Ex Parte Waters et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 9, 2018

15064281 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
15/064,281 03/08/2016 James R. Waters
112 7590 11/14/2018
Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
2500 Columbia A venue
Lancaster, PA 17603
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.
0708-00-US-04-ABP 5615
EXAMINER
IHEZIE, JOSHUA K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3633
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/14/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
AB P _patents@ arms trongceilings. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
ExparteJAMES R. WATERS, JAMES P. RINEER,
BRIAN L. SPRINGER, and WILLIAM H. FRANTZ
Appeal2018-001907
Application 15/064,281
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-3, 9, and 11-22 as unpatentable
over Anderson (US 4,693,174, iss. Sept. 15, 1987) and Hintsa (US
4,438,613, iss. Mar. 27, 1984), and claims 4---6 and 8 over Anderson, Hintsa,
and Holtsford (US 2,785,099, iss. Mar. 12, 1957). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Armstrong World Industries, Inc. is the Applicant and real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-001907
Application 15/064,281
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to suspended ceiling systems. Spec.
,r,r 2--4. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A ceiling system comprising:
a frame comprising a plurality of struts;
a plurality of modules, each module comprising a panel
having an upper surface opposite a lower surface, and a
plurality of hook members;
each of the hook members comprising:
an upstanding section extending substantially
perpendicular to the top surface of the panel;
a hook portion at a top end of the upstanding section,
the hook portion extending from the upstanding section in a
first direction, the hook portion defining a downwardly-
facing open slot; and
an attachment flange at a bottommost end of the
upstanding section, the attachment flange comprising a
front section extending from the upstanding section in the
first direction, the front section vertically aligned with and
located beneath the downwardly-facing open slot of the
hook portion;
the modules mounted to the frame, and wherein for each of
the modules, the hook portions of the hook members fit over
and rest upon the struts, the struts located in the downwardly-
facing open slots of the hook portions; and
wherein the attachment flange is coupled to the upper
surface of the panel.
OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 1-3, 9, and 11-22
Over Anderson and Hintsa
Claims 1, 13, and 18
Independent claims 1, 13, and 18 are argued together and Appellants
do not separately argue the claims that depend therefrom. Appeal Br. 5-12.
2
Appeal2018-001907
Application 15/064,281
We select claim 1 as representative and claims 2-3, 9, and 11-22 stand or
fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Anderson discloses the invention
substantially as claimed except for a flange on the bottom of the hook
member that couples to an upper surface of the panel. Final Action 2. The
Examiner relies on Hintsa as satisfying this limitation and concludes that it
would have been obvious to so modify Anderson. Id. at 2-3. According to
the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to
increase the aesthetic appearance of the ceiling system. Id. at 3.
Appellants argue that the lower portion of Anderson's hook penetrates
through and protrudes below the deflecting shield panel that it supports.
Appeal Br. 10. Appellants contend that such is necessary for adjusting the
vertical disposition of the deflecting shield. Id.
Stated simply, the bracket means 20 of Anderson cannot be
attached to the upper surface of the deflecting shield 28 because
doing so destroys the user's ability to custom position the
deflecting shield 28 below and relative to an HV AC vent.
Id. According to Appellants, the Examiner's proposed combination
"destroys the intended technical function of Anderson." Id. at 10-11.
Continuing on, Appellants argue that deflecting shield 28 is disposed
below HVAC air outlet 10. Id. at 11. Appellants contend that suspended
deflecting shield 28 is never coplanar with the outlet or surrounding ceiling
panels. Id. For all intents and purposes, Appellants' position is that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would not combine the teachings of Anderson and
Hintsa in view of the vertical displacement and disposition features and
requirements of Anderson. Id. at 11-12.
3
Appeal2018-001907
Application 15/064,281
In response, the Examiner explains that:
The attachment flanges of the combination of Anderson and
Hintsa can still be adjusted prior to being attached to the panels
in the field. The combination provides the advantage of
increasing the aesthetic appeal of the ceiling system since the
attachment flanges cannot be seen from below the ceiling
system, while allowing height adjustability of the attachment
flange during installation since the attachment flange can be cut
to the desired height before the panel is hung from it.
Therefore, the modification does not destroy the intended
technical goal of Anderson.
Ans. 3. In reply, Appellants disagree with the Examiner and essentially
repeat their arguments from their Appeal Brief. Reply Br. 3.
