Ex Parte Chard et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 16, 201110103433 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 16, 2011) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation