Ex Parte Ansaldo

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 14, 2005

10685151 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 14, 2005)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte ALBERT A. ANSALDO
____________
Appeal No. 2005-2316
Application No. 10/685,151
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before GARRIS, TIMM, and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent
Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal which involves claims 4, 5,
and 7-18.
The subject matter on appeal relates to a game feeder. With
reference to the appellant's drawing, the game feeder 10 comprises
a collapsible feed storage container 20 (having an outlet 26)
formed from a plurality of panels that can be disassembled from one
another, a feed dispenser 40 attachable at the outlet of the feed
storage container and a support structure 30 detachably supporting
the feed storage container above the ground and having a foot
Appeal No. 2005-2316
Application No. 10/685,151
2
platform 33 and detachable legs. This appealed subject matter is
adequately represented by independent claims 7 and 10 which read as
follows:
7. A game feeder comprising:
a collapsible feed storage container having an outlet, formed
from a plurality of panels that can be disassembled from one
another;
a feed dispenser attachable at the outlet of the feed storage
container; and
a support structure detachably supporting the feed storage
container above the ground and having;
(a) a foot platform; and
(b) detachable legs.

10. A game feeder comprising:
a feed storage container having an outlet;
a feed dispenser attachable at the outlet of the feed storage
container; and
a support structure detachably supporting the feed storage
container above the ground and having;
(a) feeder brackets removably attachable to the feed storage
container;
(b) a foot platform;
(c) a ladder extension removably attachable to the feeder
brackets, supporting the foot platform and feed storage container;
and
(d) at least one leg removably attachable to the feeder
brackets and supporting the feed storage container.
The references set forth below are relied upon by the Examiner
as evidence of obviousness:
Lehman et al. (Lehman) 3,195,508 July 20, 1965
Stonestreet et al. (Stonestreet) 4,324,202 Apr. 13, 1982
Tousignant et al. (Tousignant) 4,997,284 Mar. 5, 1991
Appeal No. 2005-2316
Application No. 10/685,151
3
Claims 4, 5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Lehman in view of Stonestreet and
Tousignant.
Claims 10, 12-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Lehman in view of Tousignant, and claims
11, 16 and 18 are correspondingly rejected over these references in
further in view of Stonestreet.
As indicated on page 4 of the brief, the appealed claims have
been grouped by the appellant in accordance with their claim
groupings in the above noted rejections. Therefore, the claims in
each of these respective groupings will stand or fall together.
We refer to the brief and to the answer (as well as the final
Office action mailed August 25, 2004 which is referred to on page 3
of the answer) for a complete exposition of the contrary viewpoints
expressed by the appellant and by the Examiner concerning these
rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons expressed by the Examiner and below, we will
sustain each of the rejections before us on this appeal.
As an initial matter, we note that the appellant makes the
unembellished statement "Tousignant ... is drawn from a different
field of art" (Brief, page 6). It is questionable whether this
Appeal No. 2005-2316
Application No. 10/685,151
4
statement qualifies as an argument due to its lack of specificity.
In any event, if the appellant's statement is meant to assert that
the Tousignant reference is from a nonanalogous art, we cannot
agree.
This prior art reference is analogous at least because it is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem (i.e., mounting and
accessing a container structure at a height substantially above
ground level) with which the appellant/inventor was involved.
See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060
(Fed. Cir. 1992).
As for the rejections formulated by the Examiner, the
appellant does not dispute with any reasonable specificity the
Examiner's determination as to the manner in which the appealed
claims distinguish from the Lehman reference. Rather, it is the
appellant's basic argument that each of the Examiner's rejections
is improper because the applied references contain no teaching or
suggestion for combining the reference disclosures in the manner
proposed by the Examiner. We cannot agree.
On pages 3-6 of the answer, the Examiner has presented a
detailed exposition of the teachings, suggestions and motivations
which would have led an artisan to combine the applied references
in such a manner as to yield the appellant's claimed subject
Appeal No. 2005-2316
Application No. 10/685,151
5
matter. We perceive convincing merit in this exposition. For
example, as correctly indicated by the Examiner, an artisan would
have been motivated to form Lehman's feed storage container from a
plurality of panels that can be disassembled from one another so as
to render the container collapsible in view of Stonestreet's
teachings of a feed container having these features and the
advantages associated therewith (e.g., see lines 36-44 in column 3
of Stonestreet). Similarly, the artisan would have been motivated
to provide Lehman's support structure with a ladder extension and
foot platform in order to render the feed container easily and
safely accessible in accordance with the teachings of Tousignant
(e.g., see lines 54-61 in column 3 and lines 37-50 in column 5).
In light of the foregoing and for the reasons expressed in
the answer as well as the final Office action, it is our ultimate
determination that the reference evidence adduced by the Examiner
establishes a prima facie case of obviousness which the appellant
has failed to successfully rebut with argument or evidence of
nonobviousness. We hereby sustain, therefore, the Examiner's § 103
rejections of claims 4, 5, and 7-9 as being unpatentable over
Lehman in view of Stonestreet and Tousignant, of claims 10, 12-15
and 17 as being unpatentable over Lehman in view of Tousignant,
Appeal No. 2005-2316
Application No. 10/685,151
6
and of claims 11, 16 and 18 as being unpatentable over Lehman,
Tousignant and Stonestreet. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CATHERINE TIMM ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY T. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
BRG/jrg
Appeal No. 2005-2316
Application No. 10/685,151
7
Thomas S. Birney, Esq.
Dorr, Carson, Sloan & Birney, P.C.
3010 East 6th Avenue
Denver, CO 80206