Ex Parte Malin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2017

13304098 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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.
13/304,098 11/23/2011 Cosmas G. MALIN P41163 6996
7055 7590 02/02/2017
GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VA 20191
EXAMINER
WRIGHT, PATRICIA KATHRYN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1798
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2017 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):
gbpatent@gbpatent.com
greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte COSMAS G. MALIN
Appeal 2015-005631
Application 13/304,098
Technology Center 1700
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13, 14, and 16—32. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2015-005631
Application 13/304,098
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 13 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:
13. A storage cassette for laboratory objects, which forms a plurality of
storage sites arranged one above the other to accommodate laboratory
objects, the storage cassette comprising:
a back wall,
two side walls standing perpendicular to the back wall,
wherein the side walls and the back wall are formed by sections of a
single piece of sheet metal bent towards one another; and
bent angle brackets on the back wall and on the two side walls, the
bent angle brackets being formed in the piece of sheet metal and being
arranged as storage sites on which the laboratory objects are placed.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Dahl US 4,832,195
US 6,129,428
May 23, 1989
Oct. 10, 2000Helwig et al.
(hereafter “Helwig”)
Gonska et al. US 2001/0043031 Al Nov. 22, 2001
(hereafter “Gonska”)
Barbera-Guillem et al. WO 01/83694 A2 Nov. 8, 2001
(hereafter Barbera-Guillem)
2
Appeal 2015-005631
Application 13/304,098
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 25 and 28—30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Dahl. Ans. 2.
2. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Dahl. Id. at 5.
3. Claims 21—24 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Dahl in view of Helwig. Id.
4. Claim 19, 26, 27 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Dahl in view of Gonska. Id. at 6.
5. Claims 13, 14, 16—18, 20 and 25 are rejected under § 103(a) as being
obvious over Barbera-Guillem. Id. at 8.
6. Claims 19, 26, 27, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Barbera-Guillem in view of Gonska.1 Id.
at 12.
7. Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Barbera-Guillem in view of Helwig. Id. at 13.
1 Claim 31 depends upon claim 28, and claim 28 is not rejected over
Barbera-Guillem (see Rejection 5). Hence, it appears the inclusion of claim
31 in this rejection is in error, and therefore the rejection of claim 31 is
reversed. Reply Br. 21.
3
Appeal 2015-005631
Application 13/304,098
ANALYSIS
We consider certain claims separately in this appeal, based upon
Appellant’s presented arguments, and these claims are identified, infra.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c) (1) (iv) (2014).
Rejection 1
Rejection 1 involves the rejection of claims 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 25 and
28—30 as being anticipated by Dahl. Claims 14, 16, 17, and 18 are
dependent upon claim 13. Claim 25 is an independent claim. Claim 28 is an
independent claim, and claims 29 and 30 depend upon claim 28. We
consider each of these claims, based upon Appellant’s arguments.
With regard to claim 13, one of the claimed elements is “bent angle
brackets on the back wall and on the two side walls, the bent angle brackets
being formed in the piece of sheet metal and being arranged as storage sites
on which the laboratory objects are placed.” The bent angle brackets are
item 40 shown in Appellant’s Figure 8, for example (reproduced below).
4
Appeal 2015-005631
Application 13/304,098
40.
39
46, A \_35
Figure 8 depicts a lower end of Appellant’s storage cassette.
Item 42 are also bent angle brackets located on the backwall as shown
in Appellant’s Figure 7.
The Examiner finds that Dahl discloses bent angle brackets on the
back wall (item 21 on backwall 12) and on the sidewalls (item 22 on side
wall 13). Dahl, Fig. 6. Final Act. 2.
Appellant argues that items 21, 22 of Dahl secure shelves 10, and
shelves 10 receive the cassette tapes. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant argues that
claim 13 recites that the bent angle brackets are arranged as storage sites on
which the laboratory objects are placed and that items 21, 22 of Dahl are not
storage sites as recited in Appellant’s claims. Appeal Br. 12—13.
5
Appeal 2015-005631
Application 13/304,098
Paragraph [0071] of Appellant’s Specification indicates that the bent
angle brackets are support elements for sample plates. The Examiner’s
position that items 21, 22 of Dahl are capable of functioning as storage sites
for laboratory objects because items 21, 22 of Dahl support shelves 10, is a
reasonable position. Ans. 15. Where the Examiner establishes a reasonable
assertion of inherency and thereby evinces that a claimed process appears to
be identical to a process disclosed by the prior art and/or that the products
claimed by the applicant and disclosed in the prior art appear to be the same,
the burden is properly shifted to the applicant to show that they are not. See
In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252,
1254-56 (CCPA 1977).
Put differently, the language “arranged as storage sites on which the
laboratory objects are placed” is functional. Ans. 15 (stating that “recitation
of a storage cassette for laboratory objects is merely an intended use”).
While a patent applicant may recite features structurally or functionally,
“choosing to define an element functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries
with it a risk.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In
particular, where there is reason to believe that prior art structure is
inherently capable of performing the claimed function, the burden shifts to
the applicant to show that the claimed function patentably distinguishes the
claimed structure from the prior art structure. See id.', In re Hallman, 655
F.2d 212, 215 (CCPA 1981) (affirming rejections where applicant failed to
show that prior art structures were not inherently capable of functioning as
claimed invention).
6
Appeal 2015-005631
Application 13/304,098
In the instant case, Appellant has not convinced us that items 21, 22 of
Dahl are not capable of functioning as storage sites for laboratory objects.
As such, we affirm the rejection of claim 13.
With regard to claim 14, claim 14 recites the storage cassette of claim
13 further “comprising at least one of a top part and base part is arranged on
a respective at least one of an upper and lower end of the storage cassette,
and the at least one top and base part is formed by a bent section of the piece
of sheet metal.” Appellant argues that Dahl does not disclose the recited
base part or that such a base part is formed from a bent section of the piece
of sheet metal, and Dahl does not disclose the top part as recited in claim 14.
Appeal Br. 18. We agree. The Examiner’s position, as set forth at page 3 of
the Answer, does not adequately explain how the disclosure of Dahl
suggests these features recited in claim 14. We thus reverse the rejection of
claim 14.
With regard to claim 16, claim 16 recites a storage cassette according
to claim 13, “wherein at least one of the angle brackets arranged on the back
wall is provided with upwardly bent front edge retention elements structured
and arranged to securely hold the laboratory objects against slipping.”
Appellant argues that Dahl fails to disclose that the bent angle
brackets are arranged as storage sites on which the laboratory objects
are placed. Appeal Br. 18. However, as discussed, supra, with regard to
claim 13, Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive in this regard. Moreover,
Appellants do not persuasively dispute the Examiner’s finding that Dahl
teaches upwardly bent front edge retention elements that meet the claim
recitation. Ans. 3. As such, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument
7
Appeal 2015-005631
Application 13/304,098
that Dahl fails to disclose the brackets are structured to securely hold the
laboratory objects against slipping. We thus affirm the rejection of claim 16.
With regard to claim 17, claim 17 recites the storage cassette of claim
13, further comprising “predetermined bending locations being arranged in
the piece of sheet metal in the form of at least one of elongated holes and
slots.” Appellants argue that Dahl does not teach this element. Appeal Br.
18—19. The Examiner’s findings are set forth on page 4 of the Answer
wherein the Examiner refers to Dahl’s Figure 6 in support of the stated
position. However, the Examiner does not adequately explain how Dahl’s
Figure 6 shows “predetermined bending locations being arranged in the
piece of sheet metal in the form of at least one of elongated holes and slots.”
As such, based on the present record and the Examiner’s lack of elaboration
as to the Examiner’s position, we are in agreement with Appellant’s
position, and reverse the rejection of claim 17.
With regard to claim 18, Appellant presents no independent argument.
We therefore group claim 18 with claim 13 and affirm the rejection of claim
18 consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
With regard to claim 25, Appellant presents arguments for clam 25 on
pages 13—15 of the Appeal Brief. Appellant argues, inter alia, that claim 25
requires that the storage arrangement comprises a chamber (this is depicted
in Appellant’s Figure 1 as item 3, for example). We agree with Appellant
that the Examiner’s claim interpretation is flawed with regard to the word
“chamber” for the reasons stated in the record. Appeal Br. 13—14. As such,
we reverse the rejection of claim 25.
8
Appeal 2015-005631
Application 13/304,098
With regard to claim 28, claim 28 is similar to claim 13, but is
directed to a method of forming a storage cassette. For similar reasons that
we affirmed the rejection of claim 13, we affirm the rejection of claim 28.
With regard to claim 29, claim 29 recites the method according to
claim 28, “further comprising bending the single piece of sheet metal to
form at least one of a top part and a base part on a respective at least one of
an upper and lower end of the storage cassette”. Claim 29 is similar to claim
14, and therefore, for similar reasons discussed with regard to claim 14, we
reverse the rejection of claim 29.
With regard to claim 30, claim 30 recites the method of claim 28,
“further comprising bent angle brackets formed on the piece of sheet metal
that are arranged as storage sites on which the laboratory objects are placed”.
