Moore, David E.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 27, 2019

14732164 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2019)

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.
14/732,164 06/05/2015 David E. Moore BRSAV.001C2 7604
20995 7590 09/27/2019
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
EXAMINER
LUGO, CARLOS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2019 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):
efiling@knobbe.com
jayna.cartee@knobbe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAVID E. MOORE

Appeal 2019-001668
Application 14/732,164
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant, Compumeric Engineering, Inc.,1 appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1–8, 10, 12–20,
22, and 24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Compumeric Engineering, Inc. is the applicant and sole real party in
interest. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(b); Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-001668
Application 14/732,164

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification
The disclosure “relates to latching systems and, in particular, concerns
a latching system for use with a container to inhibit access to the interior of
the container by animals.” Spec. ¶2.
Figures 1A and 1B are reproduced below.

Figures 1A and 1B, reproduced above, “illustrate perspective views of a
container equipped with one embodiment of an animal resistant latching
system in the opened and closed position.” Id. ¶12. The container includes
a door, i.e., access panel 104, having a rectangular-shaped opening 124. Id.
¶¶18, 20. On interior “first side” 122a of the access panel are latching
members 112, cam assembly 114, and related components. Id. ¶25. On
exterior “second side” 122b of the access panel are a cover 116, covering the
opening in the access panel, and bracket 120. Id. ¶23.
Figure 4 is reproduced below with our annotation.
Appeal 2019-001668
Application 14/732,164

3

Figure 4, reproduced above, shows “a side view of the animal resistant
latching system of Figure 1, illustrating one embodiment of the
predetermined dimensions of the latching system which inhibit access of the
lever by bears.” Id. ¶15. The cover is open on its underside, providing
cover opening 154 through which a hand may extend. Id. ¶23. Bracket 120
is positioned below the cover opening but spaced apart by bracket offset
260. Id. ¶42; see also id. ¶8 (“[T]he bracket is spaced from the cover
opening a distance that is selected to permit human access to the cover
opening but inhibit access by animals.”). Our annotation shows the path
through which a hand traverses to access lever 182 of the cam assembly to
Appeal 2019-001668
Application 14/732,164

4
unlock the access panel. Id. ¶¶30, 35, 42. More specifically, the hand
passes, left to right, between the cover and bracket, then upward through the
cover opening, and finally rightward again through the opening in the access
panel.
The Rejected Claims
Claims 1–8, 10, 12–20, 22, and 24 are rejected; no other claims are
pending.2 Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below.
1. An animal resistant latching system for use with a
container to inhibit access to the interior of the container by
animals, the latching system comprising:
an access panel having a first and a second side and an
opening formed between the first and second sides wherein the
access panel is adapted to be moved between an open and a
closed position with respect to the container;
at least one latching member that is movable between a
latched position and an unlatched position wherein the at least
one latching member is coupled to the access panel at a location
wherein the at least one latching member inhibits movement of
the access panel to thereby inhibit access to the container in the
latched position and wherein the at least one latching member
permits movement of the access panel to thereby allow access
to the container in the unlatched position;
a cam assembly having a lever wherein the cam assembly
is mounted to a first side of the access panel and wherein the
cam assembly is coupled to the at least one latching member
such that movement of the cam assembly results in movement

2 Both the Final Action and Appeal Brief include typographical errors
regarding which claims are pending and rejected. The Final Action lists
claims 11 and 23 as pending and rejected (Final Act. 1, 3), but those claims
are cancelled. See Appeal Br. 10, 19, and 21. The Appeal Brief misstates
that “appeal of Claims 1–10, 12–22 and 24 is now being sought” (Appeal
Br. 10) but elsewhere correctly acknowledges that claims 9 and 21 are also
cancelled. Id. at 19, 21.
Appeal 2019-001668
Application 14/732,164

5
of the at least one latching member between the latched and
unlatched positions and wherein the lever is positioned adjacent
the opening in the access panel and is accessible so as to allow
a person to move the cam assembly so as to urge the at least
one latching member from the latched position to an unlatched
position;
a cover that is mounted on the second side of the access
panel so as to cover the opening in the access panel wherein the
cover has side walls that extends outward from the plane of the
second side of the access panel and an outer surface that
interconnects the side walls so as to define a space positioned
above the opening in the access panel wherein the cover defines
a cover opening that permits access into the space defined by
the cover and also to the lever of the cam assembly wherein the
cover opening is dimensioned to allow access to the lever via
the opening in the access panel to manipulate the at least one
latching member from the latched position to the unlatched
position; and
a bracket positioned on the second side of the access
panel adjacent the cover opening wherein the bracket extends
outward from the second surface of the panel and wherein the
bracket is spaced from the cover opening.
Appeal Br. 18–19.
Appeal 2019-001668
Application 14/732,164

