Ex Parte Beck et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 20, 2013

11609517 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2013)

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.
11/609,517 12/12/2006 Michael S. Beck 2063.004600 1235
7590 02/20/2013
Daren C. Davis
WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON P.C.
10333 Richmond Avenue
Suite 1100
Houston, TX 77042
EXAMINER
ARCE, MARLON ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3611
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/20/2013 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 MICHAEL S. BECK, JON T. STINCHCOMB,
WENDELL H. CHUN, DONALD W. NIMBLETT,
JAMES E. TOMLIN, and KEVIN L. CONRAD
____________

Appeal 2010-006681
Application 11/609,517
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, JILL D. HILL, and
BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006681
Application 11/609,517

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejections of claims
1, 3, 7, 9, 12, 31, 37, 39, 44, 47, 48, 56, 66, 73, and 78-90. App. Br. 2.1
Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17-24, 26-30, 32-36, 38, 40-43, 46, 49, 52-
55, 57, 59-63, 65, 68-72, and 74-77 are cancelled. Claims 16, 25, 45, 50, 51,
58, 64, and 67 are allowed. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 39, 48, 78, 80, 83, 89, and 90 are independent. Claim 1 is
reproduced below:
1. A vehicle, comprising:
a chassis; and
a plurality of wheel assemblies articulated
with the chassis, each of the plurality of wheel
assemblies including:
a rotatable wheel spaced away from the
chassis and independently rotatable above the
plane of the vehicle;
a shoulder joint rotatably joining the wheel
assembly to the chassis,
wherein at least two of the shoulder joints
define an axis through the chassis that is not
aligned with the center of gravity for the vehicle.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 12, 31, 37, 39, 44, 47, 48, 56, 66, 73, and 78-80 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ross (4,056,158;
iss. Nov. 1, 1977).

1 Refers to Corrected Appeal Brief, filed Aug. 24, 2009.
Appeal 2010-006681
Application 11/609,517

3
Claims 78-88 and 90 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Wilcox (US 6,267,196 B1; iss. Jul. 31, 2001).
Claim 89 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Wilcox.2
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 12, 31, 37, 39, 44, 47, 48, 56, 66, 73, and 78-80
anticipated by Ross
Appellants argue claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 12, 31, 37, 47, 48, 56, 66, and 73 as
a group, claims 39 and 44 as a group, claims 78 and 79 as a group, and claim
80 separately. App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 1-4. We select claims 1, 39, 78, and
80 as representative, respectively. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 12, 31, 37, 47, 48, 56, 66, and 73
The Examiner found that Ross discloses a rough terrain vehicle with a
frame 1, a plurality of wheel assemblies that are able to articulate, and a
rotatable wheel 11, 7, 9 able to articulate and rotate about a plain. Ans. 3.
The Examiner found that Figures 1 and 2 show that the wheel assemblies are
independently rotatable due to changes in elevation on the ground and each
wheel has a hydraulic motor to independently rotate it. Ans. 5.
Appellants argue that Ross does not disclose a wheel or wheel
assembly that is independently rotatable or articulable and it is apparent that
the front pairs of wheels and back pair of wheels in Figure 4 articulate in
pairs rather than independently. App. Br. 6-7. Appellants argue that none of
Ross’s wheel assemblies independently articulate or rotate because wheels 7,
9 are mounted to a common suspension beam 2 that is mounted to a chassis

2 The Examiner indicated that Appellants’ arguments regarding this rejection
overcome the rejection. Ans. 6. Therefore, we do not review this rejection.
Appeal 2010-006681
Application 11/609,517

4
at a pivot 3 such that wheel 7 cannot articulate relative to the chassis without
the wheel 9 also articulating. Reply Br. 2. Appellants also argue that an
identical arrangement exists for the rear wheels. Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants
further argue that the Office Action confuses a “wheel assembly” with a
“wheel” and while a “wheel assembly” includes a “wheel”, a “wheel” is not
a “wheel assembly. Reply Br. 3. Appellants assert that the claims refer to
rotation of the “wheel assembly” as a whole. Reply Br. 4.
We agree with the Examiner that Ross discloses wheel assemblies
(front wheels 7, 9 and hydraulic motors 20, 21 and suspension beam 2; rear
wheels 11, 11a and motors 22 and suspension beams 4) that have rotatable
wheels (7, 9 and 11) and these wheel assemblies are independently rotatable
relative to the plane of the vehicle as shown in Figures 1 and 2. See Ans. 5.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of error in those findings. We
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 12, 31, 37, 47, 48, 56, 66, and 73.
Claims 39 and 44
Claim 39 recites a vehicle with a chassis and an articulated suspension
system mounted to the chassis and including a plurality of elements that may
be independently articulated. The Examiner found that Ross discloses an
articulated suspension system including a plurality of elements that may be
independently articulated as shown in Figure 1 where front wheel assemblies
7, 9 are articulated to contact an ascending surface and back wheel assembly
11 is articulated to contact a second descending opposing surface. Ans. 3, 5.
Appellants argue that none of Ross’s four wheel assembly articulates
independently because wheel 7 cannot articulate relative to the chassis
without wheel 9 also articulating. Reply Br. 2. Appellants also argue that
the articulation of the rear wheels 11, 11a is interdependent because Ross
Appeal 2010-006681
Application 11/609,517

