Crown Equipment Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 21, 2021

2020003123 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 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.
15/423,713 02/03/2017 Craig J. Rekow CRN 859 PA 9038
144583 7590 04/21/2021
STEVENS & SHOWALTER LLP
Crown Equipment Corporation
7019 CORPORATE WAY
DAYTON, OH 45459-4238
EXAMINER
BROWN, JOSEPH HENRY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3658
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/21/2021 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):
PTO@sspatlaw.com
ssllp@speakeasy.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CRAIG J. REKOW, PAUL D. MAGEE,
MICHAEL P. GALLAGHER, and ROGER J. QUINLAN
Appeal 2020-003123
Application 15/423,713
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, 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 claims 1–10 and 12–19. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Crown Equipment
Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-003123
Application 15/423,713

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is directed to “control elements for use in
materials handling vehicles, wherein the control elements are configurable
such that spacing therebetween can be adjusted without modifying structure
to which the control elements are mounted.” Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A control module for controlling at least one function of a
materials handling vehicle comprising:
a base portion; and
a plurality of control elements extending from the base
portion and located laterally adjacent to one another, at least
one of the control elements including a mounting structure that
permits the control element to be selectively mounted to the
base portion in at least first and second positions, the first
position defining a first lateral distance between the control
element and an immediately adjacent control element and the
second position defining a second lateral distance between the
control element and the immediately adjacent control element,
the second lateral distance being greater than the first lateral
distance.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kraimer US 2008/0001435 A1 Jan. 3, 2008
Smith US 2015/0198238 A1 July 16, 2015

REJECTION
Claims 1–10 and 12–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kraimer and Smith.
Appeal 2020-003123
Application 15/423,713

3
OPINION
Claims 1, 7–10, 16, and 19
The Examiner finds that Kraimer discloses a control module
comprising most of the features of claim 1, including a base portion (the
surface on which controls 58 are provided) and a plurality of control
elements (controls 58). Final Act. 2 (citing Kraimer, Fig. 3). The Examiner
finds, however, that Kraimer fails to disclose at least one of the control
elements including a mounting structure that permits the control element to
be selectively mounted to the base portion in first and second positions
defining different lateral distances from an immediately adjacent control
element as recited in claim 1. Id. at 2–3. The Examiner finds that Smith
teaches a control element (comprising shift knob adapter 29, connector
plate 31, and shift knob 90) including a mounting structure (holes 33, 35 of
connector plate 31) that permits the control element to be selectively
mounted to the base portion in at least first and second positions. Id. at 3
(citing Smith, Figs. 12–15). The Examiner determines it would have been
obvious to modify Kraimer to provide “control elements having mounting
structure that permits the control element to be selectively mounted in
several positions, as taught by Smith, so that the user may balance the
respective speed and ease of use considerations to determine the optimal
configuration that provides the desired performance for that user.” Id.
(citing Smith ¶ 54). The Examiner explains that the modification would
have been obvious so that “a user can adjust the control element to a more
comfortable and/or preferred position.” Id. The Examiner also explains
that, in the resulting combination, the first position taught by Smith, “offset
to the right” in Smith’s Figure 13, would “define[] a first lateral distance
Appeal 2020-003123
Application 15/423,713

4
between the control element and an immediately adjacent control element”
(i.e., the “next control element to the right” in Figure 3 of Kraimer), and a
second position, “offset to the left” in Smith’s Figure 13, would “define[] a
second lateral distance between the control element and the immediately
adjacent control element” with “the second lateral distance being greater
than the first lateral distance.” Id. (emphasis omitted). In other words,
moving from the position offset to the right shown in Smith’s Figure 13 to a
position offset to the left “would increase the distance from the nearest
control element to the right.” Id.
“Appellant submits there is no discussion in either Kraimer or Smith
of adjusting the lateral distance between at least one control element and an
immediately adjacent control element, as recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 7
(italics omitted). In particular, Appellant contends that “Kraimer is silent
with regard to adjusting the finger controls” in that Kraimer neither discloses
adjustable controls nor suggests “a modification to accommodate lateral
adjustment.” Id. (italics omitted). Further, Appellant adds, “Smith discloses
a single vehicle shifter” and not “a second, or immediately adjacent, control
element, as recited in claim 1.” Id. at 8.
These arguments are not persuasive because they attack each of
Kraimer and Smith individually, rather than in combination. “Non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). As discussed above,
the Examiner finds the plurality of adjacent control elements (controls 58) in
Kraimer and finds the teaching of a control element having an adjustable
Appeal 2020-003123
Application 15/423,713