Claim 28 is similar to claim 13, and therefore, for the reasons discussed with
regard to claim 13, we affirm the rejection of claim 30.
In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 1 with regard to claims 14,
17, 25, and 29. We affirm Rejection 1 with regard to claims 13, 16, 18, 28,
and 30.
Rejection 2
Rejection 2 involves Appellant’s claim 20. Claim 20 is similar to
claim 13, and the Examiner’s position is set forth on page 5 of the Answer.
Appellant’s arguments are similar to the arguments presented for claim 13.
Appeal Br. 20—24. Appellants note that “the Examiner asserts that it would
have been obvious to modify these documents to include such a plate to
determine optimum materials for use,” but, aside from presenting arguments
similar to those presented for claim 13, Appellants present no argument as to
9
Appeal 2015-005631
Application 13/304,098
why the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion is incorrect. Cf. Ex parte Frye,
94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in
In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“it has long been the
Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the
examiner’s rejections”)). Thus, for similar reasons that we affirmed the
rejection of claim 13, we also affirm the rejection of claim 20.
Rejection 3
Rejection 3 involves Appellant’s claims 21—24 and 32 (claims 22, 23,
and 24 depend upon claim 21, and claim 32 depends upon claim 28).
The Examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on pages 5—6 of
the Answer. Appellant argues, inter alia, that one skilled in the art would
not have been motivated to have looked to Helwig (pertaining to a climate
controlled device) to modify the cassette tape carrier of Dahl (hand carrying
magnetic tape cartridge). We agree for the reasons expressed by Appellant
on pages 24—25 of the Appeal Brief. Notably, the Examiner does not
address this point raised by Appellant in the response to argument section on
pages 14—18 of the Answer. We also are persuaded by Appellant’s
additional arguments regarding horizontal versus vertical storage as set forth
on pages 25—27 of the Appeal Brief, and note that the Examiner also does
not address this line of argument in the response to argument section on
pages 14—18 of the Answer. We thus reverse Rejection 3.
Rejection 4
10
Appeal 2015-005631
Application 13/304,098
Rejection 4 involves the rejection of claims 19, 26, 27, and 31. Claims
26 and 27 depend directly or indirectly upon claim 25. Claim 31 depends
upon claim 28.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that because Dahl is directed to a hand
carried magnetic tape cartridge rack that is designed to allow the user to
easily insert and remove the cartridges singly or in a group, one skilled in the
art would not have looked to a climate controlled enclosure-type
storage device, as in Gonska, to seek to modify Dahl as proposed by the
Examiner. Appeal Br. 28—32. We agree for the reasons provided by
Appellant in the record. Notably, the Examiner does not address this point
raised by Appellant in the response to argument section on pages 14—18 of
the Answer. We thus reverse Rejection 4.
Rejection 52
Rejection 5 is set forth on pages 8—12 of the Answer. Rejection 5
involves the rejection of claims 13, 14, 16—18, 20, and 25 under § 103(a) as
being obvious over Barbera-Guillem.3 Appellant’s position for this rejection
is set forth on pages 2—18 of the Reply Brief. Therein, Appellant argues
claims 13, 20, and 25 separately, and hence we consider these claims in this
rejection.
With regard to claim 13, Appellant argues that Barbera-Guillem
discloses that holder 10 is formed “as an integral one-piece unit such as by
2 The Examiner indicates that Rejections 5, 6, and 7 are new rejections.
Ans. 8—18.
3 The Examiner refers to Barbera-Guillem as “Lucus.” Appellants refer to
Barbera-Guillem as WO ’694.
11
Appeal 2015-005631
Application 13/304,098
an injection molding process,” citing Barbera-Guillem, p. 8,11. 20 — 23.
Reply Br. 5. Appellant also argue that Barbera-Guillem
teaches alternatively that the individual walls of holder 10 can be “separately
manufactured, and assembled using one or more methods known in the art
such as by a snap fit arrangement, gluing with an adhesive, and securing
with fastening means (e.g., screws).” Id., p. 8,11. 24—27. Reply Br. 5.
Appellant also argues that while Barbera-Guillem discloses that the material
composition of the walls/housing is not material to the invention, Barbera-
Guillem discloses specific material requirements for constructing holder 10.
In particular, Barbera-Guillem discloses that “[i]n a preferred
embodiment, holder 10 may be generally molded from synthetic resinous
material, such as plastic; and in a more preferred embodiment, the material
comprises polyethylene or polypropylene.” Barbera-Guillem, p. 6,11. 18—21.
