Ex Parte Cockram

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 26, 2003

09290742 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 26, 2003)

1 Attendance at the hearing set for Wednesday, March 19,
2003 was waived by appellants (Paper No. 28).
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 29
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte GEORGE R. COCKRAM
____________
Appeal No. 2002-1877
Application No. 09/290,742
____________
ON BRIEF1
____________
Before COHEN, ABRAMS, and FRANKFORT, Administrative Patent Judges.
COHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 and 3
through 10. These claims constitute all of the claims remaining
in the application.
Appellant's invention pertains to a cross brace assembly for
a wheelchair having a seat and at least two wheels, a collapsible
wheelchair, and a wheelchair. A basic understanding of the
Appeal No. 2002-1877
Application No. 09/290,742
2
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 1, 7,
and 10, respective copies of which appear in APPENDIX "A" of the
main brief (Paper No. 19).
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied the
documents listed below:
Orlandino et al 4,564,212 Jan. 14, 1986
(Orlandino)
Jindra et al 6,073,951 Jun. 13, 2000
(Jindra) (filed Sep. 30, 1998)
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claims 1 and 3 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jindra in view of Orlandino.
The full text of the examiner's rejection and response to
the argument presented by appellant appears in the final
rejection and the answer (Paper Nos. 16 and 20), while the
complete statement of appellant's argument can be found in the
main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 19 and 21).

Appeal No. 2002-1877
Application No. 09/290,742
2 In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have
considered all of the disclosure of each document for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art. See
In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into account not
only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw
from the disclosure. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826,
159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
3
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue raised
in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellant's specification and claims, the applied teachings,2 and
the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3 through 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jindra in
view of Orlandino.
Appeal No. 2002-1877
Application No. 09/290,742
4
Independent claim 1 sets forth a cross brace assembly for
use on a wheelchair comprising, inter alia, a cross brace
assembly comprising a pair of cross arms having an intermediate
pivot point, a support attached to a lower portion of at least
one of said cross arms which non-latchingly contacts and supports
an upper end of the other of the cross arms when the cross brace
assembly is in an open position, and two positioning links
pivotally connected at one end to a side frame member and
pivotally connected at another end to a cross arm so that a
positioning link substantially does not transfer any bearing
load. Independent claim 7 addresses a collapsible wheelchair
comprising, inter alia, a cross brace assembly comprising first
and second cross arms with a scissoring-type pivot point
therebetween, with each of the cross arms having a support member
which non-latchingly supports the other of the cross arms when
the cross brace assembly is in an open position. Independent
claim 10 specifies a wheelchair comprising, inter alia, a pair of
cross arms, with the top portion of each cross arm being
pivotally connected to a positioning link so that the positioning
link does not transfer any bearing load, at least one of the
cross arms having a positioning brace connected thereto which
Appeal No. 2002-1877
Application No. 09/290,742
5
non-latchingly contacts and supports the top portion of the
remaining cross arm.
Applying the evidence of obviousness, the examiner concludes
(Paper No. 16; page 3) that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to install the support
(latching brace member 32) of Orlandino onto the crossbrace
assembly disclosed in Jindra (Figs. 2,3). In the answer (page
5), the examiner additionally determines that it would have been
obvious to remove the gripping channel 40 from the latching brace
member of Orlandino so that the crossbrace arms only sit upon the
brace member 32.
Simply stated, the applied evidence does not support the
examiner's conclusion of obviousness. When we set aside in our
minds that which appellant teaches us in the present application,
and focus just upon the combined teachings of Jindra and
Orlandino, it at once becomes apparent to us that the reference
patents would not have been suggestive of the now claimed
invention. From our perspective, each of Jindra (Figs. 2 and 3)
and Orlandino (Figs. 1 and 2) teach alternative folding
configurations which are distinctly different from one another.
Appeal No. 2002-1877
Application No. 09/290,742
6
As such, we fail to perceive why one having ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated to install a latching brace member
on the crossbrace assembly of Jindra, particularly when the
latter assembly appears to already include structure for
maintaining the open position. Additionally, absent
impermissible reliance upon appellant's own disclosure, it is
quite clear to this panel of the Board that one having ordinary
skill in the art would not have derived any suggestion whatsoever
from the evidence of obviousness to remove the gripping latching
channel 40 from the latching brace 32 (Fig. 3) of Orlandino.
Only appellant teaches a support which non-latchingly contacts
and supports an upper end of a cross arm, as now claimed. It is
for the reasons articulated above that the obviousness rejection
on appeal is not sound.
In summary, this panel of the board has not sustained the
rejection of appellant's claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal No. 2002-1877
Application No. 09/290,742
7
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
NEAL E. ABRAMS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ICC/lbg
Appeal No. 2002-1877
Application No. 09/290,742
8
CALFEE, HALTER, & GRISWOLD, LLP
800 SUPERIOR AVENUE
SUITE 1400
CLEVELAND, OH 44114