5
position in Smith. Final Act. 2 (citing Kraimer, Fig. 3); id. at 3 (citing
Smith, Figs. 12–15).
Appellant further contends that “the Examiner has not presented a
convincing line of reasoning as to why one having ordinary skill in the art
would have found the claimed invention to have been obvious in light of the
teachings of the references.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant asserts that the
Examiner’s rejection is premised on “impermissible hindsight.” Id.
As discussed above, the Examiner articulates a reason for making the
proposed modification of Kraimer, namely, to permit the user to “adjust the
control element to a more comfortable and/or preferred position.” Final
Act. 3. Further, Smith provides evidentiary support for this rationale. See,
e.g., Smith ¶ 53 (teaching that offsetting and rotation of the shift knob with
respect to the operating member “may give the user more control over the
feel of the shifter 1 and may allow greater adjustability of the shifter 1 to
satisfy the user’s comfort and performance preferences”); ¶ 54 (once again
citing the advantages of allowing adjustability in the configuration to
provide the desired comfort and performance for a particular user).2

2 We appreciate that paragraph 54 of Smith, cited by the Examiner in
support of the articulated rationale (Final Act. 3), addresses the benefits of
varying the length of shift knob 90, shift knob adapter 29, operating member
9, and/or connector plate 31, rather than the adjustability in position of
connector plate 31, knob adapter 29, and knob 90. See Reply Br. 5–6
(highlighting this point). However, this does not undermine the Examiner’s
rationale because the advantage cited in paragraph 54 is substantially the
same benefit discussed in Smith’s paragraph 53 in connection with
adjustability in the position of connector plate 31, knob adapter 29, and knob
90.
Appeal 2020-003123
Application 15/423,713

6
Appellant does not identify any flaw in the Examiner’s reasoning or
point to any knowledge relied on by the Examiner that was gleaned only
from Appellant’s disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, and thereby fails to
support its hindsight assertion. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395
(CCPA 1971) (“Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into
account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the
time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge
gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”).
Appellant additionally contends that the Examiner fails to identify
disclosure in the prior art showing that Smith’s shift knob adjuster for
adjusting a knob grasped by a user’s hand would be applicable to Kraimer’s
controls 58, which Appellant characterizes as “finger actuated controls.”
Appeal Br. 10. Appellant’s contention is unsound because it is premised on
a mischaracterization of Kraimer. As the Examiner points out (Ans. 5),
Kraimer describes controls 58 as “[f]or example, a plurality of control
elements including finger buttons, switches, levers, handles, knobs[,] and
other devices [that] may be combined into a control area.” Kraimer ¶ 30
(emphasis added).
Further, Appellant submits that providing a mounting arrangement as
taught by Smith to at least one of Kraimer’s control elements “would not
only locate the control element at different spacings relative to adjacent
control elements, but would also locate the control element at different
spacings from the operator’s hand and/or fingers (in a front or rear
direction).” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant argues that this resulting variable
Appeal 2020-003123
Application 15/423,713

