Ex Parte Davis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

13421139 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017)

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.
13/421,139 03/15/2012 Thomas W. Davis III 1234D 2314
7590
R. Keith Harrison
2139 E. Bert Kouns
Shreveport, LA 71105
EXAMINER
PATEL, TARLA R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3772
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2017 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 THOMAS W. DAVIS III
Appeal 2015-005392
Application 13/421,139
Technology Center 3700
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, JILL D. HILL, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Thomas W. Davis III (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claims
1—8 as unpatentable over Garman (US 5,970,545; iss. Oct. 26, 1999) and
Walker (US 5,170,522; iss. Dec. 15, 1992); (2) claims 9-16, 19, and 20 as
unpatentable over Tokarz (US 2006/0021146 Al; pub. Feb. 2, 2006),
Walker, and Lipman (US 8,261,387 B2; iss. Sept. 11, 2012); and (3) claims
17 and 18 as unpatentable over Tokarz, Walker, Lipman, and Kasatshko (US
2005/0278861 Al; pub. Dec. 22, 2005). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2015-005392
Application 13/421,139
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates to a full body elevator which
selectively elevates the upper body and the legs and feet of a user.” Spec.
12, Figs. 8, 9. Claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A full body elevator, comprising:
an inflatable upper body elevator having a
sloped backrest panel and a generally flat,
horizontal butt rest panel extending from said
backrest panel; and
an inflatable lower body elevator having a leg
portion with a leg support panel sloping from said
butt rest panel and a foot portion with a foot support
panel selectively inflatable and extendable with
respect to said leg portion, said foot portion
selectively inflatable to deploy said foot support
panel between a downwardly-sloped lowered
position relative to said leg support panel of said leg
portion and a horizontal raised position.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Carman and Walker
Claims 1—8
Independent claim 1 is directed to a full body elevator including a foot
portion with a foot support panel, “said foot portion selectively inflatable to
deploy said foot support panel between a downwardly-sloped lowered
position relative to said leg support panel of said leg portion and a horizontal
raised position.” Br. 13, Claims App. The Examiner relies on Walker for
this limitation. See Final Act. 2—3. In particular, the Examiner finds that
“Walker teaches an air adjustable bed having said foot portion (21)
selectively inflatable to deploy (by means of elements 46) said foot support
2
Appeal 2015-005392
Application 13/421,139
panel between a downwardly-shaped lowered position (33) relative to said
leg support panel of said leg portion and a horizontal raised portion (see
figure 4).” Final Act. 3; see also id. at 8; Ans. 8—9.
Appellant contends that
Fig. 8 of [Appellant’s] drawings shows the foot portion (128) in
a lowered, downwardly-sloped configuration whereas Fig. 9
shows the foot portion (128) in a raised, horizontal position. . . .
Walker teaches that its foot portion (21) remains horizontal in
both the lowered position (Figs. 1 and 2) and in the raised
position (Figs. 3 and 4).
Br. 8; see also id. at 2—3; Spec. H50, 51, Figs. 8, 9.
Walker discloses that
Lift air bag 46 has a generally trapezoidal shape when expanded
to elevate upper and lower leg rest plates 33 and 34 and to hold
upper leg rest plate 33 in an upward inclined position and to also
hold lower leg rest plate 34 in a generally horizontal, elevated
position.
Walker 6:11—16 (emphasis added); see also id. at 5:60—64, Figs. 3, 4, 12.
Contrary to the Examiner’s finding, Walker discloses that upper leg
rest plate 33 is in “an upward inclined position,” not “a downwardly-sloped
lowered position.” See id.', see also id. Fig. 12; Final Act. 3, 8; Ans. 8—9; Br.
8. Additionally, we agree with Appellant that “foot portion (21) [of Walker]
remains horizontal in both the lowered position (Figs. 1 and 2) and in the
raised position (Figs. 3 and 4).” Br. 8; see also Walker, Fig. 12.
Consequently, Walker fails to disclose “said foot portion selectively
inflatable to deploy said foot support panel between a downwardly-sloped
lowered position relative to said leg support panel of said leg portion and a
horizontal raised position,” as claimed. Br. 13, Claims App. As such, the
3
Appeal 2015-005392
Application 13/421,139
Examiner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the
combined teachings of Garman and Walker disclose the device of claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—8
as unpatentable over Garman and Walker.
Obviousness over Tokarz, Walker, and Lipman or Tokarz, Walker,
Lipman, and Kasatshko
Claims 9—20
Each of independent claims 9 and 16 is directed to a full body elevator
including the same language discussed above for claim 1. See Appeal Br.
Claims App. 14—15, 16—17. The Examiner relies on the same unsupported
findings of Walker and does not rely on Tokarz, Lipman, or Kasatshko to
remedy the deficiencies of Walker. See Final Act. 4—7.
Accordingly, for reasons similar to those discussed above for claim 1,
we likewise do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims
9-20.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—20.
REVERSED
4