Yvonne Green

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 30, 2020

15692476 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2020)

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. 15/692,476 08/31/2017 Yvonne Green SK13083 3470 44088 7590 10/30/2020 KAUFHOLD DIX PATENT LAW P. O. BOX 89626 SIOUX FALLS, SD 57109 EXAMINER MORROW, JASON S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3612 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/30/2020 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): jason@kaufholdlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YVONNE GREEN Appeal 2020-002458 Application 15/692,476 Technology Center 3600 Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, BRANDON J. WARNER, and MICHAEL L. WOODS, 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 February 14, 2019 Final Action rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 8, and 9. See Final Act. 1. Claims 2 and 5–7 have been canceled. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Yvonne Green. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-002458 Application 15/692,476 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a device for protecting a vehicle door from dents. Spec. 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A dent protection assembly being configured to be selectively positioned on a car door thereby protecting the car door from dents resulting from contact with other car doors, said assembly comprising: a cushion being configured to be positioned on an outside surface of a vehicle door, said cushion being comprised of a deformable material wherein said cushion is configured to inhibit the outside surface of the vehicle door from being dented, said cushion comprising a first panel having a first surf ace, a second surface and a perimeter edge extending therebetween, said perimeter edge having a first side and a second side, said first panel being elongated between said first side and said second side, said first surface being configured to abut the outside surface of the vehicle door; a first strap being coupled to and extending away from said first side of said first panel, said first strap having a distal end with respect to said first panel, said first strap being configured to be selectively wrapped around a rear view mirror of the vehicle, said distal end being selectively matable to said first strap such that said first strap forms a closed loop wherein said first strap is configured to be retained around the rear view mirror thereby inhibiting said cushion from being removed from the vehicle door; a second strap being coupled to and extending away from said perimeter edge of said first panel, said second strap being centrally positioned between said first side and said second side, said second strap having a distal end with respect to said first panel, said second strap being configured to be shut in the vehicle door thereby inhibiting said cushion from being removed from the vehicle door; a weight being coupled to said distal end of said second strap wherein said weight is configured to inhibit said second strap from being removed from the vehicle door when said Appeal 2020-002458 Application 15/692,476 3 second strap is shut in the vehicle door, said weight having parallel planar opposite faces wherein said weight is flat; and a plurality of magnets, each of said magnets being positioned within said cushion wherein each of said magnets is configured to magnetically engage the outside surface of the vehicle door when said cushion is positioned on the outside surface. REFERENCES Name Reference Date Norman US 5,129,695 July 14, 1992 Hoenack US 6,394,528 B2 May 28, 2002 Cano WO 03/099612 A2 Dec. 12, 2003 REJECTION Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1, 3, 4, 8, 9 103 Norman, Hoenack, Cano OPINION Appellant deems claim 1 as illustrative of the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 6. We select claim 1 as representative of the claims subject to this rejection, and decide the appeal of the rejection on the basis of claim 1 alone. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner finds that Norman teaches most of the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the claimed first strap and the claimed weight coupled to the distal end of the second strap. Final Act. 2–4; see Norman, Figs. 1, 8. The Examiner relies on Hoenack to teach the claimed first strap, and determines that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Hoenack’s strap with Norman’s vehicle side protector in order to better secure Norman’s device to a vehicle. Final Act. 4 (citing Hoenack, Fig. 2). Appeal 2020-002458 Application 15/692,476 4 The Examiner relies on Cano to teach the claimed weight (plate 31, attached to security cord 29) attached to the distal end of the second strap. Id. at 5 (citing Cano 5); see Cano, Figs. 1, 2. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to couple Cano’s weight to the distal end of Norman’s strap, “to further secure [Norman’s] device from being stolen when in use.” Final Act. 5. Appellant’s sole argument is that Cano does not teach a weight attached to a strap that is centrally located on the perimeter of the cushion, as claim 1 requires. Appeal Br. 6. According to Appellant, The rejection relies primarily on the Cano reference for teaching to render the claim limitation obvious. However, Cano specifically provides for a plate for insertion into a trunk. The plate is attached to a tether which extends from an end of the device, not the middle. There is no teaching or suggestion within the collective teaching of the cited references to address adjusting the position of the weight to conform with or render obvious the claim limitations. As the plate of Cano is specifically taught for attaching to the trunk, there is nothing to lead one of ordinary skill in the art to consider a center positioning relative to the cushion. Id. The Examiner responds that Norman, not Cano, is relied on to teach a second strap centrally located on the perimeter of the cushion. Ans. 6–7 (citing Norman, Fig. 8). According to the Examiner, Cano is only relied on to teach the claimed weight, and “Cano clearly teaches the advantages of including such a weight at the end of a strap.” Id. at 7 (citing Cano 5). Appellant does not dispute that Norman teaches a strap that is centrally located on the perimeter of a dent-prevention cushion. Nor does Appellant dispute the Examiner’s reason to combine Cano’s weight with Appeal 2020-002458 Application 15/692,476 5 Norman’s centrally located strap. Accordingly, we are not apprised of Examiner error and sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 8, and 9 as unpatentable over Norman, Hoenack, and Cano. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 4, 8, 9 103 Norman, Hoenack, Cano 1, 3, 4, 8, 9 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