Ex Parte Brannan et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesDec 12, 200810412545 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 12, 2008) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte JACK D. BRANNAN and ROBERT J. WOLF ____________ Appeal 2008-2615 Application 10/412,545 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Decided: December 12, 2008 ____________ Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, LINDA E. HORNER, and MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Jack D. Brannan, et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, and 11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). Appeal 2008-2615 Application 10/412,545 SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. THE INVENTION The claimed invention is to a mounting device for mounting a truck body to a truck frame. (Specification 1:4-6.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A mounting assembly to secure a vehicle frame to a vehicle body comprising: a frame bracket adapted to be secured to a truck frame and having a block fixedly connected to the frame bracket and a vertical bore extending through the block; a body bracket adapted to be secured to a vehicle body above and in alignment with the frame bracket; a compression element comprised of a bolt and a compression spring, wherein only a first portion of the bolt extends through the vertical bore of the block to yieldingly connect the frame bracket to the body bracket for vertical movement with respect to each other, wherein an inner diameter of the vertical bore of the block is larger than an outer diameter of the bolt to allow the bolt to move vertically without restriction, and wherein a second portion of the bolt extends through the compression spring; and wherein the body bracket is L-shaped. THE PRIOR ART The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Roy US 2,678,796 May 18, 1954 2 Appeal 2008-2615 Application 10/412,545 THE REJECTIONS The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review: Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Roy. Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Roy. ISSUES The Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims because Roy fails to describe an L-shaped bracket. (App. Br. 5 & 9.) The Examiner found Roy’s (in one embodiment) arm 26 and (in another embodiment) bar 82 “can be considered L-shaped.” (Ans. 3 and 7- 9.) The issue before us is as follows: Have the Appellants that shown the Examiner erred in finding that Roy’s arm 26 and bar 82 are L-shaped? FINDINGS OF FACT We find that the following enumerated findings of fact are supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office). 1. Roy describes a shock and vibration isolator. The isolator 10 is cylindrical in shape and comprises cups 11 and 14. The cups have the same diameters and they are assembled with their concavities facing each other and their flanges 13 and 16 in alignment. A flat ring 17 is 3 Appeal 2008-2615 Application 10/412,545 disposed between the flanges 13 and 16 and its central opening 18 is in alignment with the openings 12 and 15 in the cups 11 and 14, respectively. Ring 17 has the same outer diameter as the flanges 13 and 16. Another flat ring 19 having the same outer diameter as the ring 17, flanges 13 and 16, and cup 11 and 14 is enclosed between ring 17 and flange 16. The inner diameter of ring 19 is greater than ring 17. The cups and rings are secured together by bolts 20 passing through the flanges 13 and 16. (Roy, col. 2, ll. 29-53 and Figure 1.) 2. Roy describes a rod 21 extends through the openings 12 and 15 in the cups and the openings 18 in rings 17 and 19. (Roy, col. 2, l. 54 to col. 3, l. 1.) The lower end 28 of rod 21 is shouldered and encircled by a collar 22. (Roy, col. 3, ll. 1-4.) The lower end of rod 21 connects the isolator 10 to an arm 26 having an opening that rod 21 extends therethrough. The arm 26 is held against collar 22 by a nut 27 threaded over the lower end 28 of rod 21. (Roy, col. 3, ll. 8-14 and Figure 1.) 3. Roy does not describe arm 26 being L-shaped. 4. Figure 7 shows a typical installation of the isolator 10 that is shown in Figure 1. The object O to be isolated is secured to a frame having bars 81 and 82. Rods 83 and 84 connect the isolator 10 to the bars 81 and 82. (Roy, col. 5, ll. 60-70 and Figure 7.) 5. Roy in Figure 7 shows the bars 81 and 82 are T-shaped. (Roy, Figure 7.) 6. Even if one were to interpret the breaks at the ends of bars 81 and 82 in Figure 7 as section breaks, thereby indicating a continuous 4 Appeal 2008-2615 Application 10/412,545 connection between the two bars, the continuous bar 81, 82 would then have a U-shape. PRINCIPLES OF LAW Anticipation is a question of fact. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). ANALYSIS The Examiner found that several separate structures shown in Figure 7 of Roy comprise body brackets that are L-shaped. The Examiner has included sketches in the Answer that purportedly illustrate these L-shaped members. (Ans. 5, 8.) However, the Examiner’s finding does not comport with the disclosure of Roy with regard to the shape of the structures to which isolators 10 are connected. Roy expressly describes isolator 10 as either connected to arm 26 or bar 82. (Facts 2 and 4.) Roy does not expressly describe arm 26 or bar 82 as L-shaped. (Facts 3 and 5.) Nor can the subject matter of Roy be said to inherently satisfy the argued claim limitation. Further, even if one were to interpret the breaks at the ends of bars 81 and 82 as section breaks, thereby indicating a continuous connection between the two bars, the continuous bar 81, 82 would then have a U-shape, rather than an L-shape as claimed (Fact 6). As such, the arm 26 or bar 82 in Roy that the Examiner has interpreted to read on the claimed shape of the body bracket does not satisfy the shape of the body bracket as claimed. Similarly, 5 Appeal 2008-2615 Application 10/412,545 even if one interpreted the two bars 81 and 82 as a continuous bar 81, 82, its shape does not satisfy the shape of the body bracket as claimed. Accordingly, a claim element, the shape of the body bracket, is missing, and thus claims 1 and 6 are not anticipated by Roy. Because the Examiner has not found in Roy a structure that could expressly or inherently satisfy the claim limitation of the body bracket being L-shaped, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 6 and dependent claims 2-4, 7, 8, 10, and 11. CONCLUSION The Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Roy’s arm 26 and bar 82 are L-shaped. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10 and 11 are reversed. REVERSED JRG ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. CAPITAL SQUARE 400 LOCUST, SUITE 200 DES MOINES, IA 50309-2350 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation