Ex Parte UrmsonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 201212270190 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MICHAEL G. URMSON ____________________ Appeal 2011-006786 Application 12/270,190 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-006786 Application 12/270,190 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention is a switchgear panel and method of manufacturing. A base plate has a main opening and a plurality of auxiliary openings. A main cover plate and selected auxiliary cover plates are mounted to the base plate so as to be disposed over the main opening and plurality of auxiliary openings respectively (Spec. 2). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method of making a panel for a switchgear cabinet, the method comprising: providing a base plate with opposing first and second ends and comprising a planar metal body, the body having a main opening and a plurality of auxiliary openings; providing a plurality of main cover plates, at least one of the main cover plates being of a first main cover type and at least another one of the main cover plates being of a different second main cover type; providing a plurality of auxiliary cover plates, at least one of the auxiliary cover plates being of a first auxiliary cover type and at least another one of the auxiliary cover plates being of a different second auxiliary cover type; providing a hinge; providing a plurality of electrical devices; Appeal 2011-006786 Application 12/270,190 3 mounting the hinge to the base plate at the first end; selecting one of the main cover plates; selecting one of the auxiliary cover plates for each of the auxiliary openings; mounting the selected main cover plate to the base plate so as to be disposed over the main opening; mounting the selected auxiliary cover plates to the base plate so as to be disposed over the auxiliary openings, respectively; and mounting one or more of the electrical devices to at least one of the selected main cover plate and the selected auxiliary cover plates. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-9 and 12-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Deschamps (US 5,822,180, Oct. 13, 1998). The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Deschamps and Paape (US 3,495,135, Feb. 10, 1970). The Examiner rejected claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Bryon (US 7,140,702 B2, Nov. 28, 2006) and Deschamps. The Examiner rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Bryon, Deschamps, and Yee (US Patent App. Pub. No.: 2003/0019984 A1, Jan. 30, 2003). Appeal 2011-006786 Application 12/270,190 4 ISSUES Appellant argues, inter alia, that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-9 and 12-17 as being unpatentable over Deschamps, and claims 10- 11 as being unpatentable over Deschamps in view of Paape. Appellant asserts that Deschamps teaches a panel for a switchgear cabinet in which the main and auxiliary openings are not present in the base plate when the main and auxiliary cover plates are mounted to the base plate (App. Br. 5-6). With respect to claims 18 and 19, Appellant argues that Byron fails to teach an electrical device mounted to a door, and that Deschamps fails to teach a base plate comprising a planar metal body (App. Br. 10). With respect to claim 20, Appellant argues that Yee does not teach a main cover plate having a height less than the height of the main opening, and that Yee does not teach an electrical device mounted to the base plate (App. Br. 11-12). Appellant’s arguments present us with the following issues: 1. Does Appellant’s Claim 1 logically or grammatically require that the main opening and the auxiliary openings be present when the selected main cover plate and the selected auxiliary cover plates are mounted to the base plate? 2. Does Byron teach an electrical device mounted to door 308? 3. Does the combination of Byron and Deschamps teach or fairly suggest a base plate comprising a planar metal body? 4. Does the combination of Byron, Deschamps, and Yee teach or fairly suggest a main cover plate having a height less than the height of the main opening? 5. Does Yee teach an electrical device mounted to the base plate? Appeal 2011-006786 Application 12/270,190 5 PRINCIPLES OF LAW The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50-51 (1966)). ANALYSIS CLAIMS 1-17 We agree with Appellant that claim 1 logically and grammatically requires that the main opening and auxiliary openings are present when the selected main cover plate and the selected auxiliary cover plates are mounted to the base plate (App. Br. 6). Claim 1 recites, as the first written clause, “providing a base plate with opposing first and second ends and comprising a planar metal body, the body having a main opening and a plurality of auxiliary openings” (emphasis added). From its very introduction in the claim then, Appellant’s base plate includes main and auxiliary openings. The Examiner erred in finding that the claim language “so as to be disposed over the main [auxiliary] opening” means that the main and auxiliary openings need not be present before the main and auxiliary cover plates are mounted. We therefore find that the Examiner erred in concluding that claims 1-17 are unpatentable over Deschamps. We will not sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 1-17. CLAIM 18 Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 18 and 19 because (a) Byron does not teach electrical devices mounted to door 308, and that (b) neither Byron nor Deschamps teach a base plate comprising a planar metal body (App. Br. 10). Appeal 2011-006786 Application 12/270,190 6 We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Byron teaches instrument mounting panel 1302 that forms part of Byron’s door 308 (Ans. 26; Byron col. 8, l. 65 – col. 9, l.5). “Panel 1302 is a modular removable panel on which the instruments are wired and mounted” (id.). We further agree with the Examiner’s finding that Deschamps teaches an embodiment in which an opaque sheet “which is solidly attached to the entire inner face of the panel 30 so as to make the plate of the panel opaque” (col. 4, ll. 38-42). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that such an opaque plate may be considered to meet the claimed “planar metal body” (Ans. 20). We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 18 and 19 as unpatentable over Byron in view of Deschamps. We will sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 18 and 19. CLAIM 20 Appellant argues that Byron does not teach an electrical device mounted to the base plate, and that it would not have been obvious to provide a main cover plate having a height less than the height of the main opening (Ans. 11-12). We do not find Appellant’s arguments to be persuasive of Examiner error. We agree with the Examiner that omission of one of the plates 70 of Deschamps would create the predictable result that the main cover plate does not extend over an uncovered portion of the main opening, which would provide room to mount an electrical device to the base plate that would at least partially extend through the uncovered portion of the main opening (see Ans. 22-23). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. We agree with the Examiner that such an omission would allow the skilled artisan to mount a device such as App App Yee’ of th Yee plura findi mou of “a unpa § 10 the a selec eal 2011-0 lication 12 s handle 1 e main op Figure 2 il lity of con ng that the nted to the fourth ele We conc tentable o 3 rejection 1. Appel uxiliary op ted auxilia 2. Byron 06786 /270,190 8, at least ening. Fig lustrates a trol units mechanis frame of ctrical dev lude that t ver Byron of claim 2 lant’s Clai enings be ry cover p teaches a partially e . 2 of Yee single mo shown in F m compri enclosure ice . . . mo he Examin in view of 0. CON m 1 logica present w lates are m n electrica 7 xtending t is shown b tor contro igure 1. W sing handl 14 (Ans. 3 unted to t er did not Descham CLUSION lly requir hen the se ounted to l device m hrough the elow. l unit (enc e agree w e 18 and h 0), meetin he base pl err in reje ps and Ye S es that the lected mai the base p ounted to uncovere losure 14) ith the Ex andle supp g the claim ate.” cting claim e. We will main open n cover pl late. door 308. d portion of the aminer’s ort 20 is recitation 20 as sustain th ing and ate and the e Appeal 2011-006786 Application 12/270,190 8 3. The combination of Byron and Deschamps teaches a base plate comprising a planar metal body. 4. The combination of Byron, Deschamps, and Yee suggests a main cover plate having a height less than the height of the main opening. 5. Yee teaches an electrical device mounted to the base plate. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-17 is reversed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 18-20 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R.§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2010). AFFIRMED-IN-PART Vsh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation