Ex Parte KucalaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 25, 201713230008 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation