Ex Parte Ge et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 16, 2017

14551320 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 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. 14/551,320 11/24/2014 Tun Ge P07778US0 7335 34082 7590 08/18/2017 7ART FY T AW FTRM PT .f EXAMINER CAPITAL SQUARE KELLY, CATHERINE A 400 LOCUST, SUITE 200 DES MOINES, IA 50309-2350 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3634 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/18/2017 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): kconrad@zarleylaw.com crasmu ssen @ zarley law .com mleduc @ zarleylaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TUN GE, JOHN A. HANIG, and BRADLEY A. POPPEN (Applicant: Sukup Manufacturing Co.) Appeal 2017-004301 Application 14/5 51,32c1 Technology Center 3600 Before LARRY J. HUME, JOYCE CRAIG, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. HUME, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1â€”12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to USPTO Assignment Recordation information at Reel/Frame 034249/0329, the real party in interest is Sukup Manufacturing Co. Appeal 2017-004301 Application 14/551,320 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 The Invention Appellants' disclosed embodiments and claimed invention are "directed to a drive through bin door and more particularly to a drive through bin door that is angled/curved." Spec. 1,11. 3^4. Exemplary Claims Claims 1, 3, and 7, reproduced below, are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added to contested limitations): 1. A drive through bin door, comprising: a bottom I-beam with an angle that closely follows a curvature of a grain bin; an inner and an outer door frame each having a pair of C-channeled posts and an angled C-channeled member positioned above and connected to the posts wherein the door frames are connected to the bottom I-beam: and a door panel hingedly connected to one of the door frames. 3. The door of claim 1 wherein a pair of vertical wall panel and a horizontal wall panel are sandwiched between the inner and outer door frames which are bolted together. 2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Aug. 15, 2016); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Jan. 11, 2017); Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Nov. 17, 2016); Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Mar. 11, 2016); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed Nov. 24, 2014). 2 Appeal 2017-004301 Application 14/551,320 7. A drive through bin door, comprising: a bottom I-beam; an inner and an outer door frame each having a bottom side having a plurality of holes that align with openings in an upper flange of the bottom I-beam to connect the inner and outer door frames to the bottom I-beam; a door panel hingedly connected to one of the door frames, and an adjustable latch assembly colmected to the door panel and one of the door frames. Prior Art The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Bangert US 2,068,972 Jan. 26, 1937 Hawketal. ("Hawk") US 3,048,946 Aug. 14, 1962 Rutten et al. ("Rutten") US 4,043,465 Aug. 23, 1977 Musser US 2003/0172593 Al Sept. 18, 2003 Brock 12' x 12" [3 658 x 3658] Drive-In Door Commercial Grain Bin Construction Manual, May 2000 (hereinafter "Brock NPL"). 3 Appeal 2017-004301 Application 14/551,320 Rejections on Appeal Rl. Claims 1â€”6, 10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112(b) as being indefinite. Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 2. R2. Claims 1â€”3, 5, and 7â€”12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Bangert, Rutten, and Brock NPL. Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 2.3 R3. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Bangert, Rutten, Brock NPL, and Hawk. Final Act. 8; see also Ans. 3. R4. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Bangert, Rutten, Brock NPL, and Musser. Final Act. 9; see also Ans. 3. CLAIM GROUPING Based upon Appellants' arguments, we decide indefiniteness Rejection Rl of claims 1â€”6, 10, and 12 on the basis of representative claim 1. We decide obviousness Rejections R2 through R4 of claims 1â€”12, infra. 3 We note the Examiner incorrectly listed claim 4 as also being subject to Rejection R2 (Final Act. 3), but corrected the explicit statement of the rejection in the Answer (2). 4 Appeal 2017-004301 Application 14/551,320 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS We agree with particular arguments advanced by Appellants with respect to claims 1â€”12 for the specific reasons discussed below. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claims 1,3, and 7 for emphasis as follows. 1. $ 112(b) Rejection R1 of Claims 1â€”6, 10, and 12 Issue 1 Appellants argue (App. Br. 2â€”3; Reply Br. 2) the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112(b) as being indefinite is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in concluding the limitations recited in claim 1 of "a pair of C-channeled posts" and "an angled C-channeled member" lack definiteness under Â§ 112(b)? Analysis Appellants contend, "[t]he term C-channeled is made sufficiently clear to one of ordinary skill upon reviewing Applicant's specification and in particular Figures 1â€”3, which depict the posts and member being C- channeled or having C-channel characteristics." App. Br. 2. In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue, "[a]s shown in the annotated Fig. 1, shown below, both the posts 22 and member 24 are C-shaped." 