Ex Parte Brannan et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 12, 2008

10412545 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 12, 2008)

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