Ex Parte Castro

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 23, 2016

13077209 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/077,209 03/31/2011 RAYMOND ANTHONY CASTRO
25231 7590 11/28/2016
MARSH, FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP
8055 East Tufts A venue
Suite 450
Denver, CO 80237
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.
42969-00867 5170
EXAMINER
HARP, WILLIAM RAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/28/2016 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):
PTOMail@mfblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAYMOND ANTHONY CASTRO
Appeal2015-002510
Application 13/077 ,209
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1-11 and 13-19. See Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2015-002510
Application 13/077 ,209
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 9 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A pneumatic carrier for use in a pneumatic tube
transport system, comprising:
first and second shells having first and second recessed
surfaces and first and second engagement surfaces,
respectively, wherein the first and second engagement surfaces
mate in a closed position to define an enclosed space;
first and second sets of wear bands disposed about
outside surfaces of said first and second shells, respectively,
wherein in the closed position the first and second sets of wear
bands mate to form first and second substantially circular bands
adapted to position said carrier within a tube of a pneumatic
tube system;
a hinge member coupled to the first and second shells
and permitting movement between the closed position and an
open position;
a latch having a first portion attached to one of the first
and second shells, wherein the latch is operative to engage the
other of the first and second shells to secure the shells in the
closed position;
a first stud interconnected to the recessed surface of one
of the first and second shells;
a first socket interconnected to the recessed surf ace of
the other of the first and second shells, wherein a distal end of
the first stud is received within a hollow interior of the first
socket when the first and second shells are in the closed
position.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Keller (US 7,097,391 Bl, iss. Aug. 29, 2006)
and Fiore, Jr. (US 6,390,294 Bl, iss. May 21, 2002) ("Fiore").
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Keller, Fiore, and Krupa (US 5,456,379, iss. Oct. 10, 1995).
2
Appeal2015-002510
Application 13/077 ,209
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13, 14, and 16-19 as unpatentable over Keller and Fiore
The Examiner found that Keller teaches pneumatic carriers as recited
in independent claims 1 and 9, except for a first stud and socket (claim 1) or
first and second pillars (claim 9). Final Act. 3--4, 5---6. The Examiner found
that Fiore teaches these features. Id. at 4, 6. The Examiner determined that
it would have been obvious to use these features of Fiore on Keller's carrier
to prevent deformation of the carrier. Id. at 4, 6-7.
Appellant argues that Fiore is nonanalogous art and is not combinable
with Keller. Br. 6. Appellant argues that Fiore' s archery bow carrying case
is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed pneumatic carrier for use
in a pneumatic transport system. Id. at 7. Appellant also argues that Fiore is
not reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the invention because
Fiore addresses a different problem and has a different purpose. Id. at 8.
Appellant further argues that Fiore prevents crushing forces applied to the
case from being applied to items in the archery case and prevents the sides
from deforming inwards when subjected to an external load. Id.
We agree with the Examiner that Fiore is analogous art to the claimed
pneumatic carrier. Appellant discloses the invention "Field" as relating "to a
side-opening carrier vessel having internal supports that increase the rigidity
of the carrier." Spec. 1: 10-11, Figs. 1, 2. Fiore discloses a side-opening
multi-functional, rigid carrier for archery equipment with very similar
structure including internal supports. Fiore, 1:4--9, 2:22-56, Fig. 2.
The similarity in structures of Appellant's and Fiore's side-opening
carriers is illustrated by their respective figures. Figure 2 of Appellant's
disclosure is reproduced below.
3
Appeal2015-002510
Application 13/077 ,209
Fl(). :!
Figure 2 is an exploded view of Appellant's side-opening carrier with
first and second shells 20, 30 that connect via hinge assembly 70, and studs
140 and socket 150 on each shell. Spec. 6:10-13, 7:14--8:15, Fig. 3.
Figure 2 of Fiore is reproduced belo\v.
4
Appeal2015-002510
Application 13/077 ,209
Figure 2 of Fiore shows a side-opening carrier with sections 12, 14
that connect along hinge 50 and also include reinforcing pillars 40, 40' that
interconnect similar to Appellant's studs and socket. Fiore, 4:3-11, 5:9--44.
Although Appellant discloses that its side-opening carrier is used for
pneumatic carrier systems and Fiore discloses that its side-opening carrier is
used for archery equipment, nonetheless, the devices are from the same field
of side-opening carriers having shells that are hingedly connected and also
reinforced with internal posts/pillars to improve the structural rigidity and
alignment of the two clam shells and carriers. The different intended use of
the carriers does not place the carriers in different fields, given Appellant's
broad statement of the field, as discussed above, and the strong similarity in
structure and function of the two carriers. Spec. 1: 10-11.
