Ex Parte Bergeron

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 11, 2016

12915460 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/915,460 10/29/2010
21184 7590 08/15/2016
WARNER J DELAUNE JR
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz
Chase North Tower
450 Laurel Street, 20th Floor
Baton Rouge, LA 70801
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kirk Bergeron
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2912226-1 7658
EXAMINER
PUIG, GABRIELA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/15/2016 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):
WDELAUNE@BAKERDONELSON.COM
IPGUY225@GMAIL.COM
ipdocketing@bakerdonelson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KIRK BERGERON
Appeal2014-008644
Application 12/915,4601
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, JAMES A. WORTH, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
According to Appellant, "[t]he present invention relates to devices
used to carry heavy, bulky, or unwieldy objects by one or more persons, and
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is The Backup Equipment
and Supply, LLC. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-008644
Application 12/915,460
more particularly to such devices to carry industrial equipment such as
valves, fittings, manifolds, flanges, and similar objects." Spec. i-f 6.
CLAIMS
Claims 1-9 are on appeal. Claim 1 is the only independent claim on
appeal and recites:
Br. 8.
1. A carrying device for objects, comprising:
(a) a frame having a first end and a second end, wherein
the first end includes a first handle and the second end includes
a second handle;
(b) a plurality of strap mounts positioned on the frame
between the first handle and the second handle; and
( c) one or more straps, wherein each of the straps is
removably attached to one of the strap mounts.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ayala2 in view of Roberts. 3
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Ayala discloses a carrying device for objects
as claimed including a frame, two handles, and a plurality of straps. Final
Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Ayala does not disclose a plurality of strap
mounts positioned between the handles as claimed. Id. The Examiner relies
on Roberts as teaching a carrying device with a plurality of strap mounts and
2 Ayala, US 6,893,067 Bl, iss. May 17, 2005.
3 Roberts, US 504,307; iss. Aug. 29, 1893.
2
Appeal2014-008644
Application 12/915,460
straps removably attached to the strap mounts. Id. The Examiner
concludes:
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to disclose Ayala's carrying
device having the strap mounts as taught by Roberts in order to
secure the strap after the adjustment of the latter to a bundle or
article to be carried (Roberts; Ln. 9-12) and wherein the articles
to be handled may be of different sizes. It would have been
obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to position handle 52 of Ayala on the other side of the
strap and closer to the first end just like it is shown in the handle
54 of Ayala. Furthermore, it would have been obvious for a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
position a plurality of strap mounts on the frame between the first
handle and the second handle, since it has been held that
rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in
the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Id. at 3--4
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings regarding the scope
and content of the prior art with respect to claim 1. See Final Act. 3--4.. As
discussed below, we are not persuaded of error by Appellant's arguments.
First, Appellant argues that the rejection did not address the claim
limitations requiring that the handles be at the ends of the frame or that the
plurality of strap mounts be between the handles. Br. 3--4. However, we
agree with the Examiner that the rejection, as discussed above, addresses all
limitations of claim 1. See Ans. 2.
Second, Appellant argues that "the Ayala device is quite different
from the present invention of claim 1 ... which ... causes the entire weight
of the object suspended to be borne by the user(s) and carried in a generally
horizontal orientation." Br. 4. Appellant further asserts that that "it would
be detrimental to the function and purpose of Ayala to place the handle 52 at
3
Appeal2014-008644
Application 12/915,460
any location other than below the strap 44" because "otherwise the hose
would bend in the same location as the user is gripping the handle 52, thus
obscuring a positive grip on the handle 52." Id. at 5.
We are not persuaded of error by this argument. We agree with the
Examiner that the rejection addresses all of the claim limitations and is
capable of carrying an object. Ans. 3. Appellant has not explained
persuasively shown how the proposed intended use of the carrying device is
incorporated into the claim such that the claim provides a structural
difference from the cited art. Further, we are not persuaded that moving
Ayala's handle as proposed by the Examiner "would be detrimental to the
function and purpose of Ayala." We find that one of ordinary skill in the art
could have configured Ayala's device as proposed by the Examiner while
easily avoiding the potential issue raised by Appellant such that modifying
Ayala's device would not be detrimental to its function and purpose.
Third, Appellant argues that "Roberts fails to disclose or suggest
placing strap mounts or straps between two opposing handles, because it is
not designed to perform in that manner." Br. 5. This argument is inapposite
to the rejection before us, which only relies on Roberts' "teaching of using
strap mounts to removably attach straps to a carrying device." Ans. 4.
Fourth, Appellant reiterates that placing handle 52 on the other side of
Ayala's strap would be "undesirable and incorrect for the reasons stated
above" and that Ayala's device has "no relation to the present invention
which is: (1) carried by two persons, and (2) carried horizontally using straps
to suspend the object roughly centered between the handles." Br. 6. We
find this argument unpersuasive for the reasons provided above.
4
Appeal2014-008644
Application 12/915,460
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error with respect to
the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Appellant has not raised any arguments with respect to the remaining claims,
and thus, we also sustain the rejection of claims 2-9.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-9.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5