Ex Parte McIntosh

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 18, 2019

14504902 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/504,902 10/02/2014 Darren Carl McIntosh 107112 7590 06/20/2019 The Small Patent Law Group LLC 225 S. Meramec, Suite 725 St. Louis, MO 63105 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. 14-1521-US-NP 800-0059US CONFIRMATION NO. 3089 EXAMINER NGUYEN, TUAN N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3754 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/20/2019 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@splglaw.com patentadmin@boeing.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DARREN CARL MCINTOSH Appeal2018-008671 Application 14/504,902 1 Technology Center 3700 Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BRETT C. MARTIN, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant, the Boeing Company, appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a rejection of claims 1 and 3-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Boeing Company. App. Br. 4. Appeal2018-008671 Application 14/504,902 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a lavatory or handle assembly therein. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A vehicle lavatory comprising: a vanity including a wash basin; and a handle assembly mounted over and onto a portion of the wash basin, wherein the handle assembly provides an ergonomic shape that is configured to be grasped by an individual, wherein the portion of the wash basin includes an outer rim of the wash basin, wherein the handle assembly has a complimentary shape to the outer rim of the wash basin, and wherein the handle assembly receives and securely fits over and onto the outer rim of the wash basin. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Rhodes us 4,385,408 May 31, 1983 REJECTIONS Claims 13-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rhodes. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Rhodes. Claims 1 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Rhodes. OPINION Whether predicated on anticipation or obviousness, all of the Examiner's rejections are premised on the determination that the recited 2 Appeal2018-008671 Application 14/504,902 "handle assembly," a limitation appearing in each of the independent claims before us, claims 1, 13, and 20, would be regarded by the skilled artisan as covering Rhodes' "sanitary cushioning device 10." See Final Act. 3-5; see also Rhodes 1:6-25 (describing Rhodes' invention a device for cushioning a person's neck while washing or treating the person's hair in a sink). The Examiner makes no distinction between claim 13, where this limitation appears in the preamble, and claims 1 and 20 where this limitation appears in the body of the claims. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner's interpretation of handle assembly as including Rhodes' cushion is beyond the ambit of reasonableness. App. Br. 10, 16. Although the particular nomenclature used in prior-art references is not necessarily controlling in construing claim terminology, the Examiner provides no evidence that one skilled in this art would regard Rhodes' cushion 10 as a "handle assembly" See, e.g., In re Cortright, 165 F. 3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("Prior art references may be 'indicative of what all those skilled in the art generally believe a certain term means"). The Examiner also does not apprise us of any general definitions regarding the phrase in question that would lead us to conclude it encompasses Rhodes' cushion 10. See, e.g., In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The only reasoning supporting the Examiner's conclusion expressly set forth by the Examiner is, first, "[t]he Rhodes handle assembly 10 is fully capable of performing the intended function as claimed." Ans. 2. The capability of some structure to perform certain functions attributed to a particular thing does not necessarily mean that structure is that thing. Various structures can fit on the rim of a sink without becoming "a handle assembly." The Examiner also reasons that the easy removability of Rhodes' cushion 10 (see, e.g., App. Br. 10) "ha[s] no bearing in the current claimed structures." Ans. 2-3. The Examiner's 3 Appeal2018-008671 Application 14/504,902 reasoning in this regard ignores the Specification, which teaches that the purpose of the handle is to provide a secure gripping surface to help stabilize an individual, for example, when experiencing turbulence in an aircraft. Spec. paras. 2-3. Although limitations from the Specification must not be read into the claims, the PTO must read claims in light of the Specification, thereby taking into account whatever enlightenment may be afforded by the Specification as to the meaning of words or phrases expressly recited in the claim. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, the Examiner's interpretation is "divorced from the specification." See, e.g., In re NTP, 654 F. 3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Examiner's erroneous interpretation of "handle assembly" forms the basis for all the rejections before us, the Examiner's rejections cannot be sustained on the basis set forth by the Examiner. DECISION The Examiner's rejections are reversed. REVERSED 4