6
The Examiner’s Rejections
The following rejections, all under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),3 are before us
for review:
1. claims 1, 2, 10, 12–14, 22, and 24 as being unpatentable over
Kennedy,4 Bishop,5 and Smith6 (Final Act. 3);
2. claims 3–6 and 15–18 as being unpatentable over Kennedy,
Bishop, Smith, and Rand7 (id. at 6);
3. claims 7 and 19 as being unpatentable over Kennedy, Bishop,
Smith, and Hess8 (id.); and
4. claims 8 and 20 as being unpatentable over Kennedy, Bishop,
Smith, and Hambleton9 (id. at 7).

DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
The Examiner rejected claim 1, among others, upon determining that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Kennedy’s latch and
lock for trailer doors by incorporating Bishop’s “cover member (A),” which
is actually a “metallic lift” for a window sash (see Bishop 1), and also
incorporating Smith’s laterally projecting portion 29 as a “bracket.” Final
Act. 3–6.

3 The Final Action includes a rejection of claims 11 and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶2 (see Final Act. 2) but, again, those claims are cancelled.
4 US 5,509,700, issued Apr. 23, 1996 (“Kennedy”).
5 US 135,396, issued Feb. 4, 1873 (“Bishop”).
6 US 3,999,792, issued Dec. 28, 1976 (“Smith”).
7 US 140,307, issued June 24, 1873 (“Rand”).
8 US 1,044,047, issued Nov. 12, 1912 (“Hess”).
9 US 5,341,752, issued Aug. 30, 1994 (“Hambleton”).
Appeal 2019-001668
Application 14/732,164

7
One of Appellant’s arguments against this rejection is that “the cited
art does not teach the combination of a cover and bracket that is spaced
away from the opening.” Appeal Br. 14 (all caps and bolding removed); see
also Reply 4–5. The actual claim limitation being disputed states as follows:
“a bracket positioned on the second side of the access panel adjacent the
cover opening wherein the bracket extends outward from the second surface
of the panel and wherein the bracket is spaced from the cover opening.”
Appeal Br. 19 (emphasis added);
To meet this limitation, the Examiner relied exclusively on Smith.
Final Act. 5. Figure 6 of Smith, as annotated by the Examiner, is reproduced
below.

Figure 6 of Smith, reproduced above, shows what the Examiner asserts as a
bracket and cover opening. Final Act. 5. The Examiner explained as
follows:
Smith teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a system
having an operator (21) positioned within a cover member (26)
Appeal 2019-001668
Application 14/732,164

8
having an opening (20) and a bracket member (29) located at a
certain distance from the opening of the cover to inhibit
undesirable access to the operator.
Id. The Examiner’s findings regarding Smith are in error. Smith does not
include a cover within the meaning of claim 1. Indeed, elsewhere in the
Final Action, the Examiner relies on Bishop to teach the cover limitation.
See Final Act. 4. Further, in Smith, the asserted bracket (i.e., “laterally
projecting portion 29”) is not located at any distance from the asserted cover
opening (i.e., 20). Rather, as seen above, the bottom surface of the asserted
cover opening and the upper surface of the asserted bracket are flush with
one another.
For these reasons, we reverse the rejection of claim 1 and claim 13,
which also recites that “the bracket is spaced from the cover opening.”
Appeal Br. 21. For similar reasons, we also reverse the rejection of claims
2, 10, 12, 14, 22, and 24, all of which ultimately depend from claim 1 or
claim 13. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Dependent
claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from
which they depend are nonobvious.”).
Rejections 2–4
In Rejections 2–4, the Examiner relies on additional references to
meet limitations recited by dependent claims 3–8 and 15–20. In doing so,
the Examiner does not rely on the additional references in any way that
would cure the deficiency of the underlying rejection of independent claims
1 and 13 identified above. Accordingly, we reverse the rejections claims 3–
8 and 15–20, all of which ultimately depend from either claim 1 or claim 13.

Appeal 2019-001668
Application 14/732,164

9
SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 10, 12–14,
22, and 24
§ 103(a); Kennedy,
Bishop, and Smith
1, 2, 10, 12–
14, 22, and 24
3–6 and 15–18 § 103(a); Kennedy,
Bishop, Smith, and
Rand
3–6 and 15–18
7 and 19 § 103(a); Kennedy,
Bishop, Smith, and
Hess
7 and 19
8 and 20 § 103(a); Kennedy,
Bishop, Smith, and
Hambleton
8 and 20
Overall Outcome 1–8, 10, 12–
20, 22, and 24

REVERSED