
The Examiner finds that Oddsen teaches a track inside the mounting bracket,
7
Appeal 2017-000870
Application 14/531,108
which is not shown in Figure 14. Ans. 3 (citing items 116, 118); see, e.g.,
Oddsen ’105 Fig. 20 (showing 118).
The Examiner’s proposed modification involves more than just a
repositioning of an element. As Appellants point out, Oddsen’s track in the
mounting bracket is on the opposite side of the assembly. Reply Br. 5.
Essentially, the Examiner is proposing removing an element from the
mounting bracket and using it to construct a new part. See Ans. 3. The
Examiner finds that this modification would only require “routine skill.”
Final Act. 3. But the mere fact that a person of ordinary skill in the art could
take Oddsen’s parts and use them to construct the claimed invention is
insufficient to support a finding of obviousness.
The Examiner also cites Boele for teaching a pivoting structure.
Final Act. 5—A. But in the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner does not rely
on Boele to teach the track discussed above. See id. Accordingly, Boele
does not remedy Oddsen’s deficiency in this regard.
Therefore, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the rejection of
independent claim 1.
Other Rejections based on Oddsen ’105 and Boele
The Examiner rejects claims 3, 4, 6, 7, and 12—14 based on Oddsen
’105, Boele, and several additional references. See Final Act. 5—8. Because
the Examiner does not rely on the additional references to teach the missing
limitation discussed in the previous section (see id.), the additional
references do not remedy the deficiency in the rejection based on Oddsen
’105 and Boele discussed in the previous section. Therefore, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 7, and 12—14 (id.) for the
same reasons.
8
Appeal 2017-000870
Application 14/531,108
II. THE REJECTION OVER ODDSEN ’105, BOELE, AND CLARK
Claim 16 recites “a support pivoted to the upper arm and the lower
arm about a second vertical axis” (emphasis added) instead of a track as
recited in claim 1.
The Examiner concludes that the subject matter of claim 16 and 18
would have been obvious in view of Oddsen ’105, Boele, and Clark.
Final Act. 8—9; Ans. 9-10. To address the support recited in claim 16, the
Examiner, however, relies on the same reasoning presented in the rejection
of claim 1 to address the track. See Ans. 9—10. In particular, the Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to rearrange the parts of Oddsen
’105 to arrive at the claimed invention. Id. at 10. So for the same reasons
discussed above, we are persuaded by Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 11—
14) that the Examiner erred.
The Examiner does not rely on the additional references to teach the
missing limitation discussed above. See Ans. 9-10. Therefore, these
references do not remedy the rejection’s deficiency in this regard.
Appellants have persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent
claim 16 and dependent claim 18 for similar reasons.
Other Rejections based on Oddsen ’105, Boele, and Clark
The Examiner rejects claims 17 and 19 based on Oddsen ’105, Boele,
and Clark and several additional references. See Final Act. 9-10. Because
the Examiner does not rely on the additional references to teach the missing
limitation discussed above (see id.), the additional references do not remedy
the deficiency in the rejection based on Oddsen ’105, Boele, and Clark
9
Appeal 2017-000870
Application 14/531,108
discussed in the previous section. Therefore, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 17 and 19 (id.) for the same reasons.
III. THE REJECTION OVER ODDSEN ’105 AND ODDSEN ’134
Like claim 16, claim 20 recites “a support pivoted to the upper arm
and the lower arm about a second vertical axis” (emphasis added).
The Examiner concludes that the subject matter of claim 20 would
have been obvious over Oddsen ’105 and Oddsen ’134. Final Act. 11. To
address the support recited in claim 20, the Examiner cites Oddsen ’134 and
concludes that it would have been obvious to add support 302 to Oddsen
’105. Id.
Appellants argue that Oddsen ’105 lacks the recited support for the
same reasons discussed above in connection with the track recited in claim
1. App. Br. 14. Appellants further argue that Oddsen ’134 cannot remedy
this deficiency because Oddsen ’134 only teaches a single arm. Id.
We agree with Appellants. Element 302 in Oddsen ’ 134 is a tilter that
connects a monitor to a single arm. See, e.g., Oddsen ’134 Fig. 9. The
Examiner has not explained how this could then be pivoted to both arms
about an axis, as claimed. See Final Act. 11; Ans. 12. The Examiner also
states that it would have been obvious to add a support between arms 140 or
separate supports. Ans. 12—13. But apart from stating this as a conclusion,
the Examiner does not articulate an adequate reason for doing so. See id.
Therefore, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the rejection of
independent claim 20. See App. Br. 14.
10
Appeal 2017-000870
Application 14/531,108
IV. THE REJECTION OVER SWEERE, BOELE, AND VIERA
The Examiner additionally rejects claim 1 as being obvious over
Sweere, Boele, and Viera. Final Act. 12—13.
First, Appellants argue that (1) Boele’s intended purpose is to tilt the
display screen and (2) its principle of operation is to use gas spring 19 within
this pivot tilt in this way. App. Br. 17. According to Appellants, it would
not be possible for Boele to tilt the display screen (i.e., pivot in the direction
P3) if Boele were modified to accommodate a track pivoted to both arms.
Id. at 17. Appellants contend that the Examiner’s proposed modification
would render the device unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Id. at 17—
18.
Second, Appellants further contend that the base device of Boele
already allows for the monitor to be adjusted to the desired viewing angle
and a storage position against the wall. Id. at 18. According to Appellants,
the motivation to combine the reference cannot provide a feature that is
already in the base device. Id.
We agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ two arguments
{id. at 16—18) mischaracterize the rejection. Ans. 14. The Examiner does
not propose modifying Boele to accommodate a track. See Final Act. 12—13.
Rather, the Examiner cites Boele for the limited purpose of adding pivots to
the combination of Sweere and Viera. See id.
Specifically, Sweere discloses a track supporting a vertically
displaceable carriage. Final Act. 12 (citing Sweere col. 4 11. 4^43). But
Sweere lacks the recited arms and pivots. Final Act. 12. The Examiner cites
Viera’s bracket that has an upper and lower arms between plates to provide a
pivot. Id. For the recited pivots about the first and second axes, the
11
Appeal 2017-000870
Application 14/531,108
Examiner cites Bode as teaching multiple pivots. See id. at 12—13. For its
part, we agree that Boele, indeed, teaches pivoting about two vertical axes.
See Boele, Fig. 1, items PI, P2. Because Appellants’ arguments treat Boele
as the base device (App. Br. 16—18), these arguments do not squarely
address, let alone persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reasoning.
The Examiner’s combination uses Boele’s pivots to perform the same
function in the combination as they do separately—i.e., allowing the
attached device to be adjusted about two axes—with no change in their
operation. See Final Act. 12—13. In this way, the Examiner combines prior
art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results—an
obvious combination. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416
(2007).
Appellants further argue that Sweere does not teach a track positioned
in the recited manner. App. Br. 16. This argument is unpersuasive because,
as discussed above, the Examiner proposes combining Sweere with Boele
and Viera to position the track as recited. See Final Act. 12—13. Appellants’
argument is unpersuasive because it does not address whether the invention
would have been obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole. See
App. Br. 16. For the reasons discussed above, we find that the Examiner has
supported the obviousness conclusion with articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning.
Lastly, Appellants argue that Boele already claims to be able to
support displays weighing up to 60 kg and specifically teaches that even
larger displays can be supported. Id. at 18 (citing Boele col. 4 11. 20-26). In
Appellants’ view, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been
12
Appeal 2017-000870
Application 14/531,108
motivated to duplicate the arms of Boele for “more support” because Boele
already supports enough. App. Br. 18.
