Ex Parte Delago

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 31, 2010

10786202 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2010)

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.
10/786,202 02/25/2004 Pierre C. Delago 14622.01 3040
7590 08/31/2010
Stuart R. Hemphill, Esq.
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
Intellectual Property Department
50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500
Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
EXAMINER
BRAHAN, THOMAS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2010 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 PIERRE C. DELAGO
____________________

Appeal 2009-005708
Application 10/786,202
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: WILLIAM F. PATE III, MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, and
FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

PATE III, 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 2009-005708
Application 10/786,202
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 56-69. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The claims are directed to a crane radial support bearing. Claim 56,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
56. A crane comprising:
a vertical post including a post bearing surface forming at
least a partial arc about a vertical axis of the vertical post;
a superstructure pivotal about the vertical post and
including a boom foot having a pivot point;
a boom extending from the boom foot and pivotable in a
vertical plane about the pivot point in response to one or more
lines extending between the boom and a swivel-post head near a
top of the vertical post;
a single roller chain encompassing at least a segment of
the post beating surface and comprising:
a plurality of rollers arranged in a pivotally-linked
sequence, each roller including a rotational axis generally
parallel to the vertical axis of the vertical post and a roller
surface in rolling contact with the post bearing surface,
wherein the rollers are distributed with equal spacing on
an arc along the post bearing surface with at least 180
degrees between a first roller and a last roller;
a first anchor coupled to the crane superstructure
and operably, pivotally-linked to the first roller; and
a second anchor coupled to the crane
superstructure and operably, pivotally-linked to the last
roller; and
the first and second anchors being positioned to
make the arc of the roller chain substantially symmetrical
with respect to the vertical plane of boom motion and to
tension the rollers against the post-bearing surface,
whereby the pivoting action of the rollers maintains
substantially equal distribution of radial loads from the
boom across all rollers in the roller chain.
Appeal 2009-005708
Application 10/786,202
3

REJECTIONS
As noted by the Examiner, Appellant’s arguments are premised solely
on the allegedly improper rejection of the sole independent claim, claim 56,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaltenbach (US
1,582,274, issued Apr. 27, 1926) and Wampach (US 2,966,752, issued Jan.
3, 1961). Ans. 2.

OPINION
It is well-settled that all words in a claim must be considered in
judging the obviousness of the claimed subject matter. Appellant correctly
points out that, in rejecting claim 56, the Examiner substituted the claim
limitation requiring “first and second anchors being positioned to make the
arc of the roller chain substantially symmetrical with respect to the vertical
plane of boom motion” with a requirement that “the rollers [are]
substantially symmetrical with the vertical plane of the boom.” Reply Br. 3;
Ans. 7. Since, as the parties agree, Wampach does not disclose a roller chain
arrangement, the Examiner relies upon Kaltenbach for this teaching. Ans. 3,
7.
Kaltenbach teaches that an adjustable chain of rollers encircling a
crane tower girder has advantages over typical fixed thrust rollers.
Kaltenbach prefers two semi-circular chains in series, as shown in figures 2
and 13, having levers 29 at the ends which can adjust the chain to take up
slack due to wear on the rollers. Kaltenbach 2:82-124.
The Examiner does not explicitly state which roller chain of
Kaltenbach is read as the claimed “single roller chain.” Since the claim calls
for a “single roller chain” with “at least 180 degrees between the first and
Appeal 2009-005708
Application 10/786,202
4
last roller” and anchors “operably, pivotally-linked to the [first and last]
roller,” the “arc of the roller chain” may be either one of the semicircular
chains depicted in Kaltenbach’s figure 2. In either case, since the boom
extends orthogonally to columns 15a, the arc of the roller chain is not
symmetrical about the vertical plane of boom motion. App. Br. 17-20; Reply
Br. 3-4; Kaltenbach Fig. 1. It is generally recognized that, absent some
indication otherwise, specific dimensions cannot be determined based upon
patent drawings alone. Indeed, comparing figures 2 and 13 of Kaltenbach,
there is some discrepancy between the location of the chain levers 29, read
as the claimed “anchors” at the chain ends, and the columns 15a supporting
the boom 10. Since Kaltenbach does not discuss the relative position of the
roller chains and the vertical plane of boom motion and the drawings appear
to indicate a lack of symmetry, Kaltenbach cannot be relied upon for
teaching “first and second anchors being positioned to make the arc of the
roller chain substantially symmetrical with respect to the vertical plane of
boom motion” as claimed. The Examiner has not articulated a reason with a
rational underpinning why this would have been an obvious modification.
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim
56, along with dependent claims 57-61, 64 and 67-69 as being unpatentable
over Kaltenbach and Wampach. As applied by the Examiner, the other
evidence relied upon fails to cure this deficiency. The rejections of claims
62, 63, 65, 66 and the alternative rejection of claim 64 must also be reversed.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 56-69 is
reversed.

Appeal 2009-005708
Application 10/786,202
5
REVERSED

nlk

Stuart R. Hemphill, Esq.
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
Intellectual Property Department
50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500
Minneapolis MN 55402-1498