Ex parte Beeman

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 30, 1999

08728909 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 30, 1999)

Application for patent filed October 11, 1996. 1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was
not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding
precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 11
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte RANDALL E. BEEMAN
____________
Appeal No. 99-0257
Application No. 08/728,9091
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before ABRAMS, STAAB, and GONZALES, Administrative Patent
Judges.
ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the decision of the examiner
finally rejecting claims 2-9, which at that time constituted
all of the claims of record in the application, claim 1 having
been canceled. Subsequently, the appellant filed an amendment
Appeal No. 99-0257 Page 2
Application No. 08/728,909
in which claim 9 was canceled in favor of claim 10, and which
cured defects that had formed the basis for a rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The appellant’s invention is directed to a folding ramp
used to ascend or descend from a vehicle. The claims on appeal
have been reproduced in an appendix to the Brief.
THE APPLIED REFERENCES
Goeser et al. (Goeser) 4,685,857 Aug. 11,
1987
Altieri et al. (Altieri) 4,864,672 Sep.
12, 1989
McCleary 5,156,432 Oct. 20,
1992
Grant 5,257,894 Nov. 2,
1993
Estevez, Jr. 5,287,579 Feb. 22,
1994
Kielinski 5,306,112 Apr.
26, 1994
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections stand under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
(1) Claims 2, 4, 6-8 and 10 on the basis of Estevez in view of
Goeser.
(2) Claim 3 on the basis of Estevez in view of Goeser, Grant
and McCleary.
Appeal No. 99-0257 Page 3
Application No. 08/728,909
(3) Claim 5 on the basis of Estevez in view of Goeser, Altieri
and Kielinski.
The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The arguments of the appellant in opposition to the
positions taken by the examiner are set forth in the Brief.
OPINION
In reaching our decision on the issues raised in this
appeal, we have carefully assessed the claims, the prior art
applied against the claims, and the respective views of the
examiner and the appellant as set forth in the Answer and the
Brief.
The appellant’s invention comprises a folding ramp having
at least first and second ramp members that are pivotally
attached together. The underside of each ramp is provided with
a plurality of longitudinally oriented support bars that add
strength and rigidity to the ramps, and which also provide
mounting points for a laterally oriented rod that pivotally
attaches the two ramps together. As established in claim 10,
the sole independent claim before us, the support bars attached
to the bottom surface of the second ramp extend along
Appeal No. 99-0257 Page 4
Application No. 08/728,909
substantially the entire length of the second ramp from the
first end to the second end thereof, and the support bars
attached to the bottom surface of the first ramp extend from
the first end beyond the second end thereof and partly under
the end of the second ramp, when the ramp ends are positioned
adjacent to one another. Each of the support bars is provided
with an aperture through which a pivot bar extends. The
apertures of the support bars attached to the first ramp are
“positioned directly adjacent” to the outwardly extending ends
of the bars, whilst the apertures in the support bars attached
to the second ramp are “positioned between said first end . . .
and said second end” of the bars.
It is the examiner’s view that all of the subject matter
recited in claim 10 is disclosed by Estevez, except for the
support bars extending along substantially the entire lengths
of the ramps. However, the examiner finds this to be taught by
Goeser, and takes the position that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to add such a feature to
the Estevez ramps in order to increase their strength. We do
not agree, and our reasoning for arriving at this conclusion
follows.
Appeal No. 99-0257 Page 5
Application No. 08/728,909
It is axiomatic that the test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness, it is incumbent upon the examiner to
provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been led to modify a prior art reference or to combine
reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See Ex
parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985). To
this end, the requisite motivation must stem from some
teaching, suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole
or from the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art and not from the appellant's disclosure. See,
for example, Uniroyal, Inc. V. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d
1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1052 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488
U.S. 825 (1988). The Estevez structure has in common with the
appellant’s invention the feature that the pivot bar is mounted
on a set of hinge leaves at a point that is inwardly spaced
from the end of the first ramp so that the other hinge leaves,
which extend beyond the end of the adjacent second ramp,
Appeal No. 99-0257 Page 6
Application No. 08/728,909
interface with the underside of the first ramp to limit the
pivotal movement between the two ramps (column 2, line 24 et
seq.). The apertures in both sets of hinge leaves through
which the pivot pin extends are, in the language of claim 10,
“positioned directly adjacent an end,” that is, none are
positioned “between” the first and second ends, in the sense of
the appellant’s invention. It also is important to note that
the hinge leaves (54 & 56) do not extend from end to end along
the length of the ramps and, since there is no explanation to
the contrary in this reference, would appear to provide very
limited, if any, longitudinal strengthening to the ramps.
Goeser discloses a ramp (18) that slides out from under
the bed of a truck. The ramp deck (71) is provided with a
plurality of longitudinal bars (74) extending from end to end
for the purpose of adding strength to the structure. The
slidable ramp is not pivotally connected to another ramp or the
like, and there are no apertures in the strengthening bars for
receiving a pivot bar or other such connection.
The mere fact that the prior art structure could be
modified does not make such a modification obvious unless the
Appeal No. 99-0257 Page 7
Application No. 08/728,909
prior art suggests the desirability of doing so. See In re
Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir.
1984). It is our view that even assuming, arguendo, that it
would have been obvious to provide the Estevez ramp system with
end to end longitudinal strengthening bars, it would not have
been obvious to modify Estevez in such a manner as to met the
terms of claim 10. In particular, we fail to perceive any
teaching, suggestion or incentive in either of the references
which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the functions of the hinge leaves of Estevez and the
support bars of Goesser into a single element, and to locate
one of the sets of pivot bar receiving apertures “between” the
ends of the support bars rather then “directly adjacent” the
ends, as is taught by Estevez. From our perspective, the only
suggestion for combining these two references in the manner
proposed by the examiner is found in the luxury of the
hindsight accorded one who first viewed the appellant’s
disclosure. This, of course, is impermissible. In re Fritch,
972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Appeal No. 99-0257 Page 8
Application No. 08/728,909
It is our opinion that the teachings of Estevez and
Goesser fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to the subject matter of claim 10, and we therefore
will not sustain the rejection of this claim on this basis, or
of claims 2, 4 and 6-8, which depend therefrom.
The deficiencies in the basic combination of references
are not alleviated by additionally considering the teachings of
the other applied references. We therefore also will not
sustain either of the other rejections.
Appeal No. 99-0257 Page 9
Application No. 08/728,909
SUMMARY
None of the rejections are sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOHN F. GONZALES )
Administrative Patent Judge )
NEA/jlb
Appeal No. 99-0257 Page 10
Application No. 08/728,909
JOSEPH H. McGLYNN
6111 SADDLE HORN DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VA 22030