We are unpersuaded. Appellants’ argument (id.) mischaracterizes the
proposed combination, which does not use Boele as the base device. See
Ans. 14. Furthermore, unsupported arguments have less probative value
than factually supported objective evidence. Here, Appellants have not
provided any data showing, for example, that it is unnecessary to support
displays greater than what Boele can bear. Rather, Appellants’ arguments
are based on unsupported assertions about the display weight and the
demand for display supports. See id.
Therefore, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection
of independent claim 1 over these references, and dependent claims 2—7, 10,
and 11, not argued separately with particularity.
Other Rejections based on Sweere, Boele, and Viera
Appellants do not provide separate arguments against the rejection for
claims 8, 9, and 12—14 over Sweere, Boele, Viera, and several additional
references (Final Act. 16—18). For the reasons discussed in connection with
independent claim 1, we also sustain the rejection of these claims.
V. THE REJECTION OVER SWEERE, BOELE, VIERA, AND CLARK
Regarding the rejection of claims 16—18 over Sweere, Boele, Viera,
and Clark (Final Act. 19-20), Appellants assert the same arguments
discussed above in connection with the rejection over Sweere, Boele, and
Viera. App Br. 18—19. So, Appellants’ arguments (id.) raise similar issues
to those addressed above, which we found unpersuasive. For the reasons
discussed above, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection
13
Appeal 2017-000870
Application 14/531,108
of independent claim 16 and dependent claims 17 and 18, not argued
separately with particularity.
Other Rejections based on Sweere, Boele, Viera, and Clark
Appellants do not provide separate arguments against the rejection for
claims 19 over Sweere, Boele, Viera, Clark, Bradbury, and Miller
(Final Act. 20—21). See App. Br.; Reply Br. For the reasons discussed in
connection with independent claim 16, we also sustain the rejection of this
claim.
VI. THE REJECTION OVER SWEERE, BOELE, VIERA, AND
MULLEN
Regarding the rejection of claim 20 over Sweere, Boele, Viera, and
Mullen (Final Act. 21—22), Appellants assert the same arguments discussed
above in connection with the rejection over Sweere, Boele, and Viera.
App Br. 19. So, Appellants’ arguments (id.) raise similar issues to those
addressed above, which we found unpersuasive. For the reasons discussed
above, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of
independent claim 20 over Sweere, Boele, Viera, and Mullen.
VII. THE REJECTION OVER SWEERE, BRADBURY, AND VIERA
The Examiner additionally rejects claim 1 as being obvious over
Sweere, Bradbury, and Viera. Final Act. 23—24.
Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
separate Bradbury’s arm 102b, duplicate it, then attach it to the two ends of
the track. App. Br. 20—21. Appellants further contend that the base device
of Bradbury already allows for the monitor to be adjusted to the desired
viewing angle and a storage position against the wall. Id. at 18. According
14
Appeal 2017-000870
Application 14/531,108
to Appellants, the motivation to combine the reference cannot provide a
feature that is already in the base device. Id.
The Examiner, however, does not use Bradbury as the “base device.”
See Final Act. 23—24. Rather, the Examiner proposes using Bradbury for the
limited purpose of adding pivots to the combination of Sweere and Viera.
See id.
Specifically, Sweere discloses a track supporting a vertically
displaceable carriage. Id. at 23 (citing Sweere col. 4 11. 4-43). But Sweere
lacks the recited arms and pivots. Final Act. 22. The Examiner cites Viera’s
bracket that has upper and lower arms between plates to provide a pivot.
Id. at 23. To address the recited pivots about the first and second axes, the
Examiner cites Bradbury as teaching the additional pivots. See id.
Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 18—22) do not squarely address, let alone
persuasively rebut this reasoning. Rather, Appellants’ argument are directed
to modifications to Bradbury, which are not proposed by the Examiner. See
id.
Here, the Examiner’s combination uses Bradbury’s pivots to perform
the same function in the combination as they do separately—i.e., allowing
the attached device to be adjusted about two axes—with no change in their
operation. See Final Act. 23—24. In this way, the Examiner combines prior
art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results—an
obvious combination.