7
distance of a control element relative to a user’s hand and/or fingers
compared to the distance of other control elements relative to the user’s hand
and/or fingers “would not lead one of ordinary skill in the art to consider”
the modification of Kraimer proposed by the Examiner. Id.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. As discussed above, the
Examiner articulates a reason for making such a modification (i.e., to permit
the user to “adjust the control element to a more comfortable and/or
preferred position.” Final Act. 3. Appellant does not refute this reasoning
or persuasively explain why a person having ordinary skill in the art might
have been dissuaded from making a modification that would permit such
individual adjustment of the position of one of the controls. Indeed, both
lateral adjustment and adjustment toward or away from the user’s hand
and/or fingers would assist in customizing the positioning and configuration
of the control element to a particular user as Smith teaches in
paragraphs 53–54. Appellant does not provide any evidence to suggest that
uniform spacing of all controls from the user’s hand and/or fingers is
required or expected of a control panel of the type disclosed by Kraimer.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of
claims 7–10, which depend from claim 1 and for which Appellant does not
present separate arguments.
In contesting the rejection of independent claim 16, Appellant relies
on the arguments presented for claim 1. Appeal Br. 15. For the reasons
discussed above, Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 1 and, likewise, fail to apprise us of error in the rejection
of claim 16. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 16 and of claim
Appeal 2020-003123
Application 15/423,713

8
19, which depends from claim 16 and for which Appellant does not present
separate arguments.
Claim 2
In rejecting claim 2, the Examiner reads the claimed “body portion”
on Smith’s connector plate 31, and reads the claimed “mounting structure”
comprising “a mounting hole that extends from the bottom surface into the
body portion” on Smith’s holes 33 and 35. Final Act. 3. Appellant argues
that Smith’s adapter 29 “does not have a mounting hole that extends from a
bottom surface into a body portion,” and that Smith’s connector plate 31 “is
not a control element, but rather is used to connect the adapter 29 to an
operating member 9.” Appeal Br. 11. In other words, Appellant contends
that neither Smith’s adapter 29 nor Smith’s connector plate 31 comprises all
of the features of the at least one control element recited in claim 2
(including those recited in claim 1 from which claim 2 depends). See id.
The Examiner responds by emphasizing that, as set forth in the
rejection, the claimed “control element” reads on the combined structure of
Smith’s shift knob 90, shift knob adapter 29, and connector plate 31. Ans. 6
(citing Final Act. 3). Appellant does not persuasively explain why this
combined structure does not comprise all of the features of the control
element set forth in claims 1 and 2. Notably, claim 2 does not require that
the at least one control element be a one-piece, unitary structure.
Appellant, therefore, fails to apprise us of error in the rejection of
claim 2, which we thus sustain.
Claims 3 and 4
Appellant argues that, “even if the connector plate 31 of Smith were
considered to be a body portion, as is asserted by the Examiner, the structure
Appeal 2020-003123
Application 15/423,713

9
of Smith does not disclose a ‘shoulder portion’ extending from a side of a
‘central portion’ on the connector plate 31.” Appeal Br. 11 (italics omitted).
Pursuant to its dictionary definition, the Examiner construes “shoulder as ‘a
lateral protrusion’” and provides an annotated copy of Figure 12 of Smith to
show where the Examiner finds a “shoulder portion” satisfying this
definition. Ans. 7.
Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s construction of “shoulder” “is
inconsistent with Appellant’s Specification.” Reply Br. 7. The portion of
the Specification cited by Appellant in support of this assertion states that
“shoulder portion 100 may provide the body portion 98 with a non-uniform
(irregular) cross-section, i.e., a non-circular/ovular/square/rectangular cross
section, as measured at a bottom surface 104 of the body portion 98.”
Spec. 8 (emphasis added). This language does not set forth a special
definition of “shoulder” or “shoulder portion,” but, rather, describes an
attribute that shoulder portion 100 may have. As stated by our reviewing
court in In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998), “the name
of the game is the claim.” Claim 3 does not recite this additional attribute
regarding a non-uniform or irregular cross section as measured at a bottom
surface. Thus, Appellant cannot rely on this attribute for patentability. See
In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in
the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability). Appellant does not
persuasively explain why the portion of Smith’s connector plate 31
identified by the Examiner is not a “shoulder portion” as recited in claim 3
and construed by the Examiner.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 3. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 3, and of
Appeal 2020-003123
Application 15/423,713

