Ex Parte Zimmer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 30, 2014

12386573 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2014)

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.
12/386,573 04/20/2009 Günther Zimmer ZN 117 6527
27956 7590 12/30/2014
KLAUS J. BACH
4407 TWIN OAKS DRIVE
MURRYSVILLE, PA 15668
EXAMINER
BATSON, VICTOR D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3677
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2014 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 GUNTHER ZIMMER and MARTIN ZIMMER
____________

Appeal 2012-011054
Application 12/386,5731
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL W. KIM, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1–11. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).

We AFFIRM.

1 According to the Appellants, the real parties in interest are the inventors,
Gunther Zimmer and Martin Zimmer. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2012-011054
Application12/386,573

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
The Appellants’ invention allegedly resides in an anchor for mounting
in a planar building component, the planar building component having first
and second cover plates with an intermediate support core layer. (Spec. 1, ll.
1–3.)

Illustrative Claim
1. An anchor installation in planar building panels (100)
including a support core and having a first cover plate (101) and
a second cover plate (111) and at least one intermediate support
core layer (121) disposed between the first and the second cover
plates (101, 111), with an opening (130) extending through the
first cover plate (101) and the intermediate support core layer
(121) and, in the form of a dead end bore (115), partially into
the second cover plate (111),
- the anchor comprising a sleeve-like expansion body
(10) and a wedge body (60, 150) which is at least partially
inserted into the expansion body (10),
-the expansion body (10) including at the bottom end
thereof at least two lower spreadable locking elements (51) and
-the wedge body (60, 150) having a central opening (61)
including a movable drive element (160, 165, 170, 82) for
spreading the locking elements (51) and, at the bottom of the
expansion body (10), a drive element (161, 176) disposed in the
central opening (61) of an operating structure (160, 170) for
expanding the lower locking elements (51) into radial clamping
engagement with the walls of the dead end bore (115) of the
second cover plate (111).

Prior Art
Rohe US 3,042,156 July 3, 1962
Jeal US 4,781,501 Nov. 1, 1988
Filipp US 2002/0127081 A1 Sept. 12, 2002

Appeal 2012-011054
Application12/386,573

3
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 6–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Filipp and Rohe.
The Examiner rejects claims 3–5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Filipp, Rohe, and Jeal.

ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1
Independent claim 1 sets forth “[a]n anchor installation in planar
building panels” wherein an opening extends “partially” into a second cover
plate, “in the form of a dead end bore.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) We are
not persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that Filipp does not disclose such
an opening. (See Appeal Br. 6–8.)
Filipp discloses a structure 15 with an outer mounting wall 17, a wall
16 spaced inward from wall 17, and a third unlabeled wall spaced inward
from wall 16. (See Filipp ¶¶ 19–21, Fig. 1.) The Examiner considers wall
16, the space therebelow, and the third unlabeled wall to together form
Filipp’s “second cover plate.” (See Answer 11, especially the Examiner’s
annotated drawing.) With this designation of the “second cover plate,” we
are persuaded that Filipp’s opening extends “partially” into the second cover
plate, “in the form of a dead end bore,” in that this opening does not extend
past the third unlabeled wall. (Id.)
The Appellants contend the Examiner’s designation of Filipp’s second
end plate is an unreasonably broad construction of the recited “second cover
plate,” but they provide no persuasive arguments or evidence supporting this
contention. (See Appeal Br. 7–8.) The Appellants do not, for example,
Appeal 2012-011054
Application12/386,573

4
point with particularity to language in the claims and/or statements in the
specification inconsistent with the Examiner’s designation. (Id.) As noted
by the Examiner, the Appellants have “not defined any structure of the
claimed second end plate or dead end bore” requiring the Examiner “to take
a narrower interpretation.” (Answer 12.)
Moreover, we determine the details of the panel structure set forth in
independent claim 1 (e.g., cover plates, core layer, opening, and dead end
bore) relate to the intended use, or intended installation, of the Appellants’
anchor. As such, the prior art need only be capable of performing the
functional recitals contained in these intended use statements. The
Appellants do not argue, persuasively, that Filipp’s anchor is not capable of
installation in a panel structure having an opening that extends “partially”
into a second cover plate, “in the form of a dead end bore.” (See Appeal Br.
6–8.)
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1.
Dependent Claim 7
Claim 7 sets forth that the anchor’s drive element “includes a plate
spring.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Appellants argue that the prior art
does not disclose a “plate spring,” which forms a straddle drive as shown in
their Figures 13, 14, and 15. (See Appeal Br. 7.) However, the Appellants
do not point out, with particularity, claim language requiring the plate spring
to form a straddle drive and/or more closely resemble that shown in their
drawings. (Id.) As such, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s finding
(that Filipp discloses a drive element with a plate spring) is incorrect. (See
Answer 12–13.)
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 7.
Appeal 2012-011054
Application12/386,573

5
Dependent Claim 8
Claim 8 sets forth that clamping elements and a drive element “form
an eccentric drive.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Appellants argue that
the prior art does not disclose an eccentric drive as shown in their Figures 16
and 17. (Appeal Br.7.) However, as noted by the Examiner, Appellants do
not provide a definition of “eccentric drive,” and their illustrated drive
elements are shown as symmetrical. (See Answer 13.) As such, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner’s finding (that Filipp’s drive element “forms an
eccentric drive”) is incorrect. (Id.)
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 8.
Dependent Claims 2–6 and 9–11
The Appellants indicate that these dependent claims fall with
independent claim 1. (See Appeal Br. 7.)
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 2–6
and 9–11.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–11.
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).

AFFIRMED

Ssc