Appellants argue that Bradbury already provides substantial support.
App. Br. 21. In Appellants’ view, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
not have been motivated to duplicate the arms of Bradbury for more support
because Bradbury can support current displays and future displays will be
15
Appeal 2017-000870
Application 14/531,108
even lighter. Id. Appellants further contend that the Examiner does not
consider the complexity of having two arms which are both pivoted from a
pair of vertical axes as claimed, which is unpredictable and complex.
Id. at 22.
We are unpersuaded by this argument for two reasons.
First, Appellants’ argument (id. at 21—22) characterizes the
Examiner’s rejection as modifying Bradbury in a way inconsistent with the
actual rejection. So, this argument (id.) is unpersuasive for at least the
reasons discussed above.
Second, unsupported arguments have less probative value than
factually supported objective evidence. For example, Appellants have not
provided any data regarding display weights or consumer demand for
different display capacities. Nor have Appellants provided objective
evidence of the unpredictability of this design. Rather, Appellants’
arguments (id.) are based on unsupported assertions about the weight of
monitors and the current market for displays supports.
Lastly, Appellants argue that Sweere does not teach a track as
positioned. Id. at 19—20. This argument is unpersuasive because, as
discussed above, the Examiner proposes combining Sweere with Boele and
Viera to position the track as recited. See Final Act. 12—13. Although
Appellants argue that none of the references teach the track in the recited
position (App. Br. 19-20), the argument does not address whether the
invention would have been obvious considering the teachings of the prior art
as a whole.
16
Appeal 2017-000870
Application 14/531,108
Therefore, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection
of independent claim 1 over these references, and dependent claims 2—7 and
10—12, not argued separately with particularity.
Other Rejections based on Sweere, Bradbury, and Viera
Appellants do not provide separate arguments against the rejection for
claims 8, 9, 13, and 14 over Sweere, Bradbury, Viera, and several additional
references (Final Act. 26—28). For the reasons discussed in connection with
independent claim 1, we also sustain the rejection of these claims.
VIII. THE REJECTION OVER SWEERE, BRADBURY, VIERA, AND
CLARK
Regarding the rejection of claims 16—18 over Sweere, Bradbury,
Viera, and Clark (Final Act. 29-30), Appellants assert the same arguments
discussed above in connection with the rejection over Sweere, Bradbury, and
Viera. App Br. 22—23. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments (id.) raise
similar issues to those addressed above, which we found unpersuasive. For
the reasons discussed above, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in
the rejection of independent claim 16 and dependent claims 17 and 18, not
argued separately with particularity.
Other Rejections based on Sweere, Bradbury, Viera, and Clark
Appellants do not provide separate arguments against the rejection for
claim 19 over Sweere, Bradbury, Viera, Clark, and Miller (Final Act. 30-
31). For the reasons discussed in connection with independent claim 16, we
also sustain the rejection of this claim.
17
Appeal 2017-000870
Application 14/531,108
IX. THE REJECTION OVER O’NEILL AND ODDSEN ’134
The Examiner additionally rejects claim 20 as being obvious over
O’Neill and Oddsen ’134. Final Act. 31. The Examiner finds that O’Neill
discloses every limitation of claim 20 except for pre-wiring extension cables,
but cites Oddsen ’ 134 for this feature in concluding that the claim would
have been obvious. Id. In particular, the Examiner finds that O’Neill
discloses an upper arm (20) and a lower arm (30), and the recited first and
second vertical axes. Id.
Appellants argue that O’Neill’s arms 20 and 30 do not share a second
vertical axis as required by the claim. App. Br. 23. In support of this
argument Appellants annotate O’Neill’s Figure 9, which we have
reproduced below. Id. at 24.
18
Appeal 2017-000870
Application 14/531,108
1 2 3 4
O’Neill’s Figure 9 with Appellants annotations.
