Ex Parte Enochs

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 21, 2008

10164241 (B.P.A.I. May. 21, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte STEVEN E. ENOCHS
__________

Appeal 2007-2885
Application 10/164,241
Technology Center 3600
__________

Decided: May 21, 2008
__________

Before ERIC GRIMES, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and MELANIE L.
McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a lift for a
projector or other audio/visual component. The Examiner has rejected the
claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-
in-part.
Appeal 2007-2885
Application 10/164,241

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification describes “devices configured to lower a projector
from a ceiling,” more particularly “devices having scissor mechanisms
configured to stabilize such a projector” (Spec., ¶2).
In Figures 43-47, the Specification depicts an audio/visual system
including a projector lift “configured to move [a] projector from a storage
position to a use position” (id. at ¶168). The lift “includes three stabilizers
1216 that stabilize projector mount 822 during raising, lowering, and/or
operation of the projector . . . , each stabilizer 1216 includ[ing] a series 1218
of scissor pairs 1220” (id. at ¶169). “Preferably, each scissor pair 1220
includes a first link 1222 and a second link 1224 coupled to respective first
link 1222 by a pair coupler 1226 at a pivot location 1228 to pivot about a
pivot axis 1230 as shown in Fig. 45” (id. at ¶170). “First links . . . are
coupled to one another by first link couplers 1242 and second links . . . are
coupled to one another by second link couplers 1244.” (Id. at ¶171.)
The Specification states that the second link couplers 1244 include “a
stud or body portion 1250 and snap fasteners 1252 including a plurality of
snap fingers, tab-like flexible members, or flexible tabs 1254 coupled to
opposite ends of body portion 1250” (id. at ¶173). “First and second links
1222, 1224 include apertures 1256 sized to receive snap fasteners 1252” (id.
at ¶174). In addition, “[p]air couplers 1226 and first link couplers 1242 are
substantially similar to each other and similar to second links couplers 1244”
(id. at ¶179).
The Specification also describes cables 1276 “that extend from ceiling
mount 820 to the projector supported on projector mount 822, as shown in
2
Appeal 2007-2885
Application 10/164,241

Fig. 47, to power and control the operation of the projector or other
audio/visual component” (id. at ¶181). In particular, the Specification
describes cables that “extend along top and bottom surfaces 1272, 1278,
1280, 1274 of both first and second links 1222, 1224” (id.). In addition, the
Specification describes including in each link “a plurality of coupler-
receiving apertures 1282, as shown in Fig. 45, sized to receive cable ties or
couplers 1284 as shown in Fig. 47. Each coupler 1284 includes a strap 1286
that extends through aperture 1282 and wraps around the respective cable
1276.” (Id. at ¶183.) As shown in Figure 44, the Specification also
describes providing shields 1290 “positioned to block cables 1276 from
contacting other components of lift 1214 during raising and lowering” (id. at
¶184).
In addition, the Specification describes “four bumpers 1316 . . .
adjacent the upper corners of perimeter wall 1036 of lower pan 1034 to
absorb shock caused by lower pan 1034 contacting upper pan 1028 as shown
in Fig. 43” (id. at ¶188).
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10-16, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27-35, and 37-66 are on
appeal. Claims 3-6, 9, 17-20, 23, 26, and 36 are also pending but have been
indicated to be allowable. We will focus on independent claims 1, 7, 22, 30,
37, 43, 50, 55, and 61, which read as follows:
1. An audio/visual system configured for use in a structure, the
system comprising
an audio/visual component and
a component lift configured to raise and lower the component, the
component lift including a first mount adapted to be coupled to the structure,
a second mount adapted to support the component, and a series of links
extending between the first and second mounts, the series including first and
second links and a first coupler configured to couple the first and second
3
Appeal 2007-2885
Application 10/164,241

links together, the first link including a first aperture, the first coupler
includes a plurality of flexible snap fingers sized to be inserted into the
aperture to couple the first link to the first coupler.
7. A projector lift adapted to support a projector from a ceiling,
the projector lift comprising
a ceiling mount adapted to be coupled to a ceiling of a room,
a projector mount adapted to support a projector,
a plurality of links extending between the ceiling mount and the
projector mount, the plurality of links including first and second links, and
a coupler including a flexible member configured to couple the first
and second links together.
22. A projector lift adapted to support a projector from a ceiling,
the projector lift comprising
a ceiling mount adapted to be coupled to a ceiling of a room,
a projector mount adapted to support a projector,
a plurality of links extending between the ceiling mount and the
projector mount, the plurality of links including first and second links, and
a coupler configured to snap fit with at least one of the first and
second links to couple the first and second links together.
30. A projector lift adapted to support a projector from a ceiling,
the projector lift comprising
a ceiling mount adapted to be coupled to a ceiling of a room,
a projector mount adapted to support a projector,
a plurality of links extending between the ceiling mount and the
projector mount, and
a snap fastener configured to couple two of the plurality links
together.
37. A projector lift adapted to support a projector from a ceiling,
the projector lift comprising
a ceiling mount adapted to be coupled to a ceiling of a room,
a projector mount adapted to support a projector,
a first scissor pair extending between the ceiling and projector
mounts, the first scissor pair including first and second scissor links coupled
together to define an X-pattern, and
first and second cables, the first cable extending along the first scissor
link, the second cable extending along the second scissor link.
4
Appeal 2007-2885
Application 10/164,241

