Ex Parte Burchett et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2016

12865428 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016)

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.
12/865,428 08/09/2010 Chad Lee Burchett P21254US 2930
67907 7590 12/19/2016
VOLVO GROUP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
7900 NATIONAL SERVICE ROAD
MAIL STOP, CC1/19
GREENSBORO, NC 27409
EXAMINER
ALSOMIRI, MAJDI A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2016 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 CHAD LEE BURCHETT and
ARTHUR NALSON FOWLER
____________________

Appeal 2015-002048
Application 12/865,428
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before BRETT C. MARTIN, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Chad Lee Burchett and Arthur Nalson Fowler (Appellants) appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1–14 and 17. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for increasing the aerodynamic efficiency of a
vehicle comprising:
Appeal 2015-002048
Application 12/865,428
2
monitoring an operating condition of a vehicle;
determining if a pre-selected event has occurred with
respect to the operating condition of the vehicle;
communicating a spacing value to a moving device that
repositions a trailer kingpin; and
using the moving device to reposition the trailer kingpin
along the trailer, as the vehicle travels, and thereby adjust a
spacing between a cab and the trailer of the vehicle based on the
communicated spacing value.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Arnold US 6,663,195 B1 Dec. 16, 2003
Wong
Algüera
US 2004/0075298 A1
US 7,717,451 B21
Apr. 22, 2004
May 18, 2010

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–14 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Algüera.
II. Claims 2, 3 and 7–11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Algüera and Arnold.
III. Claims 2–5 and 7–13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Algüera, Arnold, and Wong.

DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Claim 1 requires the steps of “communicating a spacing value to a
moving device that repositions a trailer kingpin; and using the moving

1 The Examiner indicates that Algüera is the U.S. equivalent of WO
2006/029731 A1). Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2015-002048
Application 12/865,428
3
device to reposition the trailer kingpin along the trailer.” Appeal Br. 8
(emphasis added). Movement of the trailer kingpin is disclosed as an
alternative to “movement of the fifth wheel of the cab.” Spec. ¶ 43.
The Examiner finds that Algüera discloses each and every limitation
of independent claim 1. See Final Act. 2–3. In particular, the Examiner
finds that Algüera discloses “using the moving device to reposition the
trailer kingpin along the trailer, as the vehicle travels.” Id. at 2 (citing
Algüera, 2:39–56).
Appellants contend that Algüera “does not teach a kingpin that moves
along the trailer as the vehicle travels.” Appeal Br. 5. In support of this
contention, Appellants explain that Algüera “teaches a fifth wheel that
moves relative to the truck and that pulls or pushes the kingpin and trailer
along therewith, but the kingpin movement that results from moving the fifth
wheel does not cause the kingpin to move along or relative to the trailer.”
Id. (emphasis omitted). As evidence in support of this explanation,
Appellants quote column 5 lines 11–16 of Algüera which states:
FIG. 1 shows schematically a semi-trailer aggregate
(double train) (40) with tractor (25) and semi-trailer (41). The
aggregate (40) has a fifth wheel coupling (30) and a sliding
device (20). The sliding device (20) enables sliding the coupling
(30) in the longitudinal direction of the tractor (25).
Algüera, 5:11–16 (emphasis omitted).
Appellants are correct. As quoted above, in Algüera the sliding
device allows the fifth wheel coupling 30 to move relative to the tractor.
However, this is not movement of the trailer kingpin along the trailer.
Rather, in Algüera, the trailer kingpin is always attached to the trailer at the
fifth wheel coupling regardless of the position of the fifth wheel coupling
with respect to the tractor. Thus, the trailer kingpin is not repositioned along
Appeal 2015-002048
Application 12/865,428
4
the trailer as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 8. Accordingly, the
Examiner’s finding is in error.
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2–13 which depend therefrom, as anticipated by
Algüera. Claims 14 and 17 similarly require “using the moving device to
reposition the trailer kingpin along the trailer” and “a moving device
connected to receive a spacing value from the controller and configured to
reposition[] a trailer kingpin along the trailer, as the vehicle travels.” Appeal
Br. 9, 10. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 14 and 17 for the same reason.
Rejections II and III
Rejections II and III rely on the same erroneous finding as Rejection I.
Neither Arnold nor Wong cure the deficiency in this finding. Accordingly,
we do not sustain Rejections II and III for the reasons discussed supra.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–14 and 17 are REVERSED.

REVERSED