10
claim 4, which depends from claim 3 and for which Appellant does not
present any separate arguments.
Claims 5 and 6
Appellant argues:
[E]ven if one of the holes 33, 35 of the connector plate 31 of
Smith were considered to disclose a mounting hole in a body
portion (an interpretation to which the Appellant does not
acquiesce), Smith does not disclose an additional hole defining
a mounting structure for mounting the connector plate 31 to the
operating member 9. In particular, only one of the holes 33, 35
in the connector plate 31 of Smith is provided as a mounting
hole for attachment to the operating member 9, while an end 37
of the shift knob adapter 29 is affixed in the other of the holes
33, 35, i.e., the other of the holes 33, 35 is not available for
mounting to the operating member 9.
Appeal Br. 12 (italics omitted).
The Examiner responds by first pointing out that claim 5 does not
“require both mounting holes to mount to a single mounting stem” and, thus,
according to the Examiner, Appellant’s argument is premised on importing
limitations from the underlying disclosure into the claims. Ans. 8. The
Examiner next posits, in essence, that Smith’s holes 33 and 35 are capable of
mating, interchangeably, with either shift knob adapter 29 or operating
member 9. Id. To support this position the Examiner cites the absence of
the term “respectively” in paragraph 55 of Smith in disclosing that splines
46 (on second end 15 of operating member 9) and 49 (on end 37 of shift
knob adapter 29) may be configured to fit into corresponding splines 47 (in
first hole 33) and 48 (in second hole 35). Id. Further, the Examiner finds
that Smith’s drawings “appear to show the splines of 15, 33, 35[,] and 37 to
all be similar in size and shape, allowing for operating member 9 to be
Appeal 2020-003123
Application 15/423,713

11
mounted in either hole 33, 35 and for shift knob adapter 29 to be mounted in
either hole 33, 35.” Id. The Examiner additionally explains that “[i]t is
beneficial in manufacturing to have all the splines similar so that during
assembly, the connector plate 31 can be installed in a quick efficient manner
without having to determine which hole mounts to what element.” Id. at
8–9.
Smith’s disclosure, in paragraphs 6 and 52, that first hole 33 may be
configured to receive second end 15 of operating member 9, and second hole
35 may be configured to receive end 37 of shift knob adapter 29, in no way
suggests that first hole 33 is not also configured to receive end 37 or that
second hole 35 is not also configured to receive second end 15. On the other
hand, Smith’s disclosure in paragraph 55 that splines 46 and 49 may be
configured to fit into the corresponding splines 47 and 48 of first hole 33 and
second hole 35 does not definitely establish that holes 33 and 35 are both
adapted to receive second end 15 and adapted to receive end 37. Further,
although we agree with the Examiner that holes 33 and 35 appear very
similar to one another in Figure 12, albeit with the stepped recess in hole 33
being located at the top and the stepped recess in hole 35 being located at the
bottom and thus being less visible,3 the drawing does not establish with
certainty that the holes are sufficiently similar to be effectively

3 If connector plate 31 were flipped upside down, the stepped recess in hole
33 would be located at the bottom and the stepped recess in hole 35 would
be located at the top, such that the stepped recess in hole 33 would be
capable of receiving a washer from the bottom for mounting a shift knob
adapter and the stepped recess in hole 35 would be capable of receiving a
washer from the top for mounting connector plate 31 to an operating
member.
Appeal 2020-003123
Application 15/423,713