Appellants’ argument {id. at 23—24) is persuasive. Claim 20 requires
a supported pivoted to both arms about a second axis. But O’Neill’s arms
support an angular positioning of the track—i.e., the top of appliance 11 tilts
away from base 12, as shown in Figure 9 above. O’Neill col. 4 11.4—16.
Given this configuration, the Examiner has not shown that the cited
arrangement allows the connectors (60) to share an axis in the manner
recited. See Final Act. 31. Rather, the Examiner acknowledges that
19
Appeal 2017-000870
Application 14/531,108
O’Neill’s device in Figure 9 is not positioned in a way that meets the
limitation at issue but can be positioned in a way that does. Ans. 29. The
Examiner, however, does not explain how this is possible. Id. Such an
explanation is required here considering the angular positioning discussed
above, which suggests the opposite conclusion. Id. Although the Examiner
further explains that the upper and lower arms do not need to align {id.),
claim 20, nevertheless, requires the upper and lower arms to be pivoted
about least one shared axis.
Because the Examiner does not rely on the additional reference to
teach the missing limitation discussed above (see Final Act. 31), the
additional reference does not remedy the rejection’s deficiency.
Therefore, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the rejection of
independent claim 20.
X. THE REJECTION OVER O’NEILL AND SWEERE
The Examiner additionally rejects claim 1 as being obvious over
O’Neill and Sweere. Final Act. 32. Citing O’Neill, the Examiner relies on
the same reasoning presented in the rejection claim 20, discussed in the
previous section. See id. For the same reasons discussed above, Appellants
have persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 1 over
O’Neill and Sweere (see App. Br. 26—27), and dependent claims 2—5, 10,
and 11 for similar reasons.
Other Rejections based on O ’Neill and Sweere
The Examiner rejects claims 6—9, and 12—14 based on O’Neill,
Sweere, and several additional references. See Final Act. 34—36. Because
the Examiner does not rely on the additional references to teach the missing
20
Appeal 2017-000870
Application 14/531,108
limitation (see id.), the additional references do not remedy the deficiency in
the rejection based on O’Neill and Sweere. Therefore, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection (id.) for the same reasons.
XI. THE REJECTION OVER O’NEILL, SWEERE, AND CLARK
The Examiner additionally rejects claim 16 as being obvious over
O’Neill, Sweere, and Clark. Final Act. 37—38. Citing O’Neill, the Examiner
relies on the same reasoning presented in the rejection claim 20, discussed in
section IX. See id. For the same reasons discussed above, Appellants have
persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 16 over O’Neill,
Sweere, and Clark (See App. Br. 26—27), and dependent claims 17 and 18
for similar reasons
Other Rejections based on O ’Neill, Sweere, and Clark
The Examiner rejects claim 19 over O’Neill, Sweere, Clark,
Bradbury, and Miller. See Final Act. 38—39. Because the Examiner does
not rely on the additional references to teach the missing limitation (see id.),
the additional references do not remedy the deficiency in the rejection based
on O’Neill and Sweere. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection (id.) for the same reasons.
XII. THE REJECTION OVER BOKS AND ODDSEN ’134
The Examiner additionally rejects claim 20 as being obvious over
Boks and Oddsen ’134. Final Act. 39-40. The Examiner finds that Boks
teaches every limitation of claim 20 except for the recited pre-wiring
extension cables, but cites Oddsen ’134 in concluding that claim 20 would
have been obvious. Id. In particular, the Examiner finds that Boks teaches
21
Appeal 2017-000870
Application 14/531,108
support 26 pivoted to an upper arm (114) and a lower arm (116) about a
second axis. Id.
Appellants argue that mounting plate 26 is either rigidly fixed in place
or permitted to pivot in all directions. App. Br. 27. In Appellants view, the
claim requires pivoting about only single vertical axis. Id. at 27—28.
According to Appellants, any constraint on pivoting in Boks’ system would
be supplied by the user. Id. at 28—29.