5
discloses that as one wheel rises the other falls by virtue of the two hydraulic
cylinders 16, 16a that are hydraulically connected in parallel. Reply Br. 2-3.
We agree with the Examiner that Ross discloses a suspension system
with a plurality of elements that may be independently articulated as shown
in Figures 1 and 2 where front wheel assemblies including wheels 7 and 9
are articulated to contact an ascending surface while a rear wheel assembly
(wheel 11) contacts a second descending surface. Ans. 5. Appellants have
not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s findings. We sustain the
rejection of claims 39 and 44.
Claims 78 and 79
Claim 78 recites a method of maneuvering a wheeled vehicle by
articulating the suspension system so a first wheel contacts a first surface
and a second wheel and a third wheel contact a second surface opposing the
first surface. The Examiner found that Figure 2 of Ross shows the vehicle
touching a first surface with the first wheel 11 before the bump and a second
surface with the second and third wheels 7, 9 on the bump and after. Ans. 3-
4, 5. Appellants argue that Ross does not teach that the two surfaces are
opposing and it can be clearly seen from Figure 1 that they are not. App. Br.
7. Appellants assert that the Examiner refers to ascending and descending
grades of a single illustrated surface that defines the negative obstacle, i.e., a
ditch that the vehicle is traversing. Reply Br. 5. Appellants also argue that
Appellants’ Specification establishes that the term “opposing” means that
the forces generated through the wheel assemblies work against each other
to maintain the vehicle’s position between the two surfaces as the wheels
propel the vehicle through the space defined by the surfaces and that is
clearly not the case in Figure 1 of Ross. Reply Br. 6.
Appeal 2010-006681
Application 11/609,517

6
We agree with Appellants that Ross does not disclose articulating a
suspension system so that a first wheel contacts a first surface and a second
and a third wheel contact a second surface that is opposing the first surface.
The Examiner’s finding that Ross’s inclined ascending and descending
surfaces are “opposing” surfaces is inconsistent with the plain meaning of
the term “opposing” interpreted in light of Appellants’ Specification. An
ordinary, customary meaning of “opposing” includes “[t]o move so as to be
opposite something else; place in contraposition.” See THE AMERICAN
HERITAGE® DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, New College Edition
(1976). Appellants disclose an embodiment in which the vehicle 200 is
configured with wheel assemblies 202b, 202d, 202f rotated so that wheels
216b, 216d, 216f contact a first surface and wheel assemblies 202a, 202c,
202e rotated so that wheels 216a, 216c, 216e contact a second surface and
these surfaces are generally vertically-oriented opposing surfaces. Spec. 31,
ll. 8-19; fig. 25. We cannot sustain the rejection of claims 78 and 79.
Claim 80
Claim 80 recites a method for controlling a wheeled vehicle having an
articulated suspension system comprising articulating the suspension system
to inhibit rollover of the vehicle. Appellants argue that Ross nowhere
mentions inhibiting rollover through articulation of the suspension system,
nor it is inherent in the construction or operation of the vehicle. App. Br. 7.
The Examiner has not made any findings demonstrating that Ross discloses
such a method. We cannot sustain the rejection of claim 80.
Claims 78-88 and 90 anticipated by Wilcox
Regarding claim 78, which recites articulating the suspension system
so a first wheel contacts a first surface and a second wheel and a third wheel
Appeal 2010-006681
Application 11/609,517

7
contact a second surface opposing the first surface, the Examiner found that
Wilcox discloses a high mobility vehicle with wheels on one surface and
other wheels on a second surface. Ans. 4 (citing fig. 4). In particular, the
Examiner found that Figure 4 of Wilcox shows two different level surfaces
that vertically oppose each other with one surface being on a different plain
than the other one. Ans. 5. The Examiner also found that Wilcox’s vehicle
can articulate each wheel assembly to be at different heights (figs. 4-10) so
that each of the wheels could be placed on different surfaces due to the
rotation of each arm 40, 60. Ans. 5-6.
Appellants argue that two different grades in a single surface do not
constitute different surfaces and there is no indication that Wilcox ever
controls the articulation of wheels relative to two opposing surfaces. Reply
Br. 6-7. We agree. The Examiner has not established by a preponderance of
evidence that Wilcox discloses a method for maneuvering a wheeled vehicle
by articulating the suspension system so that a first wheel contacts a first
surface and a second and third wheel contacts a second surface that is
opposing the first surface. The Examiner’s finding that obstacle 130 and
surface 212 are opposing surfaces is inconsistent with the plain meaning of
the term “opposing” interpreted in light of Appellants’ Specification for the
same reasons discussed supra for the rejection of claim 78 based on Ross.
We cannot sustain the rejection of claims 78 and 79.
Claim 80 recites a method for controlling a wheeled vehicle having an
articulated suspension system comprising articulating the suspension system
to inhibit rollover of the vehicle. The Examiner found that Wilcox discloses
this method by rotating the shoulders to inhibit the vehicle from rotating.
Ans. 4, 6. Appellants argue that Wilcox does not teach inhibiting rollover.
Appeal 2010-006681
Application 11/609,517

8
App. Br. 8. Appellants also argue that Figures 9 and 10 do not disclose
inhibiting rollover because they depict a portion of a process for inverting
the body of the vehicle. Reply Br. 8-9.
We agree with the Examiner that Wilcox discloses a method of
articulating the suspension system of a wheeled vehicle to inhibit rollover of
the vehicle. Figure 9 discloses an articulation of the suspension system that
affects the center of gravity of the vehicle by lowering the center of gravity
which would inhibit rollover of the vehicle. Wilcox also discloses that the
center of gravity (Cg) of the vehicle can be lowered by articulation of the
suspension system as shown in Figures 4 and 5. We sustain the rejection of
claims 80-82.
Claims 83-88 are argued as a group. App. Br. 7-8. We select claim
83 as representative. Claim 83 recites articulating the suspension system to
reduce the target detection area or footprint of the vehicle. The Examiner
found that Wilcox can lower the chassis by articulating the suspension
(shoulders) so that the detection area and spatial attitude are changed and the
area of the vehicle is reduced. Ans. 4. The Examiner found that Figures 5,
7, and 8 disclose articulation of the main body of the vehicle to reduce the
detection area or footprint of the vehicle. Ans. 6. Appellants argue that
Wilcox illustrates that the entire side of the vehicle may be lowered or raised
relative to the ground surface but there is no disclosure that articulation of
the body such as illustrated in Figures 7 and 8 of Wilcox reduces the
detection area. Reply Br. 9-10. Appellants also argue that whether any
particular articulation results in a target detection area reduction depends on
the targeter’s perspective and the technology used in the detection. Reply
Br. 10.
Appeal 2010-006681
Application 11/609,517

9
We agree with the Examiner that Wilcox discloses a method of
articulating the suspension system to reduce the target detection area or the
footprint of the vehicle as shown by comparing vehicle profiles in Figures 5
and 7-10. We sustain the rejection of claims 83-88.
Regarding claim 90, the Examiner found that Figures 9 and 10 of
Wilcox disclose the recited subject matter of articulating the wheels above
the belly plane of the chassis so that the chassis contacts the surface to brake
the vehicle. Ans. 4. Appellants argue that Wilcox discloses that the chassis
can be lowered so that its bottom can touch the ground but does not disclose
that this can be done while the vehicle is in motion. Reply Br. 11 (citing col.
6, ll. 7-17). The Examiner’s finding that Wilcox is capable of articulating
the wheels above the belly plane of the vehicle’s chassis so that the chassis
contacts the surface to brake the vehicle is not supported by a preponderance
of evidence. Although Wilcox discloses that the chassis can be lowered to
contact the surface, Wilcox discloses that this articulation may be done for
taking soil samples or performing other operations and “[t]he body 12 may
then be raised to resume movement.” Col. 6, ll. 8-13. We cannot sustain the
rejection of claim 90.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 12, 31, 37, 39, 44, 47-
48, 56, 66, and 73 and REVERSE the rejection of claims 78-80 as being
anticipated by Ross.

Appeal 2010-006681
Application 11/609,517

10
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 80-88 and REVERSE the
rejection of claims 78, 79, and 90 as being anticipated by Wilcox.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Klh