Ex Parte Ward

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 2012

10955667 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 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. 10/955,667 09/30/2004 Grahame P. Ward SP-1824.2 US 4592 20875 7590 11/30/2012 MICHAEL C. POPHAL EVEREADY BATTERY COMPANY INC 25225 DETROIT ROAD P O BOX 450777 WESTLAKE, OH 44145 EXAMINER BOATENG, ALEXIS ASIEDUA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2859 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/30/2012 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 GRAHAME P. WARD ____________ Appeal 2009-013249 Application 10/955,667 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2009-013249 Application 10/955,667 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a compact, collapsible sliding drawer-type battery charger (Spec. 1:3-4). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A battery charger for charging one or more batteries each having a pair of contact terminals provided on opposite ends, said battery charger comprising: a housing structure having a first upstanding wall; a sliding tray having a bottom wall and a second upstanding wall generally parallel to the first upstanding wall, wherein the sliding tray is movable between a first position in which the first and second upstanding walls are adjacent to each other and a second position in which the first and second upstanding walls are spaced from one another, and wherein the tray is configured to concurrently hold a plurality of batteries for charging; and a plurality of pairs of contacts, the contact pairs including a first contact provided in the first upstanding wall and a second contact provided in the second upstanding wall, wherein the first and second contacts are adapted to contact the first and second contact terminals of a battery. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-21under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Arakawa (US Patent No. 4,629,962, December 16, 1986) and Bushong (US Patent No. 5,686,811, November 11, 1997). The Examiner rejected claims 22-24 and 29-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Arakawa, Bushong, and Lam (US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0130289 Al, July 8, 2004). Appeal 2009-013249 Application 10/955,667 3 ANALYSIS Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Arakawa and Bushong teaches the claimed invention as there is no suggestion or motivation to combine the references since Arakawa exclusively discloses charging rectangular batteries having contacts on the same side and Bushong discloses charging cylindrical batteries of various sizes (App. Br. 5). Appellant also contends the suggested modification is improper because it would render Arakawa unsuitable for its intended purpose as it would require Arakawa to be reconfigured such that each contact of a contact pair would charge one contact of separate batteries (App. Br. 5). The Examiner finds Arakawa discloses a sliding tray having a first upstanding wall including a first contact but not a second upstanding wall including a second contact (Ans. 8). The Examiner then finds Bushong discloses a contact is moveable so as to be capable of charging different sized batteries. Thus, the Examiner asserts it would be an obvious modification of Arakawa to provide contacts on an opposite upstanding wall to charge a variety of batteries (Ans. 8). The Examiner further asserts the combination would also not render Arakawa unfit for its intended purpose (Ans. 8-9). We agree with the Examiner. Additionally, it should be noted Arakawa teaches “connecting terminals 18 and a closure member 9 . . . may also be provided on the side wall opposite to the side wall 14a of the device body 14” (Arakawa, col. 4, ll. 1-4). Thus, the combination of Arakawa and Bushong would merely be a combination of familiar elements according to known methods and would yield no more than predictable results. Leapfrog Appeal 2009-013249 Application 10/955,667 4 Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Appellant contends independent claim 15 is also not obvious over Arakawa and Bushong because neither reference discloses a pivotable contact (App. Br. 6). However, mere recitation of the claim elements with no attempt to point out how the claims patentably distinguish over the prior art does not comply with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(a)(vii) and does not amount to a separate argument for patentability. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The same is true for Appellant’s contentions regarding claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-21, and 25-28 and claims 22-24 and 29-32, in which Lam was added to the combination. For these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. Because we find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1- 32. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-32 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 peb