Ex Parte Kucala

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 25, 2017

13230008 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 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.
13/230,008 09/12/2011 Thomas J. Kucala H0031066/8364/114550/3710 1222
92556 7590 01/27/2017
HONEYWELL/HUSCH
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
BUGG, GEORGE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/27/2017 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):
patentservices-us @ honey well, com
amy. hammer @ hu schblackwell .com
pto-chi@huschblackwell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS J. KUCALA
Appeal 2015-007956
Application 13/230,008
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 3—15, and 17. Claims 2 and 16 are canceled.1 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 See Appellant’s Reply to Non-Compliant Appeal Brief, filed April 7, 2015.
Appeal 2015-007956
Application 13/230,008
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosure relates to “[a]n output device mounting plate”
having “a fixedly mounted strobe unit with a displaced region to releasibly
attach additional output devices.” Abstract. Claims 1 and 12 are
independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (with emphasis
added):
1. An apparatus comprising:
an elongated mounting plate, the plate having first and
second ends, and first and second sides;
wherein the plate carries a plurality of electrical
connectors engagable with a source of electrical energy;
wherein the plate carries a plurality of output devices;
wherein a first of the plurality of output devices includes a
strobe unit fixedly coupled to and carried by the plate and
located on the first side and on the first end of the plate;
wherein at least a portion of the strobe unit is fixedly
coupled to the first side of the plate;
wherein a second of the plurality of output devices
includes a removably coupled output device attachable to a
module receiving section of the plate located on the second side
of the plate and on the second end of the plate; and
where the strobe unit is a separate unit from the removably
coupled output device.
2
Appeal 2015-007956
Application 13/230,008
The Examiner’s Rejections2
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35U.S.C. § 112, fourth
paragraph, as being of improper dependent form. Final Act. 5.3
Claims 1 and 3—11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson (US 7,791,496 B2; Sept. 7, 2010), Davidson
(US 6,127,935; Oct. 3, 2000), and Zimmerman (US 7,006,003 B2; Feb. 28,
2006). Final Act. 6.
Claims 12—14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Davidson, Anderson, and Zimmerman. Final Act. 13.
Claims 15 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Davidson, Anderson, Zimmerman, Varieur (US 8,511,630
B2; Aug. 20, 2013). Final Act. 16.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred.
We adopt the conclusions and findings of fact made by the Examiner in the
Final Office Action as our own, and we highlight the following points for
emphasis.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 3—11,
because “none of Anderson et al., Davidson et al. or Zimmerman et al.
disclose the contexts” of the last four limitations of claim 1. App. Br. 7.
Appellant additionally supplies a two sentence summary for each reference.
2 The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3—11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, has been withdrawn. Ans. 2.
3 Appellant does not contest the 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, rejection.
See App. Br. 6. We thus summarily sustain the rejection. Except for our
ultimate decision, this rejection is not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal 2015-007956
Application 13/230,008
See App. Br. 7. Appellant supplies a similar argument regarding claims 12—
14. See App. Br. 8.
Appellant’s arguments are conclusory, and do not persuade us of error
in the rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41,37(c)(l)(iv); see also In re Lovin, 652
F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “[W]e hold that the Board reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”
Appellant additionally argues the Examiner erred, because “a prima
facie case of obviousness has not been established.” App. Br. 8.
Particularly, Appellant contends the combination of Anderson, Davidson,
and Zimmerman “do[es] not recognize the problem solved by the claimed
invention.” App. Br. 11. We are not persuaded of Examiner error. In
determining obviousness:
[t]he question is not whether the combination was obvious to the
patentee but whether the combination was obvious to a person
with ordinary skill in the art. Under the correct analysis, any
need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of
invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for
combining the elements in the manner claimed.
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). Here, the Examiner
correctly finds the motivation to combine (1) the teachings of Davidson and
Anderson because the combination yields “separate output devices providing
flexibility in replacement during [a] malfunction condition of the particular
device” (Final Act. 8) and (2) the teachings of Zimmerman, Anderson, and
Davidson because “the arrangement of the circuit board of the strobe unit at
4
Appeal 2015-007956
Application 13/230,008
[the] back of the housing gives more secure structure for strobe unit
electronics.” Final Act. 8.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 12, and the claims which depend therefrom. See App. Br. 11.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§112, fourth paragraph.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3—15, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
5