12
interchangeable. In short, Smith expressly teaches that first hole 33 is
adapted to receive second end 15 of operating member 9 and that second
hole 35 is adapted to receive end 37 of shift knob adapter 29, but leaves
open the possibility that first hole 33 and second hole 35 are both adapted to
receive either second end 15 of operating member 9 or end 37 of shift knob
adapter 29. In other words, a skilled artisan could reasonably infer that first
hole 33 and 35 are essentially interchangeable (i.e., both capable of
receiving either second end 15 of operating member 9 or end 37 of shift
knob adapter 29). See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421
(2007) (stating that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to
solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable
solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known
options within his or her technical grasp”).
Moreover, even assuming that Smith does not expressly teach having
both holes 33 and 35 and all splines be similar and compatible with one
another, the Examiner articulates a reason, with rational underpinnings, as to
why it would have been obvious to do so. Ans. 8–9. The Examiner reasons
that it would have been obvious to do this “so that during assembly, the
connector plate 31 can be installed in a quick efficient manner without
having to determine which hole mounts to what element.” Id. Appellant
does not refute this reasoning. See Reply Br. 7–9.
Nevertheless, the question of whether Smith’s holes 33 and 35 and all
of the splines are identical or interchangeable is not critical to the rejection
because claim 5 does not require either that the mounting holes be the same
or that they each be adapted to receive the same mounting stem to mount the
control element to the base. Notably, Appellant does not specifically dispute
Appeal 2020-003123
Application 15/423,713

13
the Examiner’s point (Ans. 8) that claim 5 does not require that both
mounting holes mount to a single mounting stem. See Reply Br. 8
(acknowledging the Examiner’s claim interpretation). Claim 5, by virtue of
its dependence from claim 1, via claims 2–4, recites “a mounting structure
that permits the control element to be selectively mounted to the base
portion in at least first and second positions,” wherein the mounting
structure “comprises a mounting hole that extends from the bottom surface
into the body portion and is offset from a center point of the bottom surface”
and “at least partially located in the shoulder portion,” and wherein the
control element “comprises an additional mounting hole extending from the
bottom surface into the body portion.” Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). Claim
5 does not specifically require that either the mounting hole of the mounting
structure or the additional mounting hole of the control element directly
mount the control element to the base, much less that both mounting holes
be adapted to perform this function.
For the above reasons, Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of
error in the rejection of claim 5, which we thus sustain.
In contesting the rejection of claim 6, Appellant relies on the
arguments presented for claim 5. Appeal Br. 12. For the reasons discussed
above, Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of error in the rejection of
claim 5 and, likewise, fail to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 6.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 12, 13, and 15
Independent claim 12 recites a control element body portion with
“first and second mounting holes extending into the body portion from the
bottom surface” thereof
Appeal 2020-003123
Application 15/423,713

14
for selectively receiving a mounting stem of the vehicle to
mount the control element in the vehicle, wherein the control
element is mountable in at least two positions including: a first
position wherein the mounting stem is received in the first
mounting hole; and a second position wherein the mounting
stem is received in the second mounting hole.
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Thus, claim 12, unlike
claim 5, discussed above, requires that both the first mounting hole and the
second mounting hole be capable of selectively receiving the same mounting
stem.
The Examiner finds that Smith teaches mounting holes 33 and 35 that
satisfy the aforementioned limitation. See Final Act. 5. The Examiner relies
on paragraph 55 of Smith to support this position. Ans. 10 (highlighting the
absence of “the word ‘respectively’ when referring to the splines, therefore
not limiting spline 46 to pair with spline 47 exclusively and spline 49 to pair
with spline 48 exclusively”). According to the Examiner, Smith’s paragraph
55 “infers that splines 46, 49 may be configured to fit into the corresponding
splines 47, 48. In other words, splines 46, 49 can fit into either
splines 47, 48, which ever one it corresponds to.” Id. Further, the Examiner
finds that Smith’s Figure 12 “appears to show splines 46, 47, 48[,] and 49 to
be the same size, shape[,] and quantity, clearly suggesting that spline[s] 46
[are] not limited to only engage splines 47.” Id. at 11.
Appellant argues that Smith’s holes 33 and 35 are for receiving
unique components and, thus, “both holes 33, 35 are not provided for
‘selectively receiving a mounting stem of the vehicle to mount the control
element in the vehicle.’” Appeal Br. 13.
As discussed above in addressing claim 5, we find Smith’s disclosure
to be vague or ambiguous as to whether first hole 33 and second hole 35
Appeal 2020-003123
Application 15/423,713