Anderson is directed to an air deflecting means that exhibits
adjustable brackets for suspending a deflecting shield at variable distances
from an air vent positioned within a dropped ceiling and where the air vent
is disposed vertically above the deflecting shield. Anderson, Abstract,
Fig. 1. Of particular interest to the instant case, Anderson discloses
suspension bracket means 20 that features loop member 3 8 which includes
cut section 40. Id. col. 7, 11. 35--40; Fig. 3. Such cut section is formed and
shaped so as to define a downwardly-facing open slot that is adapted to
receive a portion of inverted T-shaped support member 14. Id.
Hintsa is directed to a suspended ceiling panel system that is very
similar to Appellants' invention. Hintsa, Abstract, Figs. 1--4. As with the
instant invention, Hintsa suspends a plurality of ceiling panels from a grid of
support struts. Id. Fig. 3. The ceiling panels are hung from the support grid
using a plurality of torsion spring elements 12 which are clipped to the panel
using clip member 10. Id. col. 4, 11. 30--40, col. 6, 11. 1-13. Clip 10 features
deformable bottom portion 5 that is snapped into channel 212 of a frame
4
Appeal2018-001907
Application 15/064,281
member. Id. col. 6, 11. 1-13. The Examiner finds, and Appellants do not
dispute, that bottom portion 5 corresponds to Appellants' claimed
attachment flange. Final Action 3; see also Claims App. claim 1.
We find unpersuasive Appellants' argument that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would not modify Anderson by the teachings of Hintsa
because such would "destroy the intended technical goal" of Anderson.
Appeal Br. 10. Appellants' argument is predicated on the unwarranted
assumption that the panel suspension teachings of Anderson are applicable
only to deflecting shields and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
not be able to envision alternative uses. However, it is common sense that
familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a
person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple
patents together like pieces of a puzzle. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 420 (2007). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
able to readily envision that Anderson's loop member 38 with downward-
facing slot 40 could be used with alternative means of attachment to a
ceiling panel, including through means of a flange coupled to the upper
surface of the panel as taught by Hintsa. Stated differently, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood that Anderson's
loop 3 8 and slot 40 could be used to hang ceiling panels and would not be
limited to just hanging deflecting shields.
In addition, we find persuasive the Examiner's reasoning that
Anderson's suspension bracket means 20 could be cut to the desired height
before the panel is hung. Ans. 3. With such modification, cross-member
means 26 becomes an attachment flange that can be attached to the upper
5
Appeal2018-001907
Application 15/064,281
surface of the panel using known attachment means. See e.g., Hintsa, col. 5,
11. 58-61, Fig. 4 (channel portion 212).
In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine the Examiner's
findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that
the Examiner's legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-founded.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of
claims 1-3, 9, and 11-22.
Unpatentability of Claims 4-6 and 8
Over Anderson, Hintsa, and Holtsford
In this ground of rejection, Appellants argue claim 4, but do not raise
separate arguments for the patentability of claims 5, 6, and 8. Appeal
Br. 12-14. We address the arguments for claim 4, with claims 5, 6, and 8
standing or falling with claim 4. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation: "wherein each
of the upstanding section and the front section is a plate member." Claims
App. 2 The Examiner relies on Holtsford as disclosing a hook member
(bracket 14) for hanging ceiling tiles comprising a plate member. Final
Action 6-7.
Appellants do not deny that Holtsford discloses a hook member
comprised of plate material. See generally Appeal Br. Instead, Appellants
argue that it would not be obvious to modify the hook member geometry of
Anderson with the teachings of Holtsford's plate member. Appeal Br. 14.
In response, the Examiner states that Holtsford is merely relied on to show
2 As we understand the invention, the "plate member" can be made of almost
any type of substantially flat structural material such as sheet metal or
plastic.
6
Appeal2018-001907
Application 15/064,281
that it was known to fabricate attachment flanges in ceiling systems from
plate-like material. Ans. 14.
As amply demonstrated by the teachings of Anderson, Hintsa, and
Holtsford, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been familiar with
a variety of materials and structures for fabricating a hook like structure and
associated attachment flange for hanging ceiling tiles. Appellants present
neither evidence nor persuasive technical argument that fabricating a hook
member with an attachment flange out of plate material requires more than
ordinary skill or produces unexpected results. Thus, we are not apprised of
error and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4--6, and 8.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1---6, 8, 9, and 11-22 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7