We, however, disagree with Appellants that the claim 20 restricts
pivoting to only a single vertical axis. Claim 20 does not recite the term
“single.” Rather, claim 20 recites “a support pivoted to the upper arm and
the lower arm about a second vertical axis” (emphasis added). The article
“a” does not limit the claim to a single axis.
“As a general rule, the words ‘a’ or ‘an’ in a patent claim carry
the meaning of ‘one or more.’” TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar
Commc’ns Corp., 516 F.3d 1290, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “The
exceptions to this rule are extremely limited: a patentee must
evince a clear intent to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one.’” Baldwin
Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed.
Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
“The subsequent use of definite articles ‘the’ or ‘said’ in a
claim to refer back to the same claim term does not change the
general plural rule, but simply reinvokes that non-singular
meaning.” Id. An exception to the general rule arises only
“where the language of the claims themselves, the specification,
or the prosecution history necessitate a departure from the rule.”
Id. at 1342—43.
01 Communique Lab., Inc. v. LogMeln, Inc, 687 F.3d 1292, 1297
(Fed. Cir. 2012). Here, neither the Specification nor the language of the
claims themselves requires a single vertical axis. See Spec. 10 (explaining
that the embodiments are exemplary). Rather, claim 20 covers pivoting
22
Appeal 2017-000870
Application 14/531,108
about one or more axes. Accord Ans. 34 (discussing the claims open ending
comprising language).
Appellants do not dispute that Boks pivots in all directions. See
App. Br. 27. Because Boks’s arms share at least one vertical axis
(Boks 116),4 we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Boks.
Final Act. 39-40.
Therefore, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection
of independent claim 20 over these references.
XIII. THE REJECTION OVER BOKS AND SWEERE
Regarding the rejection of claims 1—5, 10, and 11 over Boks and
Sweere (Final Act. 40-42), Appellants assert the same arguments discussed
above in connection with the rejection over Boks and Oddsen ’134.
App Br. 29. So, Appellants’ arguments (id.) raise similar issues to those
addressed above, which we found unpersuasive. For the reasons discussed
above, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of
independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2—5, 10, and 11, not argued
separately with particularity. See id.
Other Rejections based on Boks and Sweere
Appellants do not provide separate arguments against the rejection for
claims 6—9 and 12—14 over Boks, Sweere, and several additional references
(Final Act. 42-45). See App. Br.; Reply Br. For the reasons discussed in
4 Unlike O’Neill discussed above, Boks’s arms are pivotable about at least
one shared axis. Boks 116. Our decision regarding the O’Neill reference
does not turn on the issue of whether the claim requires only one shared
vertical axis because the Examiner has not shown that O’Neill teaches at
least one second shared vertical axis.
23
Appeal 2017-000870
Application 14/531,108
connection with independent claim 1, we also sustain the rejection of these
claims.
XIV. THE REJECTION OVER BOKS, SWEERE, AND CLARK
Regarding the rejection of claims 16—18 over Boks, Sweere, and Clark
(Final Act. 46), Appellants assert the same arguments discussed above in
connection with the rejection over Boks and Oddsen ’134. App Br. 30. So,
Appellants’ arguments (id.) raise similar issues to those addressed above,
which we found unpersuasive. For the reasons discussed above, Appellants
have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 16 and
dependent claims 17 and 18, not argued separately with particularity. See id.
Other Rejections based on Boks, Sweere, and Clark
Appellants do not provide separate arguments against the rejection of
claim 19 over Boks, Sweere, Clark, Bradbury, and Miller (Final Act. 47-48).
See App. Br.; Reply Br. For the reasons discussed in connection with
independent claim 16, we also sustain the rejection of this claim.
CONCLUSIONS
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections that we have numbered 10—23
and 32-40.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections that we have numbered
1-9 and 24—31.
24
Appeal 2017-000870
Application 14/531,108
DECISION
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 1-14 and 16-20. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
25