Appellant also argues that Barbera-Guillem prefers materials to avoid
prolonged exposure (for the cultured cells) to light, and argue that sheet
metal does not provide this, and therefore, such a modification of Barbera-
Guillem is not suggested by Barbera-Guillem. Reply Br. 5—6.
However, we note that unpreferred embodiments must be taken into
consideration also. See In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)
(“all disclosure of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be
considered”). An appellant “must look to the whole reference for what it
teaches. Applicant cannot merely rely on the examples and argue that the
reference did not teach others.” Cf. In re Courtright, 377 F.2d 647 (CCPA
1967) and In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 164 (CCPA 1960).
Additionally, the Examiner provides sufficient reasoning as to why the
choice of material being sheet metal would have been obvious. Ans. 8—9.
12
Appeal 2015-005631
Application 13/304,098
We are thus unpersuaded by Appellant’s aforementioned arguments in this
regard.
Appellant additionally argues that Barbera-Guillem does not suggest
the claim recitation of “bent angle brackets”. Reply Br. 7. The Examiner
finds that Barbera-Guillem teaches this feature, and refers to items 50 and 32
of Barbera-Guillem in this regard. Ans. 8. Items 50 and 32 are shown in
Figure 7, for example. Figure 7 is reproduced below.
r 2 a?
13
Appeal 2015-005631
Application 13/304,098
Figure 7 is a drawing of the holder according to Barbera-Guillem.
As Figure 7 shows, items 50 and 32 are not bent (this is contrasted
with bent item 40 shown in Appellant’s Figure 8, reproduced, supra). The
Examiner does not direct us to other evidence in Barbera-Guillem to support
that items 50 and 32 are bent. See Answer generally. The Examiner also
states that the process of making the cassette, which includes bending of the
sheet metal is not given patentable weight. Ans. 9. However, this is not
relevant for the claim term “bent angle brackets” as this is a structural
feature of claim 13, as well as for claim 20. See In re Garnero, 412 F.2d
276, 279, (CCPA 1979) (holding “interbonded by interfusion” to limit
structure of the claimed composite and noting that terms such as “welded,”
“intermixed,” “ground in place,” “press fitted,” and “etched” are capable of
construction as structural limitations.) In particular, the evidence supports
that “bent angle bracket” is a coined term, and given the context of the
Specification, we construe “bent angle bracket” as requiring the structure
that would result from bending sheet metal as described in the Specification.
Spec. 173. Hence, we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument on this issue
regarding claims 13 and 20, and reverse Rejection 5 regarding these claims.
With regard to claim 25, Appellant argues that the claim phrase of
“at least one storage cassette having a back wall and two side walls standing
perpendicular to the back wall, wherein the side walls and the back wall are
formed by sections of a single piece of sheet metal bent towards one
another” is not suggested by Barbera-Guillem for the reasons set forth on
pages 13—14 of the Reply Brief. However, in this instance, we agree with
the Examiner that this phrase involves a product by process limitation that
does not distinguish the claim from the teachings of Barbera-Guillem.
14
Appeal 2015-005631
Application 13/304,098
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the
process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The
patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the
product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a
product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior
product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 698,
227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Moreover, claim
25 does not recite “bent angle brackets” as discussed above. Thus, in the
instant case, Appellant has not demonstrated how the claimed storage
cassette is structurally different in an unobvious way.
Appellant also reiterates the argument that the choice of the material
being sheet metal is not suggested by Barbera-Guillem. Reply Br. 15.
However, for the reasons, discussed, supra, with regard to claim 13, we are
unpersuaded by this line of argument.
In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 5 with respect to
independent claims 13 (including its dependent claims 14, 16, 17, and 18)
and independent claim 20, but we affirm the rejection with respect to claim
25.
Rejection 6
Rejection 6 involves the rejection of claims 19, 26, and 27 as being
obvious over Barbera-Guillem in view of Gonska.4 Appellant separately
argues claims 19, 26, and 27, discussed below. Reply Br. 18—21.
4 As stated in footnote 1, supra, claim 31 depends upon claim 28, and claim
28 is not rejected over Barbera-Guillem (see Rejection 5). We agree with
15
Appeal 2015-005631
Application 13/304,098
With regard to claim 19, Appellant reiterates the argument that
Barbera-Guillem does not suggest walls that are formed by sections of a
single piece of sheet metal bent towards one another. This line of argument
is not found persuasive for the reasons stated in our previous analysis
regarding Rejection 5 (product-by-process limitation).
