Ex Parte Sabrowski

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 1, 2016

12082827 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/082,827 04/15/2008 25889 7590 03/01/2016 COLLARD & ROE, P,C 1077 NORTHERN BOULEVARD ROSLYN, NY 11576 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Uwe Sabrowski 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. CONFIRMATION NO. SABROWSKI - 1 9710 EXAMINER 0 BRIEN, JEFFREY D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3677 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2016 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 UWE SABROWSKI Appeal2013-007538 Application 12/082,827 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JILL D. HILL, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), from the Examiner's Final rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-8. App. Br. 2. Claim 4 has been cancelled. See Amendment in Response to Final Office Action mailed Sept. 29, 2011. Appellant provided oral argument on February 23, 2016. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. AppealNo.2013-007538 Application No. 12/082,827 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter "relates to a door hinge having a first hinge plate that is connected with a second hinge plate." Spec. 1. 1 Claim 1 is the sole independent claim; is illustrative of the claims on appeal; and, is reproduced below: 1. A door hinge comprising: a first hinge plate; a second hinge plate that is connected with the first hinge plate; a hinge accommodation element in which said second hinge plate is adjustably disposed, so as to pivot, with a pin, on a hinge roll, said hinge accommodation element being formed from a front part and a rear part that are connected by a connection screw; wherein the second hinge plate is guided in the hinge accommodation element so as to move in a vertical direction, and has projections on its end facing away from the hinge roll, said projections being guided in vertical slits on a bent section of the rear part; \'I/herein the second hinge plate can be tilted in a horizontal direction, relative to the hinge accommodation element, with an adjustment screw, said adjustment screw having an outside thread and being held in a corresponding threaded bore of the second hinge plate with said outside thread; and wherein the second hinge plate is clamped in place between the front part and the rear part of the accommodation element by the adjustment screw, so that the second hinge plate cannot be displaced in the vertical direction, after the connection screw has been tightened. REFERENCE RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER Lueffe US 2007 /0028420 Al Feb. 8,2007 1 Appellant's Specification does not provide line or paragraph numbering. Accordingly, reference will only be made to the page number. 2 AppealNo.2013-007538 Application No. 12/082,827 THE REJECTION ON APPEAL Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Lueffe. ANALYSIS Claim 1 includes the limitation "wherein the second hinge plate is guided ... so as to move in a vertical direction." The Examiner correlates the claimed "second hinge plate" to items 3 6 and 7 of Lueffe. Final Act 2, 6; Ans. 9. Regarding vertical movement of the second hinge plate, Lueffe relies on oblong holes 38 in plate 36 through which screws 10 pass. Lueffe i-f 39; Figures 4, 5. Screws 10 initially pass through a beveled hole in plate 7 (Lueffe figures 4, 5), then through oblong holes 38 in plate 36, before being tightened in plate 8 (Lueffe i-f 39). Accordingly, plate 36 is moved vertically via oblong holes 38 with respect to plate 7. See Lueffe Figures 4, 5. Because only Lueffe's plate 36 is vertically adjusted, we agree with Appellant's contention that "the clamping plate (7) is not vertically displaceable." App. Br. 12; see also App. Br. 8, Reply Br. 4. "It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under Â§ 102 can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim." In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We are further instructed that disclosures in a reference relied on to prove anticipation must be so clear and explicit that those skilled in the art will have no difficulty in ascertaining their meaning. In re Turlay, 304 F.2d 893, 899 (CCPA 1962). Additionally, "[a] claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). 3 AppealNo.2013-007538 Application No. 12/082,827 In the matter before us, the Examiner has correlated both plates 3 6 and 7 to the claimed "second hinge plate." Final Act. 2; Ans. 9. There is no indication that one skilled in the art, upon reading Lueffe, would have difficulty in ascertaining that only plate 36 moves vertically, not also plate 7. Hence, because claim 1 requires the "second hinge plate" to move vertically, yet only Lueffe's corresponding component 36 actually does so, we are not persuaded that Lueffe discloses each and every element (whether expressly or inherently) as required. We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and also dependent claims 2, 3, and 5-8, as being anticipated by Lueffe. Because we reverse the Examiner's anticipation rejection, we need not address Appellant's additional arguments to the effect that the claim terms "connected" and "clamped" (when referring to the front and rear parts of the hinge accommodation element), preclude an indirect connection or an indirect clamping between these components when these claim terms are broadly construed in light of Appellant's Specification. App. Br. 9-10, 13-15; Reply Br. 3-5; In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-8 as being anticipated by Lueffe is reversed. REVERSED 4