Ex Parte Davis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2017

13008246 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 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.
23852-0002-Cl 8423
EXAMINER
MACARTHUR, VICTOR L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3658
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/008,246 01/18/2011
121964 7590 03/14/2017
McNees Wallace & Nurick, LLC/
TAIT Towers Manufacturing, LLC
100 Pine Street
P.O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
Adam DAVIS
03/14/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADAM DAVIS, JAMES FAIRORTH,
and MICHAEL TAIT1
Appeal 2014-008746
Application 13/008,246
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, LEE L. STEPINA, and
AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Adam Davis et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—7, 9, 10, 21, and 22. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real parties in interest are Tait Towers
Manufacturing, LLC, and the inventors, Adam Davis, Michael Tait, and
James Fairorth. Appeal Br. 1 (filed Feb. 25, 2014).
Appeal 2014-008746
Application 13/008,246
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention concerns a “connector system” that may be
used with, for example, “a portable stage or platform.” Appeal Br. 20-21
(Claims App.); Spec. 12. Claim 21 is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal, and recites:
21. A connector system comprising:
a male connector having a tapered portion; and
a female connector configured to be engaged to the male
connector, the female connector having a retention device and a
tapered cavity configured to receive and engage the tapered
portion of the male connector;
wherein the male connector is configured with structure to
provide rotational alignment and prevent rotation of the male
connector.
Appeal Br. 20-21 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REJECTIONS2
The claims stand rejected as follows:
I. Claims 1, 5—7, 9, 10, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Botimer.3
II. Claims 1—7, 9, 10, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Hammond.4
2 The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—7, 9, 10, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§112, first and second paragraphs, have been withdrawn. See Final Act. 2—
4 (mailed June 25, 2013); Ans. 2 (mailed May 22, 2014).
3 US 4,619,566, iss. Oct. 28, 1986.
4 US 3,498,624, iss. Mar. 3, 1970.
2
Appeal 2014-008746
Application 13/008,246
III. Claims 1—7, 9, 10, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
anticipated by Chittenden.5
ANALYSIS
Rejection I—Anticipation by Botimer — Claims 1, 5—7, 9, 10, 21, and 22
Appellants argue claims 1, 5—7, 9, 10, 21, and 22 as a group. Appeal
Br. 11 (“Claims 1, 5—7, 9, 10, 21 and 22 stand or fall together.”). We select
claim 21 as representative, and claims 1, 5—7, 9, 10, and 22 stand or fall with
claim 21. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); Appeal Br. 20—21 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Botimer discloses a connector system as
claimed, including male connector 52 and female connector 2. Final Act. 5;
Ans. 2. The Examiner finds that the male connector includes flange portion
64, tapered portion 53, and alignment member “55, 58 and/or 20.” Final
Act. 5. The Examiner finds that the female connector includes, inter alia, a
tapered cavity to receive and engage the tapered portion of the male
connector. Id. The Examiner finds that this connector system “provide[s]
rotational alignment and prevents] rotation of the male connector.” Id.
Specifically, the Examiner interprets the claims to preclude relative rotation
between the male and female connectors, which the Examiner contends to be
consistent with Appellants’ Specification. Ans. 2—3, 10—11.
Appellants appear to agree with the Examiner that “[t]he claims
require that the male connector does NOT rotate relative to the female
connector.” Compare Reply Br. 2 (emphasis added), with Ans. 3. However,
5 US 2,491,605, iss. Dec. 20, 1949.
3
Appeal 2014-008746
Application 13/008,246
Appellants contend that “[t]he Botimer device is designed to impart rotation
to the male member sections 54/56, not prevent rotation” of the male
connector. Appeal Br. 12—13; Reply Br. 1—3. Appellants contend that
Botimer’s male connector “rotate[s] with the female connector[, which] is
OPPOSITE of what appellant’s claimed structure does.” Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Representative claim
21 requires that “the male connector is configured with structure to provide
rotational alignment and prevent rotation of the male connector.” Appeal
Br. 20—21 (Claims App.). We agree with Appellants and the Examiner that
this limitation requires that relative rotation is prevented between the male
and female connectors. Reply Br. 2; Ans. 3. For example, Appellants’
Specification explains that engagement of alignment pin 1307 within
alignment channel 1105 “substantially prevents rotation of the primary
support connector 301,” and also explains that the force provided by
retention device 507 against connector 301 maintains angular orientation.