Both carriers include elongated shells that are connected along one
longitudinal edge by a hinge having ferrules and a hinge pin so they open
and close along the other side as shown above. Both carriers have hollow
interiors to contain various items, and reinforcing pillars/posts that align the
shells to seal properly and improve the rigidity of the carriers. Spec. 2: 18-
3: 15, 5:8-23, 6:10-20, 7:14--9:3; Fiore, 2:22-57, 3:5-34, 5:9---6:2, 7:13-23;
Ans. 8; Final Act. 4, 6, 8. Therefore, Appellant's conclusory argument that
Fiore is a different field of endeavor (Br. 7) is not persuasive.
We also agree with the Examiner that Fiore is reasonably pertinent to
the problems addressed by Appellant, so that Fiore' s teachings would have
been considered by an inventor trying to solve those problems. Final Act. 4,
6, 9-10; Ans. 8-9. Appellant discloses that an object of the invention is
providing internal supports to increase the rigidity of a side-opening carrier.
Spec. 1: 10-11.
5
Appeal2015-002510
Application 13/077 ,209
Appellant describes the problem in using side-opening carriers that
"necessarily results in a carrier that has limited rigidity about its centerline
axis" and has "reduced torsional stability" that permits the carrier to flex and
open during transport. Spec. 2: 18-21. Appellant solves this problem with
mating studs and sockets formed on facing surfaces of the carrier shells "to
improve rigidity of the carrier" and provide "improved rigidity and/or
resistance to accidental opening." Id. at 2:23-29. The connecting studs and
sockets increase torsional rigidity of the carrier and prevent items inside the
cargo area from shifting or forcing the shells apart. Id. at 3:10-15, 8:19-28.
Other interior partitions may be used for this purpose. Id. at 9:4--11.
Fiore's reinforcing pillars 40, 40' address the same problem. They
prevent damage to the contents of the carrier from loads and forces imposed
on the carrier, and provide impact-resistance, load distribution, automatic
alignment, and multi-functional use. Fiore, 1 :4--9, 2:22-26. Fiore teaches
that the reinforcing pillars brace and prevent the large panels (side shells)
from significantly deforming by reducing the flexibility of the large panels
(increasing the rigidity of the panels) and better distributing loads and forces
impinging on the case. Id. at 2:37-57. The pillars align mating rims 38, 38'
so the carrier shells seal properly (and stay sealed). Id. at 5:65--6:2, 7: 13-23.
Appellant's attempt to limit the problem solely to increasing torsional
rigidity of the carrier to prevent the carrier from opening during transport
(Br. 7, 8) is not persuasive in view of the foregoing. Appellant discloses the
drawbacks of side-opening carriers as limited rigidity about their centerline
axes and the carriers may have reduced torsional stability. Spec. 2: 18-22.
Mating studs and sockets on facing carrier shells improve carrier rigidity and
resistance to accidental opening. Id. at 2:23-29.
6
Appeal2015-002510
Application 13/077 ,209
Fiore addresses the same problem of rigidity via reinforcing pillars 40,
40' that resist and distribute forces imposed on the case and align the edges
of the shells when the carrier is sealed so the shells stay sealed and aligned
during impact and loads. Fiore, 7: 13-23. The forces imposed on the carrier
could include torsional and other forces as the carrier is handled and stored
in vehicles or aircraft. Fiore discloses that more reinforcing pillars 40, 40'
may be used to improve carrier rigidity and alignment of the carrier shells.
Id. at 5:19-24. Reinforcing pillars 40, 40' partition the interior of the carrier
for bow 11, and arrow holder 86. Id. at Fig. 2. By distributing forces and
impacts and ensuring proper alignment of the edges of the shells, Fiore' s
pillars reduce the likelihood that the carrier will open when subjected to
torsional and other forces. 1 See Ans. 8-9.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-11, 13, 14, and 16-19.
Claims 4 and 15 as unpatentable over Keller, Fiore, and Krupa
Appellant does not present arguments for the rejection of claims 4 and
15 as unpatentable over Keller, Fiore, and Krupa. Thus, we summarily
sustain this rejection.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-11 and 13-19.
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
1 Claim 1 only recites a first stud and first socket that interconnect rather
than two separate sets of pillars as recited in independent claim 9.
7