Ex Parte Neukotter

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 19, 2012

11130363 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2012)

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. 11/130,363 05/16/2005 Hubert Neukotter NEUKOTTER-3 3636 25889 7590 11/20/2012 COLLARD & ROE, P.C. 1077 NORTHERN BOULEVARD ROSLYN, NY 11576 EXAMINER BATSON, VICTOR D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3677 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/20/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte HUBERT NEUKOTTER ____________ Appeal 2010-008155 Application 11/130,363 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before LINDA E. HORNER, JOHN C. KERINS and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-008155 Application 11/130,363 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Hubert Neukotter (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 6 and 10. Claims 2, 3, 5 and 7-9 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was conducted on November 8, 2012, with Frederick J. Dorchak, Esq., appearing on behalf of Appellant. We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Appellant’s invention is directed to a hinge plate. Independent claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A hinge plate comprising: (a) a first part for attachment to a frame or a door panel, said first part comprising first and second hinge rollers spaced by a distance from one another; (b) first and second sleeves disposed respectively in said first and second hinge rollers so as not to rotate; (c) a pin inserted into said sleeves, said pin bridging the distance between said hinge rollers and comprising a pin head and a connector end; and (d) a pin screw comprising a pin screw head attached to said connector end and a collar fitted into one of said sleeves with a wedge fit; wherein said pin head and said pin screw head are countersunk within said hinge rollers; Appeal 2010-008155 Application 11/130,363 3 wherein said pin and said pin screw are connected with one another by means of threads, or are locked into one another by means of a bayonet closure; and wherein said pin has a rotation locking mechanism that interacts with said first sleeve. THE REJECTION The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 4, 6 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Foltz (US 3,390,419, iss. Jul. 2, 1968) in view of Grzeskowiak (US 5,930,867, iss. Aug. 3, 1999) and Parsons (US 3,135,013, iss. Jun. 2, 1964). ANALYSIS The Examiner maintains that element 60 in Foltz meets the limitation in claim 1 calling for a pin to have a rotation locking mechanism that interacts with a first sleeve. Ans. 4. We note that the first sleeve itself is recited as being disposed in a first hinge roller so as to not rotate, thus a pin with a rotation locking mechanism interacting with the first sleeve will, too, not rotate. Claim 1; Spec., p. 8, ll. 7-17. Appellant correctly points out that Foltz discloses that element 60 is a ball that is biased by a spring 64 into engagement with a radially circumferential groove or bore 62, preventing the pin 40 in which ball 60 is disposed from being lifted by normal movement of a hinge plate, while allowing the pin to rotate about its longitudinal axis. Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 2-3; Foltz, Figs. 2, 5, col. 2, ll. 48-57. Appellant further correctly notes that “[t]he Examiner has made no attempt to explain how the ball 60 of Foltz can operate to prevent rotation.” Appeal Br. 10. Appeal 2010-008155 Application 11/130,363 4 Given the above, we are not able to sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the claims as being unpatentable over the combination of Foltz, Grzeskowiak and Parsons. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding that ball 60 of Foltz meets the claim limitation calling for a pin to have a rotation locking mechanism that will interact with a first sleeve in a hinge plate, and in thus concluding that the subject matter of claims 1, 4, 6 and 10 would have been obvious over Foltz, Grzeskowiak and Parsons. DECISION The rejection of claims 1, 4, 6 and 10 is reversed. REVERSED hh