5 Appeal 2017-004301 Application 14/551,320 V": A.* ^ : * â– $?' a â€¢ * V.. \ â– * â€¢s/Ss, â€¢vs:: |.i 7 A;, â€™f- 'A? ; ; 1 ; : , ' "kC m a,$$hÂ» m â– " t;t^-'.\i: f-#, !;;;Â« --- k* 1 A;! -3 "nP N- * ->hhI 111- '& ** .a***' rf :;s A ^ -ns Â«â€¢ ^ VIS V'-V.ai.-"I:-' 'â– >â– â– ;..' * /â– ' a .:â– / -t .,;/' â€¢â€¢ iM Fig. 1 of Appellants' Drawings above is an exploded view of a drive through bin door, annotated by Appellants in the Reply Brief (2). We agree with Appellants and find annotated Figure 1 helps illuminate the fact that post 22 and member 24 are C-shaped, as claimed. Therefore, on this record, we do not sustain the indefiniteness Rejection R1 of independent claim 1, and grouped claims 2â€”6, 10, and 12, which stand therewith. 2. $103 Rejection R2 of Claims 1â€”3, 5, and 7â€”12 Issue 2 Appellants argue (App. Br. 4â€”9; Reply Br. 2â€”3) the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being obvious over the 6 Appeal 2017-004301 Application 14/551,320 combination of Bangert, Rutten, and Brock NPL is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches or suggests a drive through bin door that includes, inter alia, "an inner and an outer door frame each having a pair of C-channeled posts and an angled C-channeled member positioned above and connected to the posts wherein the door frames are connected to the bottom I-beam," as recited in claim 1? Analysis Appellants contend, "[a]s presented, claim 1 requires, in part, an inner and an outer door frame each having a pair of C-channeled posts and an angled C-channeled member positioned above and connected to the posts. The prior art does not teach this limitation." App. Br. 4. Further, "Bangert discloses a single door frame and therefore, does not and cannot disclose both an inner door frame and an outer door frame, which each have a pair of C-channeled posts and an angled C-channeled member positioned above and connected to the posts." Id. Appellants further argue: Rutten only discloses a single frame panel 44. Specifically, Rutten discloses a frame panel 44 that overlies an opening 14 of a silo that is held in place by clamps 56 that are disposed over a bolt 54. . . . As such, Rutten is silent with respect to any door frames. Furthermore, the Examiner has essentially written out the requirement of claim 1 that the inner door frames each have a pair of C-channeled posts and an angled C-channeled member. It is unclear, based on the Examiner's limited interpretation of Rutten, how the flat door panel 44 . . . has a pair of C-channeled posts and an angled C-channeled member. It is equally unclear how the L-shaped clamp 56 . . . has a pair of C-channeled posts and an angled C-channeled member. App. Br. 6 (emphasis omitted) (citation omitted). 7 Appeal 2017-004301 Application 14/551,320 In response, the Examiner maintains that as the primary '972 reference teaches posts extending on both inner and outer sides of the wall of the bin, as shown in the annotated figure below, connected to an upper member and the '465 reference shows a separate two part member with portion 44 on one side and portion 56 on the other the references in combination read over the present claim limitations. The addition of the teaching of the separate parts on opposite sides of the '465 reference to the '972 reference would be a separation of parts of the frame of the '972 reference, which already extends on inner and outer sides but as an integral piece. Ans. 7. Appellants have persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as obvious under Â§ 103 over the combination of Bangert, Rutten, and Brock NPL because the Examiner's mapping of the claim limitations to the cited prior art is insufficient to establish obviousness, particularly with respect to the mapping of the specifically recited structure of the inner and an outer door frames to Bangert and Rutten. Accordingly, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are persuaded of at least one error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and suggestions of the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claim 7, which recites the contested limitation in commensurate form. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 5, and 8â€”12, rejected on the same basis and depending from claims 1 and 7. 8 Appeal 2017-004301 Application 14/551,320 3. Rejections R3 and R4 of Claims 4 and 6 In light of our reversal of the rejections of independent claim 1, supra, we also reverse obviousness Rejections R3 and R4 of claims 4 and 6 under Â§103, which variously and ultimately depend from claim 1. On this record, the Examiner has not shown how the additionally cited secondary Hawk and Musser references overcome the aforementioned deficiencies with Bangert, Rutten, and Brock NPL, as discussed above regarding claim 1 in Issue 2. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner erred with respect to indefiniteness Rejection R1 of claims 1â€”6, 10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112(b), and we do not sustain the rejection. (2) The Examiner erred with respect to obviousness Rejections R2 through R4 of claims 1â€”12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over the cited prior art combinations of record, and we do not sustain the rejections. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1â€”12. REVERSED 9