Ron Zeitler

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 21, 2021

2021002197 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2021)

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. 16/004,540 06/11/2018 Ron Zeitler MSH-1205 1170 8131 7590 10/21/2021 MCKELLAR IP LAW, PLLC 784 SOUTH POSEYVILLE ROAD MIDLAND, MI 48640 EXAMINER MORGAN, EMILY M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3677 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/21/2021 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 RON ZEITLER Appeal 2021-002197 Application 16/004,540 Technology Center 3600 Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, Administrative Patent Judges. WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1. Appeal Br. 1.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Saginaw Control and Engineering. Appeal Br. 1. 2 The pages of the Appeal Brief are not numbered. We consider the cover page to be page 1. Appeal 2021-002197 Application 16/004,540 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A concealed hinge assembly, said concealed hinge assembly comprising in combination: an outer door hinge element consisting essentially of a flat front surface, a flat bottom surface, a configured back surface, a first side and a second side; said configured back surface having an upper flat surface having a first opening therethrough, said configured back surface having a lower flat surface having a threaded opening therein, there being a hinge pin opening through the outer door hinge assembly from said first side to said second side; an inner door hinge element, said inner door hinge element having a front, a back, a top, and said inner door hinge element front having an outer door hinge element opening therein, said outer door hinge element opening having a back surface, said back surface having a second opening therethrough in an upper portion thereof, said inner door hinge element having a first end and a second end and said inner door hinge element having a third opening in said inner door hinge element first end and in said inner door hinge element second end; a concealed hinge element, said concealed hinge element having two ends, a top, a back, and a front, said top having at least two openings therethrough; said back having a hinge holder mounted therein near an outside edge thereof, said hinge holder consisting of a projecting hook structure, a front end of said hook structure having a third opening therethrough; an elongated hinge pin having a narrowed portion near a center thereof; a hinge pin retainer for insertion in said pin openings in said concealed hinge element in addition to insertion across said narrow portion of said hinge pin retainer. Appeal 2021-002197 Application 16/004,540 3 REFERENCES Name Reference Date Bobrowski US 5,075,928 Dec. 31, 1991 Nicholas US 2017/0268269 A1 Sept. 21, 2017 REJECTIONS Claim Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References 1 112(b) Indefiniteness 1 103 Bobrowski, Nicholas OPINION Indefiniteness The Examiner rejects claim 1 as indefinite because, e.g., “[a]pplicant claims the pin openings 24 are in the concealed element, which the drawings disclose the pin openings 24 are in the inner element 24,” and “applicant claims the hinge pin retainer 70 somehow is attached to itself.” Final Act. 6. Appellant does not squarely address the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection. Appellant contends that “the amendments and comments in the December 8, 2019, response overcome [this rejection],” but does not explain how this amendment does so. Appeal Br. 2. Nor can we discern how the Appellant’s December 8, 2019, response overcomes the indefiniteness rejection. Appellant goes on to address some of the Examiner’s objections to Appellant’s drawings. Id. Objections to drawings, however, are not appealable matters, but rather are reviewable by way of petition to the Technology Center Director. See MPEP § 1002.02(c) (Item 4: Petitions under 37 C.F.R. § 1.113 relating to objections or requirements made by the examiners). Appellant’s response to the Examiner’s drawing objections are therefore not directly relevant to this rejection. Appeal 2021-002197 Application 16/004,540 4 Because Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite on the basis of the claim language identified above, we sustain the rejection. Unpatentable over Bobrowski and Nicholas The Examiner finds that Bobrowski teaches the concealed hinge assembly of claim 1 substantially as claimed, but “does not disclose that the pin 54 has a narrowed portion near a center thereof,” or “a hinge pin retainer for insertion in said pin openings in said concealed hinge in addition to insertion across said narrow portion of said hinge pin retainer.” Final Act. 7–8; see Bobrowski, Figs. 1–4. The Examiner therefore relies on Nicholas to teach the missing limitations. Id. at 8. According to the Examiner, “Nicholas discloses a similar hinge to Bobrowski, including the use of a hinge pin 48 with a narrowed portion 56 near the center, and a hinge pin retainer 50 for insertion in pin openings 36 in the concealed element 20 to engage the narrow part 56 of the hinge pin 48.” Id. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include Nicholas’s pin lock 54 (included in retainer 50 “to releasably lock the hinge pin assembly 16” (Nicholas ¶ 23)) into Bobrowski’s hinge “so that the pin retainer can lock the hinge pin assembly in the closed position, as taught by Nicholas.” Id.; (citing Nicholas ¶ 25). The Examiner “notes that the additional structure of the pin retainer performs an extra function that is known in the art of concealed hinges, and is known in the art to perform this function.” Appellant acknowledges that “the pin retainer function is known in the prior art of concealed hinges,” but contends that it was not known how to incorporate “the pin retainer function into what is called a Lid Leaf Appeal 2021-002197 Application 16/004,540 5 Mounting Plate,” nor was known “the attachment method of this component to the door itself.” Appeal Br. 3. Appellant further contends that its device “is unlike any other mounting method on the thin materials of which the cabinets are made.” Id. Appellant also touts a number of advantages of its design, including “increased strength and load capacity,” the absence of “unsightly or visible” welds or screws on the exterior of the door, and simplified assembly and disassembly of the hinge. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error. Specifically, Appellant does not identify: (1) where in claim 1 a “Lid Leaf Mounting Plate” is recited; (2) what language limits the scope of claim 1 to use with a cabinet door made with thin materials (as the Examiner notes, Ans. 3, claim 1 recites only a hinge and not the combination of a hinge and a cabinet); or (3) what claim language corresponds to the specific advantages of its hinge design. Nor does Appellant directly address the Examiner’s unpatentability analysis. Appellant does not, for example, expressly dispute any of the Examiner’s findings regarding what Bobrowski and Nicholas teach, or dispute the Examiner’s reason to combine these teachings. As a result, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Bobrowski and Nicholas, and therefore we sustain the rejection. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1 112(b) Indefiniteness 1 1 103 Bobrowski, Nichols 1 Overall Outcome 1 Appeal 2021-002197 Application 16/004,540 6 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED