Ex Parte Svenson

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 17, 2012

11134184 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 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. 11/134,184 05/23/2005 Mike Svenson 6-104US 1049 5568 7590 12/17/2012 JACK PAAVILA 43 VICTORIA ST., W. ALEXANDRIA, KOC IA0 CANADA EXAMINER BRADFORD, CANDACE L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3634 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/17/2012 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 MIKE SVENSON ____________________ Appeal 2010-010088 Application 11/134,184 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, HYUN J. JUNG, and RICHARD E. RICE, Administrative Patent Judges. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Mike Svenson (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 3-9 and 14-24 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Dagenais (US 5,220,951; iss. Jun. 22, 1993) and Rush (US 1,107,808; iss. Feb. 20, 1912). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2010-010088 Application 11/134,184 2 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 21. A hinge assembly having a hinge member and two adjacent panels, the hinge member being elongated with a first surface and a second surface joining one side of the first surface to its other side, an entry slot in the center of the first surface of the hinge member, the entry slot extending inwardly into the hinge member toward the second surface and away from the first surface and diverging into two branch slots curving away from each other toward the two sides of the first surface of the hinge member, the first surface slightly bent outwardly toward the second surface to space the entry slot from an imaginary straight plane joining the two sides; each panel curved at each side of the panel to provide a hinge element with one hinge element curved in one direction and the other hinge element curved in the other direction, both hinge elements also curved toward each other, the panel, including the hinge elements, made from a single sheet of uniform thickness; the hinge elements of the adjacent panels mounted in the hinge member, the hinge elements passing together into the entry slot and then diverging from each other into the branch slots whereby the panels can be rotated relative to the hinge member to have the panels nearly adjacent in a folded position or to have the panels abutting the first surface, one on each side of the entry slot and nearly aligned, in an unfolded position extending away from each other, the slightly bent first surface of the hinge member preventing the panels from aligning in the unfolded position. App App bent strai indep discl two sides discl strai prov surfa a por surfa mark eal 2010-0 lication 11 The Exa toward a s ght plane j endent cl oses a firs sides to sp , as requir Appellan oses a slig ght imagin ides an an ce and the tion of Fig The Exa ce of a ful ing is a “S 10088 /134,184 miner find econd sur oining two aim 21. A t surface s ace an ent ed by inde t argues th ht bending ary line jo notated fig imaginary ure 6 of D miner’s an crum mem [l]ight ben AN s that Dag face to spa sides of t ns. 8. The lightly ben ry slot from pendent c at the Exa of a first ining the t ure that sh line. An agenais a notated fi ber 26 wi d of first 3 ALYSIS enais disc ce an entr he first sur Examiner t toward a an imag laim 22. I miner doe surface tha wo sides. ows the sl s. 17. The nd is provi gure includ th a callou surface” a loses a firs y slot from face, as re also find second su inary plane d. at 10. s not expl t spaces a App. Br. 8 ight bendi Examiner ded below es markin t that indic nd an adde t surface s an imagi quired by s that Dag rface betw joining th ain where n entry slo -9. The E ng of the f ’s annotat . gs on an i ates that t d dotted l lightly nary enais een its e two Dagenais t from a xaminer irst ed figure i nner he ine at an s Appeal 2010-010088 Application 11/134,184 4 end of the fulcrum member 261 with another callout that indicates that the dotted line is an “Imaginary line at entry point.” Id. Appellant argues that the bending shown in the Examiner’s annotated figure does not space the entry slot from an imaginary line joining the two sides of the first surface of Dagenais. Reply Br. 5. Appellant further argues that the Examiner’s annotated imaginary line does not join the sides of the first surface. Id. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s imaginary line does not join the sides of a first surface. The dotted line in the Examiner’s annotated figure touches only one side of the surface that the Examiner considers as disclosing the first surface. See Ans. 13 (Examiner provides an annotated Figure 5 from Dagenais with a marking that indicates which portion of Dagenais discloses the first surface) and Ans. 15 (Examiner provides another annotated Figure 6 that indicates which portions of Dagenais disclose side members); see also note 1 supra. Also, if the Examiner intended to extend the dotted line of the figure above to touch the portions that the Examiner considers as corresponding to the side members, then the Examiner’s dotted line does not touch two sides of the Examiner’s first surface and instead touches one side of the Examiner’s first surface and one side of another surface, because only one of the identified side member portions is along the Examiner’s first surface. See Ans. 13 and 15. Moreover, even if the Examiner’s dotted line were repositioned to touch the sides of the Examiner’s first surface, the portion that the Examiner finds as disclosing the slight bend would not space the portion of Dagenais that the Examiner 1 The Examiner identifies the end of the fulcrum member 26 as a “[s]ide member which is equivalent to sides (11, 13) of [A]ppellant.” Id. at 13 (annotated Figure 5 from Dagenais). Appeal 2010-010088 Application 11/134,184 5 considers as disclosing the entry slot of claims 21 and 22 from the dotted line because the dotted line would overlap with the Examiner’s entry slot. See Ans. 14 (Examiner provides another Figure 6 with markings to indicate “entry slots”) and 15. Thus, the Examiner’s annotated figure does not show an imaginary straight plane joining two sides of a first surface, as required by independent claims 21 and 22. Therefore, on the record before us, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21 and 22 or claims 3-9, 14-20, 23, and 24, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Dagenais and Rush. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-9 and 14- 24 is reversed. REVERSED Klh