Ex Parte Wallingford et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 12, 2014

12014881 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DOUGLAS WALLINGFORD, GREGORY LANE HENDERSON, and RIYAD E. MOE ____________________ Appeal 2012-007128 Application 12/014,881 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JILL D. HILL, and TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1– 3, 5–11, and 18–20.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to a cable management system. The independent claims involved in this appeal, claims 1 and 18, are reproduced below: 1 The rejection of claims 13–17 has been withdrawn. Ans. 4. Appeal 2012-007128 Application 12/014,881 2 1. A device for managing cables for an information handling system, comprising: a rigid but flexible body defining multiple cable retaining regions, each of the multiple cable retaining regions including: a first portion shaped and sized to receive and retain a first type of cable having a first cross-sectional geometry; and a second portion shaped and sized to receive and retain a second type of cable having a second cross-sectional geometry different than the first cross-sectional geometry. 18. An information handling system, comprising: a plurality of input/output (I/O) ports; a device for managing cables configured for connection to the plurality of I/O ports, the device including: a rigid but flexible body defining multiple cable retaining regions, each of the multiple cable retaining regions including: a first portion shaped and sized to receive and retain a first type of cable having a first cross-sectional geometry; and a second portion shaped and sized to receive and retain a second type of cable having a second cross- sectional geometry different than the first cross-sectional geometry. REJECTIONS Claims 1–3, 5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kujawski (US 5,319,837; iss. June 14, 1994) and Carty (US 4,775,121; iss. Oct. 4, 1988). Ans. 4. Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kujawski, Carty, and Kramer (US 3,521,332; iss. July 21, 1970). Ans. 6. Appeal 2012-007128 Application 12/014,881 3 Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kujawski, Carty, and Camporeale (US 6,241,200 B1; iss. June 5, 2001). Ans. 7. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kujawski and Carty. Ans. 8. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kujawski, Kramer, and Carty. 18. Ans. 8. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bird (US 2009/0090550 A1; pub. Apr. 9, 2009). Ans. 9. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bird and in view of Kramer. Ans. 10. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bird, Kramer and Carty. Ans. 11. OPINION Appellants correctly point out that claim 1 requires that each of the multiple cable retaining regions including: a first portion shaped and sized to receive and retain a first type of cable having a first cross-sectional geometry; and a second portion shaped and sized to receive and retain a second type of cable having a second cross-sectional geometry different than the first cross-sectional geometry. App. Br. 5. The Examiner’s finding that “Kujawski teaches ‘body (22) defining multiple . . . retaining regions (24, 24’), each of the multiple . . . retaining regions including: a first portion shaped (24) . . . having a first cross sectional geometry; and a second portion (24’) . . . having a[different] second cross-sectional geometry . . .’” (Ans. 4–5) establishes only that a first region (i.e., 24) has a first portion (i.e., 24) and that a second Appeal 2012-007128 Application 12/014,881 4 region (i.e., 24’) has a second portion (i.e., 24’). The Examiner’s finding does not address the recited requirement for each of the regions to have first and second portions with the recited characteristics. All words in a claim must be considered in judging the obviousness of the claimed subject matter. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). As this has not been done, we must reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claim 1 and of those claims depending therefrom. Regarding claim 18, Appellants argue that “[Bird] does not have [a] ‘body defining multiple cable retaining regions.’” App. Br. 9. The Examiner asserts that, in Bird, “Figure 2, the retaining regions are the spaces created by the vertical member, which also contains portions [160, 120].” Ans. 9. There are multiple members depicted in Figure 2 of Bird that are oriented vertically. None of them are referred to by Bird as a “vertical member.” It is not apparent what structure in Bird the Examiner is referring to as “the vertical member.” Therefore, it is not apparent what areas of Bird’s device are interpreted by the Examiner as the recited “regions.” Such facts must be made of record in order for us to provide any meaningful appellate review. In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 2001). It is neither our place, nor Appellants’ burden, to speculate as to the basis for rejecting claims. In re Stephan, 660 F.3d 1341, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (It is the PTO’s obligation to provide prior notice to the applicant of all matters of fact and law asserted prior to an appeal hearing before the Board). We are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claim 18, and of those claims depending therefrom, because the Examiner has not carried the burden of establishing unpatentability. In re Warner 379 F.2d 1011, 1016 (CCPA 1967) (“[T]he precise language of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that Appeal 2012-007128 Application 12/014,881 5 ‘(a) person shall be entitled to a patent unless,’ concerning novelty and unobviousness, clearly places a burden of proof on the Patent Office which requires it to produce the factual basis for its rejection of an application under sections 102 and 103.”). DECISION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. REVERSED hh