Spec. 1 50. In this manner, Appellants’ male connector 301 is prevented
from rotation with respect to Appellants’ female connector 401. See Spec.,
Fig. 15.
As the Examiner explains, in this engaged position, where relative
rotation is prevented, the entire connector assembly, i.e., both the male and
female connectors together, may still be rotated as a unit. Ans. 3, 10-11.
We appreciate Appellants’ position that the claims do not recite “an entire
platform assembly having caster wheels that facilitate movement of the
entire platform assembly.” Reply Br. 3. We do not understand the
Examiner to require such a limitation. We understand the Examiner’s
4
Appeal 2014-008746
Application 13/008,246
explanation to illustrate that although relative rotation is precluded between
Appellants’ male and female connector elements, Appellants’ entire
connector assembly itself may be rotated, in its assembled state, as a unit.
Ans. 10 (“Appellant’s own male connector 301 is locked to prevent rotation
relative to the female connector 401 but there is nothing to prevent rotation
of the locked male/female assembly together.”). We agree with the
Examiner’s interpretation of the claims, in light of Appellants’ Specification.
Likewise, Botimer explains that when male connector 52 and female
connector 2 are assembled, as in Figure 1, “relative rotation between the
coupling member 52 and the body 2 will cease and all parts of the assembly
will rotate at the same speed.” Botimer, 5:3—7. Therefore, relative rotation
is prevented between Botimer’s male connector 52 and female connector 2,
as claimed. That Botimer’s entire assembly may then be rotated, as a unit,
does not conflict with the claims, which do not require that the entire
assembled connector system is prevented from being rotated as a unit. Ans.
10. We have considered Appellants’ argument that rotation of Botimer’s
male connector at the same speed with Botimer’s female connector “is
OPPOSITE of what appellant’s claimed structure does.” Reply Br. 3. We
do not understand this argument, however, because Appellants agree that the
claims preclude only relative rotation between these members. Therefore,
when Botimer’s male and female connectors rotate together at the same
speed, there is no relative rotation between them. Appellants do not explain
persuasively how this arrangement is opposite from Appellants’ claims.
Appellants also contend that Botimer’s lug 64 is not a flange, as
claimed, wherein a flange may be defined as “a projecting disk-shaped collar
5
Appeal 2014-008746
Application 13/008,246
or rim on an object... [or a] projecting rim, collar, or ring . . . .” Appeal Br.
12—13 (citing www.dictionary.com).6 By contrast, Appellants describe
Botimer’s lug as a narrow projection, not an elongated ridge. Id. at 13.
First, we note that representative claim 21 does not recite a flange. Id.
at 20—21 (Claims App.). This argument is not commensurate with the scope
of representative claim 21 and, therefore, is not persuasive as to claim 21 or
the claims grouped therewith. To the extent that Appellants intended to
argue separately the claims that recite a flange, we are unpersuaded by
Appellants’ argument because the words of the claim must be given their
plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the
specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Bond,
910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Appellants’ Specification does not
provide a special definition for the term “flange.” See generally Spec.
Rather, the Specification describes a “flange portion 1103,” which is shown
in Figures 11, 12, and 15, without further limitation, restriction, or
elaboration.
An appropriate definition of “flange,” in the context of the claims, is
“a rib or rim for strength, for guiding, or for attachment to another object.”
See Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1983) 469; see also
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/flange, last accessed Mar. 7, 2017 (same). Although
Appellants provide a different definition of this term, which purports to
6 Appellants also provide a definition for “rib” as “an elongated ridge.”
Appeal Br. 12. However, neither the claims nor Appellants’ definition of
“flange” recite a “rib.” As such, the import of this definition is unclear.
6
Appeal 2014-008746
Application 13/008,246
require a “disk-shape[],” see Appeal Br. 12, Appellants’ construction
appears based on a secondary “British Dictionary defmition[] for flange.”
See Dictionary.com, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/flange?s=t, last
accessed Mar. 7, 2017. The primary definition of “flange” offered by the
website cited by Appellants is “a projecting rim, collar, or ring on a shaft,
pipe, machine housing, etc., cast or formed to give additional strength,
stiffness, or supporting area, or to provide a place for the attachment of other
objects.” Id. This primary definition is consistent with the definition we
offer above. Appellants do not explain persuasively why this primary
definition should be ignored in favor of the “British Dictionary definition” it
appears to cite.
Botimer’s lug 64 satisfies the plain meaning construction of “flange”
because it is a projecting rim that is provided for attachment to another
object. See Botimer, 4:3—13 (explaining that radially extending lugs 64, 64a
of male connector 52 engage slots 31, 31a of female connector 2 to connect
the male and female members), Figs. 1, 3, 5. Appellants’ Specification does
not necessitate that the rim be disk-shaped. Ans. 11—12.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not demonstrated error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection
of representative claim 21 and the rejection of claims 1—7, 9, 10, and 22,
which were argued together with representative claim 21,7
7 Appellant states that “the dependent claims include additional limitations
to the independent claims.” Reply Br. 4. Appellant did not argue the
dependent claims separately in the Appeal Brief or the Reply Brief.
7
Appeal 2014-008746
Application 13/008,246
Rejection II—Anticipation by Hammond— Claims 1—7, 9, 10, 21, and 22
Appellants argue claims 1—7, 9, 10, 21, and 22 as a group. Appeal Br.
13 (“Claims 1—7, 9, 10, 21 and 22 stand or fall together.”). We select claim
21 as representative, and claims 1, 5—7, 9, 10, and 22 stand or fall with claim
21. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); Appeal Br. 20-21 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Hammond discloses a connector system as
claimed, including male connector 2, 3 and female connector 5. Final Act.
5; Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that the male connector includes flange
portion 2, tapered portion 3, and an alignment member, which is the “flat tip
of 3 aligned in slot of 5.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that the female
connector includes, inter alia, a tapered cavity to receive and engage the
tapered portion of the male connector. Id. The Examiner finds that the
connector system “provide[s] rotational alignment and prevents] rotation of
the male connector.” Id. Specifically, the Examiner interprets the claims to
preclude relative rotation between the male and female connectors, which
the Examiner contends to be consistent with Appellants’ Specification. Ans.
4—5 (citing Hammond, Figs. 1, 6), 14—16.
Similar to the argument presented with respect to Rejection I,
Appellants contend that “the Hammond device is designed to impart
rotation to the male member shank 7, not prevent rotation.” Appeal Br.
14—15; Reply Br. 2—A.8
8 We do not consider Appellants’ argument that the Examiner’s rejection
should not have been made final. See Appeal Br. 13—14; MPEP 706.07(c)
(“Any question as to prematureness of a final rejection should be raised, if at
all, while the application is still pending before the primary examiner. This
is purely a question of practice, wholly distinct from the tenability of the
8
Appeal 2014-008746
Application 13/008,246
For the same reasons discussed with respect to Rejection I, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Hammond explains that when male
connector 2, 3 is engaged with female connector 5, both elements rotate
together as a unit to drive attached tool 9. See, e.g., Hammond, 1:11—21,
2:43—52, Fig. 1. This arrangement therefore precludes relative rotation of
male connector 2, 3 with respect to female connector 5. Appellants do not
explain persuasively how rotation as a unit falls outside the scope of the
claims. As discussed above, that the male and female connectors rotate
together does not conflict with the language of claim 21.
Appellants also contend that “generally cylindrical body 2 is not a
flange.” Appeal Br. 14 (citation omitted). As noted above, claim 21 does
not recite a flange and, therefore, this argument is not commensurate with
the scope of that claim. In addition, for the same reasons discussed with
respect to Rejection I, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
Specifically, Hammond explains that “a tapered shank 3” extends from
“generally cylindrical body 2.” Hammond, 2:43—48, Fig. 1. In this manner,
body 2 is a rim projecting from shank 3 that is used for guiding tapered
shank 3 into socket 4 of spindle 5. Id. Appellants provide a conclusory
statement that body 3 is not a flange, see Appeal Br. 14, but do not provide
any persuasive explanation as to how or why this structure does not satisfy
the plain meaning of “flange.”
rejection. It may therefore not be advanced as a ground for appeal, or made
the basis of complaint before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. It is
reviewable by petition under 37 CFR 1.181.”).
9
Appeal 2014-008746
Application 13/008,246
Rejection III—Anticipation by Chittenden — Claims 1—7, 9, 10, 21, and 22
Our affirmance of Rejections I and II above is dispositive as to claims
1—7, 9, 10, 21, and 22. Thus, we need not reach a determination as to the
propriety of Rejection III.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5—7, 9, 10, 21, and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Botimer is AFFIRMED;
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—7, 9, 10, 21, and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hammond is AFFIRMED; and
we do not reach the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—7, 9, 10, 21, and
22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chittenden.
AFFIRMED
10