Ex Parte Chard et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 16, 2011

10103433 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 16, 2011)

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.
10/103,433 03/20/2002 Joshua T. Chard 32340 4515
23589 7590 03/16/2011
Hovey Williams LLP
10801 Mastin Blvd., Suite 1000
Overland Park, KS 66210
EXAMINER
CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3634
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOSHUA T. CHARD and EDMAN R. BLAIR
____________

Appeal 2009-015055
Application 10/103,433
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and JENNIFER
D. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-015055
Application 10/103,433

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 12 to 15, 18, and 20. Appellants have not
appealed the rejection of claims 7 to 9, 16, and 19 and thus the rejection of
these claims is not a part of this appeal. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Claim 12 is illustrative:
12. A boomed apparatus comprising:
a movable boom having a distal end;
a work station operable to hold a worker;
a boom extension that is substantially
electrically non-conductive and having a first end
and a second end, with the first end being coupled
with the work station and the second end being
coupled with the distal end of the boom;
a control handle operable to allow the
worker to provide a control input for moving the
boom, with the control handle being located near
the work station and the first end of the boom
extension such that the boom extension
substantially electrically isolates the control handle
from the boom;
a control assembly operable to communicate
the control input down the boom; and
a linkage configured for positioning
proximate to the first end of the boom extension
and substantially external to the boom extension,
the linkage operable to couple the control handle
with the control assembly so as to communicate
the control input therebetween, the linkage being
substantially electrically non-conductive, such that
the structural combination of the linkage being
external to the boom extension and being
Appeal 2009-015055
Application 10/103,433

3
substantially electrically non-conductive results in
the linkage providing a dielectric gap between the
control handle and the movable boom to
substantially electrically isolate the control handle
from the control assembly and the movable boom
to thereby prevent bodily injury to the worker.

Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Claims 12 to 15, 18, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as being indefinite; claims 12, 13, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Prescott (US Pat. 3,489,243, iss. Jan. 13,
1970); claims 12 to 15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Conventional Mechanism (disclosed by Appellants Spec.
2:2, 3:31-32, and 4:1-2) in view of Prescott; claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Conventional Mechanism and Prescott in
view of Bauer; and claims 12, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Balogh in view of Smith (US Pat. 4,534,444, iss. Aug. 13,
1985).

ISSUE
FACTUAL FINDINGS
The Appellants invented a boomed apparatus which includes a linkage
50 that provides a dielectric gap between a control handle 48 and a movable
boom 16 (Fig. 2). To provide this dielectric gap the Appellants cover the
linkage 50 and the control handle 48 with electrically non-conductive
material (Spec. 8).
Prescott discloses a boomed apparatus which includes linkages 36, 38
covered by electrically non-conductive material (col. 2, ll. 3 to 4). The
Appeal 2009-015055
Application 10/103,433

4
linkages 36, 38 are comprised of non-conducting material and are interposed
between the control assembly 24 and the handles 72. These linkages provide
a dielectric gap between the handles 72 and the control assembly 24 (col. 1,
ll. 14 to 20). However the handles 72 are connected to the boom 16 via
mechanism 74 and carrier 52 (Fig. 3; col. 2, ll. 12-15 and 39-40). Therefore
the linkages 36, 38 do not provide a dielectric gap between the handles 72
and boom 16.
Balogh discloses a boomed apparatus which includes linkages 68
which are optical fibers joined in a cable 69 which transmit optical energy
from a lamp assembly 56 to a receiver 70 (col. 4, ll. 54 to 58; Fig. 1).
Linkages 68 extend downwardly within boom 24, 26 to the lower end of
lower boom 24 (col. 4, ll. 53 to 57). Balogh does not disclose that linkages
68 are between the handle 42 and the boom 24, 26 and provide a dielectric
gap between the handle 42 and the boom 24, 26.

ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness
We agree with the Appellants that claims 12 to 15, 18 and 20 meet the
requirements of 25 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. In our view, the
recitation in claim 12 that “the structural combination of the linkage being
external to the boom extension . . . results in the linkage providing a
dielectric gap” clearly recites the required position of the linkage and as such
is not indefinite. Therefore, we will not sustain this rejection.

Appeal 2009-015055
Application 10/103,433

5
Anticipation
Claim 12 recites a linkage being substantially electrically non-
conductive which results in a dielectric gap between the control handle and
the movable boom.
A review of pages 4 and 5 of Appellants’ disclosure reveals that
Appellants discuss an electrically conductive material between the handle
and the electrically conductive structural material which forms the boom
itself. It is the provision of electrically non-conductive material interposed
between the handles and the boom itself that provides the dielectric gap
recited in claim 12.
The Examiner is of the opinion that since linkages 36, 38 of Prescott
are formed of non-conductive material, a dielectric gap is formed between
the handles 72 and the boom 16.
The linkages 36, 38 of Prescott do not provide a dielectric gap
between the handles 72 and the boom 16. The linkages 36, 38 are comprised
of non-conducting material and are interposed between the control assembly
24 and the handles 72. However the handles 72 are connected to the boom
16 (Fig. 3). Therefore the linkages 36, 38 do not provide a dielectric gap
between the handles 72 and boom 16. As Prescott does not disclose that the
handles 72 and the various other elements connected to the boom 16 are
comprised of electrically non-conducting material, no dielectric gap between
the handles 72 and the boom itself is provided.
As such, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 and
claim 13 dependent thereon under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Prescott.
Appeal 2009-015055
Application 10/103,433

6
Claim 20 also recites a dielectric gap between the control handle and
the boom. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection as it is directed to
claim 20.
Obviousness
Conventional apparatus in view of Prescott
We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 to 15 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the Examiner relies on Prescott for
teaching a dielectric gap between the handle and the boom. We have found
above that Prescott does not disclose a dielectric gap between the handle and
the boom.
Conventional apparatus in view of Prescott and Bauer
We will not sustain this rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) because the Examiner relies on Prescott for teaching a dielectric gap
between the handle and the boom. We have found above that Prescott does
not disclose a dielectric gap between the handle and the boom.

Balogh in view of Smith
We agree with the Appellants that the optical fibers 68 which the
Examiner views as linkage is not external to the boom but rather disposed
within the boom. The portion of the Balogh disclosure relied on by the
Examiner, i.e., column 4, lines 19 to 24 relates to the lamp assembly 56 and
not the optical fibers 68. Further, as we found above, linkages 68 are not
disposed between the handle 42 and the boom 24, 26.
As such, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 12 and claims 13
to 15 dependent thereon and claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Balogh and Smith.
Appeal 2009-015055
Application 10/103,433

7
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

hh

Hovey Williams, LLP
10801 Mastin Blvd., Suite 1000
Overland Park, KS 66210