Ex Parte HAAS et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 29, 2017

13843709 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 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. 13/843,709 03/15/2013 Gene F. HAAS 074845-0170 8555 31824 7590 08/31/2017 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP The McDermott Building 500 North Capitol Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 EXAMINER MCDUFFIE, MICHAEL D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3632 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2017 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): mweipdocket @ mwe. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GENE F. HAAS, DONALD PAUL EARL, and CHRIS STEWART Appeal 2016-003129 Application 13/843,7091 Technology Center 3600 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ADAM J. PYONIN, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1—6 and 21—23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify HAAS AUTOMATION, INC. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-003129 Application 13/843,709 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention Appellants’ invention relates to: A leveling pad for stabilizing a device is provided. The leveling pad comprises a metal base having a socket configured to receive a portion of the device and a liner coupled to the metal base and being configured to cold flow into a profile of a floor surface when a weight of the device is applied to the leveling pad. The liner may be of a polymer, such as vinyl. The liner is further configured to plastically deform into the profile of the floor surface. The plastic deformation is designed to increase a magnitude of a shear force or a tensile force required to separate the liner from a portion of the floor surface into which it is configured to plastically deform. Abstract. Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A leveling pad for stabilizing a device, the leveling pad comprising: a metal base having a socket configured to receive a portion of the device; a polymer liner coupled to the metal base and being configured to cold flow into a profile of a floor surface and plastically deform into the profile when a weight of the device is applied to the leveling pad. References and Rejections Claims 1—6 and 21—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Walsh (US 2,852,883, Sept. 23, 1958) and Thaw (US 7,610,655, Nov. 3,2009). 2 Appeal 2016-003129 Application 13/843,709 ANALYSIS Claim 1 Claim 1 recites “a polymer liner coupled to the metal base and being configured to cold flow into a profile of a floor surface and plastically deform into the profile when a weight of the device is applied to the leveling pad.” The Examiner finds this limitation is taught by a combination of Walsh and Thaw. In particular, the Examiner finds Walsh discloses a liner that ‘“may be of any well-known resilient rubber, plastic or a suitable metal conventional in furniture leg caps.’” Final Act. 4; Ans. 6 (citing Walsh 2:69—72). The Examiner cites Figure 6 of Walsh as indicating that Walsh’s liner is distorted under pressure and thus “configured to cold flow” as claim 1 requires. Ans. 6. The Examiner further finds Thaw teaches a polymer liner that is configured to cold flow into a profile of a floor surface and plastically deform into the profile when a weight of the device is applied to the leveling. Final Act. 4. Appellants argue Walsh’s description of its liner as made of “resilient rubber” indicates that the cap deforms elastically rather than plastically, and is not configured to cold flow into a profile of a floor surface when under a weighted load. App. Br. 7. Appellants further argue Thaw does not remedy this deficiency because it describes its liner as a “low friction” liner “for sliding engagement with the floor” which, again, indicates that Thaw’s liner is not configured to cold flow into the floor. App. Br. 8. We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Specification defines “‘cold flow’” as a “viscous flow of a solid, accompanied by a distortion of the solid under sustained pressure.” Spec. 1 56. The Examiner cites Merriam-Webster dictionary as defining “cold flow” as “the distortion 3 Appeal 2016-003129 Application 13/843,709 of a solid under sustained pressure especially with an accompanying inability to return to its original dimensions when the pressure is removed.” Ans. 5. The Specification describes the purpose of having a liner that cold flows into the floor and plastically deforms as “to increase a magnitude of a tensible force required to separate the vinyl liner from a portion of the floor surface into which the vinyl liner is configured to plastically deform,” (Spec. 1 6) and to “require[] a substantial force to remove the leveling pad 100 from the floor 300,” (Spec. 1 56). Walsh describes its leg cushion utilized on the bottoms of the legs of a chair as “resiliently supporting the weight of the chair or bed.” Walsh 1:18— 21. Walsh further describes the cap on the bottom of the leg cushion as made of “any well known resilient rubber, plastic or a suitable metal conventional in furniture leg caps.” Walsh 2:69—71. We agree with Appellants that resilient rubber and/or plastic do not cold flow into the floor as required by the claim and instead retain the ability to withstand shock or pressure without permanent deformation. Reply Br. 2 (citing the definition of “resilient” from Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 993 (10th Ed. 2001)). Further, we do not discern anything in Figure 6 of Walsh that indicates the leg cap of Walsh cold flows and plastically deforms into the profile of the floor. Similarly Thaw does not describe its “base slider element” as being configured to cold flow or plastically deform. Instead, it describes the base slider element as formed of a “smooth, low friction material, such as nylon . . . for sliding engagement with the floor.” Thaw 1:20—23. As indicated by Appellants’ Specification, a liner that cold flows and plastically deforms under the pressure of the weight of a device, would increase the force 4 Appeal 2016-003129 Application 13/843,709 required to move the device across the floor, rather than provide a smooth, low friction, sliding engagement with the floor, as Thaw’s liner does. Accordingly, we find neither Walsh nor Thaw teach or suggest “a polymer liner . . . being configured to cold flow into a profile of a floor surface and plastically deform into the profile” as recited by claim 1. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, nor of any of its dependent claims. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—6 and 21—23 is reversed. REVERSED 5