Appellant also argues that Barbera-Guillem in view of Gonska does
not suggest a first region of the back wall forming a spacer that delimits at
least one second region of the back wall that is set back with respect to the
first region. Reply Br. 19—20. The Examiner’s findings regarding this claim
feature is set forth on pages 12—13 of the Answer. The Examiner refers to
Gonska’s Figure 2 for suggesting this claim feature. However, the Examiner
does not adequately explain how Gonska’s Figure 2 indicates such a claim
feature. The Examiner appears to recognize this by stating that “[although
not explicitly stated in Gonska, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have formed the spacer for the laboratory object
and that delimits the second region of the back wall by bending so that it is
recessed or set back”. Ans. 12—13. Under the circumstances stated herein, it
is apparent that the only teaching or suggestion for modifying Barbera-
Guillem in view of Gonska to achieve the here claimed invention derives
from the Appellant’s own Specification rather than the applied prior art.
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner’s rejection is improperly based
upon improper hindsight reasoning. See W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock,
Inc., 721 F.2d 1551, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851
Appellant that therefore the rejection of claim 31 is in error, and we
therefore reverse that rejection. Reply Br. 21.
16
Appeal 2015-005631
Application 13/304,098
(1984) (“To imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge of the
invention in suit, when no prior art reference or references of record convey
or suggest that knowledge, is to fall victim to the insidious effect of a
hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the inventor taught is used
against its teacher.”). We thus reverse Rejection 6 with respect to claim 19.
Because claim 27 similarly recites a spacer delimiting at least one
second region of the back wall as a recess or set back area structured to
receive the at least one holder element, we also reverse Rejection 6 with
respect to claim 27.
With regard to claim 26, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument
that the implementation of the extendible scoop of Gonska into the device of
Barbera-Guillem is in error because there is no suggestion that an extendible
scoop would be able to provide the required tug on the cell culture device of
Barbera-Guillem to overcome the locking means of Barbera-Guillem. Reply
Br. 20-21. Absent supporting evidence, the Appellant’s assertion amounts
to a mere conclusory statement that is entitled to little, if any, probative
weight. See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 6 with respect to claims 19
and 27. We affirm Rejection 6 with respect to claim 26.
Rejection 7
Claims 21—24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Barbera-Guillem in view of Helwig. The Examiner’s
position is set forth on pages 13—14 of the Answer.
With regard to claim 21, Appellant argues that the combination of
Barbera-Guillem in view of Helwig fails to suggest walls formed by sections
17
Appeal 2015-005631
Application 13/304,098
of a single piece of sheet metal bent towards one another (as recited in claim
19). Reply Br. 23. This line of argument is not found persuasive for the
reasons stated in our previous analysis regarding Rejection 5 (product-by­
process limitation).
Appellant also argues that the combination of Barbera-Guillem in
view of Helwig does not suggest the equation recited in claim 21. Id.
However, this line of argument does not address the Examiner’s stated
position in the record. The Examiner states that selection of the value of L,
A, and B (such as in the claimed formula) is an obvious design choice based
upon requirements such as needed support of the laboratory object while still
being accessible to the scoop. Ans. 14. As such, we are unpersuaded by
arguments not addressing the merits of the rejection. We thus affirm
Rejection 7 with regard to claim 21.
With regard to claim 22, Appellant argues that there is no suggestion
to modify Barbera-Guillem by implementing the supports of Helwig because
Barbera-Guillem involves a one-piece integrally formed injection molded
piece. However, as discussed, supra, Barbera-Guillem is not so limited, and
teaches that the individual walls of holder 10 can be “separately
manufactured, and assembled using one or more methods known in the art
such as by a snap fit arrangement, gluing with an adhesive, and securing
with fastening means (e.g., screws).” Barbera-Guillem, p. 8,11. 24—27. As
such, we are unpersuaded by such argument.
With regard to claims 23 and 24, these claims depend upon claim 13,
either directly or indirectly, and because the rejection of claim 13 is reversed
(see discussion of Rejection 5, supra), the rejection of claims 23 and 24 is
also reversed.
18
Appeal 2015-005631
Application 13/304,098
In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 7 with regard to claims 23
and 24. We affirm Rejection 7 with respect to claims 21 and 22.
DECISION
We reverse Rejection 1 with regard to claims 14, 17, 25, and 29. We
affirm Rejection 1 with regard to claims 13, 16, 18, 28, and 30.
We affirm Rejection 2.
We reverse Rejection 3.
We reverse Rejection 4.
We reverse Rejection 5 with respect to claims 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, and
20, but we affirm the rejection with respect to claim 25.
We reverse Rejection 6 with respect to claims 19, 27, and 31. We
affirm Rejection 6 with respect to claim 26.
We reverse Rejection 7 with regard to claims 23 and 24. We affirm
Rejection 7 with respect to claims 21 and 22.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a).
ORDER
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
19