Ex Parte Jenks

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2016

12571183 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2016)

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.
12/571,183 09/30/2009 Kenneth A. Jenks P8238US1 1533
65015 7590 12/23/2016
Trev7 T aw frmim
EXAMINER
870 Market Street, Suite 984
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
CUMAR, NATHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2016 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):
docket @ treyzlawgroup. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH A. JENKS
Appeal 2015-002118
Application 12/571,1831
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, JAMES A. WORTH, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Woodruff (US 4,904,007, iss. Feb. 27, 1990). The Examiner has
withdrawn the objection to the Specification and the rejection of claims 1, 9,
and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Ans. 4; see Final Act. 3.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appellant, the real party in interest is the assignee Apple,
Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-002118
Application 12/571,183
Drawing Objection
The Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s objection to the
drawings. Appeal Br. 7. However, we agree with the Examiner that a
review of the Examiner’s objection is reviewable by petition under 37
C.F.R. § 1.181 (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)
§§ 1002, 1002.02(c), 1201) and is not within the jurisdiction of the Board.
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A system for coupling first and second electronic device outer
shell elements, comprising:
a first outer shell element comprising:
a post extending from a surface of the outer shell
element; and
a protrusion extending from the post, the protrusion
defining a recess; and
a second outer shell element comprising:
a base coupled to a surface of the second outer shell
element;
at least two coupling elements directly extending
from an edge of the base where at least two surfaces of the
base intersect, the at least two coupling elements formed
from the edge of the base; and
a beam bar constrained by the at least two coupling
elements, wherein the beam bar is operative to deflect as
the protrusion passes by the beam bar when the post is
inserted adjacent to the base.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites, “at least two coupling elements directly
extending from an edge of the base . . ., the at least two coupling elements
2
Appeal 2015-002118
Application 12/571,183
formed from the edge of the base.” Appeal Br., Claims App. Independent
claims 9 and 17 recite limitations that are similar to the aforementioned
limitations of claim 1. The Examiner appears to have found that portion(s)
of Woodruff s handle 40 corresponds to the claimed “coupling elements.”
Ans. 5, 14 (annotating portions of Woodruff’s Figure 9). As best understood
from the rejection, the Examiner appears to identify ribs 71 and 72, which
contact flat mounting portion 61 of latch spring 41, as “coupling elements.”
Ans. 14. Also, the Examiner found that Woodruff’s lid 23 corresponds to
the claimed “base.” Final Act. 5. The Appellant points out that Woodruff’s
handle 40, including top and bottom ribs 71—76, is secured to lid 23 by
screws 42 and is not formed from an edge of the lid 23. Reply Br. 6. We
agree with the Appellant.
Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 is
not sustained. The Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2—8, 10-16,
and 18—20 does not include adequately supported findings or reasoning that
cures the deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 9,
and 17. As such, the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2—8, 10-16,
and 18—20 is not sustained.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20.
REVERSED
3