15
(and their splines 47 and 48) are both adapted to receive second end 15 of
operating member 9 (and its splines 46), as well as to receive end 37 of shift
knob adapter 29 (and its splines 49). Nevertheless, given the limited
universe of options (either non-identical, non-interchangeable holes 33 and
35 or interchangeable holes 33 and 35 each capable of receiving either
second end 15 of operating member 9 or end 37 of shift knob adapter 29),
and the similar appearance of holes 33 and 35 as depicted in Smith’s Figure
12, it would have been reasonable for a person having ordinary skill in the
art to infer that holes 33 and 35 are interchangeable. Further, a person
having ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that providing
interchangeable holes 33 and 35 (with the location of the stepped recess
flipped on one of the holes relative to the other) and splines would facilitate
assembly of the apparatus by obviating the need to determine whether
connector plate is right side up or upside down; either orientation would be
acceptable. As the Examiner explains, “[i]t is beneficial in manufacturing to
have all the splines similar so that during assembly, the connector plate 31
can be installed in a quick efficient manner without having to determine
which hole mounts to what element.” Ans. 8–9. After all, “[a] person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”
KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to make holes 33 and 35 interchangeable to provide
this advantage.
Further, although Smith does not teach using the mounting holes in
the same manner that Appellant discloses (i.e., for selectively mounting the
control element in a first position with a mounting stem of the vehicle
received in the first hole and mounting the control element in a second
Appeal 2020-003123
Application 15/423,713

16
position with the mounting stem received in the second hole), claim 12 is
broader than Appellant’s disclosure. Smith teaches a control element (shift
knob adapter 29, connector plate 31, and shift knob 90) that, when provided
with interchangeable holes 33 and 35, is capable of being mounted in at least
two positions (within the range of rotational options shown in Figure 14),
including at least a first position (any position along the range) wherein hole
33 receives second end 15 of operating member 9 and a second position (any
other position along the range) with connector plate 31 flipped upside down
wherein hole 35 receives second end 15 of operating member 9. Thus, the
structure resulting from the combination of Kraimer and Smith satisfies the
limitations of claim 12.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of claim 12 would have been
obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 12, and of claim 13,
for which Appellant does not present any separate arguments.
In contesting the rejection of claim 15, Appellant relies on the
argument presented for claim 12. Appeal Br. 14–15. This argument does
not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 12 and, for the same reasons,
fails to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 15. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claim 15.
Claims 14, 17, and 18
In contesting the rejection of claim 14 and its dependent claim 17,
Appellant relies on the argument presented for claim 3 regarding the
“shoulder portion” limitation. Appeal Br. 14, 16. For the reasons discussed
above, this argument does not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 3
Appeal 2020-003123
Application 15/423,713

17
and, likewise, fails to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 14 or of
claim 17. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 17.
Claim 18 depends from claim 17. Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). In
contesting the rejection of claim 18, in addition to pointing out that claim 18
depends from claim 17, Appellant relies on the arguments presented for
claim 15. Appeal Br. 16. As discussed above, Appellant’s argument against
the rejection of claim 15, which simply relies on the argument presented for
claim 12, does not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 15. Having
not been apprised of error in the rejection of claim 15, we are not apprised of
error in the rejection of claim 18.4 Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 18.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10 and 12–19 is
AFFIRMED.

4 The reference in claims 15 and 18 to mounting the control element in the
respective mounting holes (see Appeal Br. 20, 21 (Claims App.)) is
confusing. The claimed “mounting holes” are within the body portion of the
control element (see id. at 19, 20–21 (claims 12, 17, and 18). It is not clear
how the control element can be mounted in mounting holes in the control
element. How can a structure be mounted in itself? This is an informality
deserving of correction in the event of further prosecution of the claimed
subject matter.
Appeal 2020-003123
Application 15/423,713

18
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–10, 12–
19
103 Kraimer, Smith 1–10, 12–
19

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