43. A projector lift adapted to support a projector from a ceiling,
the projector lift comprising
a ceiling mount adapted to be coupled to a ceiling of a room,
a projector mount adapted to support a projector,
a first scissor pair extending between the ceiling and projector
mounts, the first scissor pair including first and second scissor links coupled
together to define an X-pattern, the first scissor link including a top surface,
a bottom surface spaced apart from the top surface, and a pair of side
surfaces, and
a first cable extending along the top or bottom surfaces of the first
scissor link.
50. A projector lift adapted to support a projector from a ceiling,
the projector lift comprising
a ceiling mount adapted to be coupled to a ceiling of a room,
a projector mount adapted to support a projector,
at least one scissor pair extending between the ceiling and projector
mounts, the at least one scissor pair including first and second scissor links
coupled together to define an X-pattern, the first scissor link including an
aperture therein,
a first cable extending along the first scissor link, and
a coupler extending through the aperture in the first scissor link to
couple the first cable to the first scissor link.
55. A projector lift adapted to support a projector from a ceiling,
the projector lift comprising
a ceiling mount adapted to be coupled to a ceiling of a room,
a projector mount adapted to support a projector,
a first scissor pair extending between the ceiling and projector
mounts, the first scissor pair including first and second scissor links coupled
together to define an X-pattern,
a first cable extending along the first scissor link, and
a first shield positioned to protect the first cable from contacting
another component during raising and lowering of the projector mount.
61. A projector lift adapted to support a projector from a ceiling,
the projector lift comprising
a ceiling mount adapted to be coupled to a ceiling of a room,
a projector mount adapted to support a projector, and
5
Appeal 2007-2885
Application 10/164,241

a first bumper positioned to cushion impact of the movement of the
projector mount.
OBVIOUSNESS - HUFFMAN IN VIEW OF SABOUNJIAN
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10-16, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 27-35 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Huffman (US 5,261,645, Nov. 16, 1993)
in view of Sabounjian (US 6,427,858 B2, Aug. 6, 2002). The Examiner
relies on Huffman for disclosing
a projector ceiling lift comprising an audio/visual component
and a component lift including a first mount adapted to be
coupled to a structure and a second mount adapted to be support
[for] the component; a series of links including first and second
links and couplers to couple the first and second links together,
the first link including apertures where couplers [are] inserted
. . . to couple the link together.
(Final Rejection 2.)
The Examiner relies on Sabounjian for teaching “using snappers or
connectors (112 or 226) to couple the links together . . . through the aperture
in each link to allow easier connect or removal between the links” (id. at 2-
3). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to use a
snapper or connector of Sabounjian in place of the hinge of Huffman in
order to couple or snap the links together as well as to allow quicker . . .
connection or disconnection between the links as taught by Sabounjian” (id.
at 3). The Examiner indicates that the proposed combination does not
include Sabounjian’s connecting rods (id. at 5).
Appellant contends that “the proposed combination renders Huffman
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose” (App. Br. 9). In particular,
Appellant argues that
6
Appeal 2007-2885
Application 10/164,241

resilient legs 114, 116 of connector 110 of Sabounjian couple
with rod 16 as shown in Figs. 15 and 16 to support rod 16
between first and second legs 12, 14 of laundry stand 10.
Similarly, resilient prongs 264 of connector 226 of Sabounjian
engage tubular coupling 246 that receives rod 216 as shown in
Fig. 27. Thus, the purpose of resilient legs 114, 116 and
resilient prongs 264 is to couple with rods 16, 216 to support
legs 12, 14.
(Id. at 10.) Appellant argues that “[p]roviding such rods 16, 216 on
Huffman would seriously detract or destroy the functionally of Huffman.
Such rods 16, 216 extending between stabilizers 16, 18 of Huffman would
interfere with projector P and carriage 14 making Huffman unusable for
raising and lowering projector P.” (Id.) In addition, “[i]f such rods 16, 216
are not provided in the suggested combination, then resilient legs 114, 116
and prongs 264 would be superfluous because they are intended to couple
rods 16, 216 to legs 12, 14” (id.).
Findings of Fact
1. Huffman describes “a lifting device for relatively heavy objects
and the concealment of the object within a ceiling when not in use”
(Huffman, col. 3, ll. 4-6).
2. Huffman states that “[o]ne of the primary purposes of the lifting
device . . . is to support an overhead video/data projector” (id. at col. 3,
ll. 43-45).
3. Huffman also states that “[o]ne of the most critical features of
the lift . . . is its ability to accommodate the large projectors which are
intended to be used and still allow these projectors to be concealed and
positioned within the ceiling structure. Thus, the overall height . . . is critical
in order to obtain the desired novel results.” (Id. at col. 4, ll. 56-62.)
7
Appeal 2007-2885
Application 10/164,241

4. Huffman describes a lift comprising a support framework 12,
which is mounted to a component of the ceiling structure, and a carriage
structure 14, within which the projector is mounted (id. at col. 4, l. 63, to
col. 5, l. 1).
5. Huffman states that a “pair of tong or scissor-like stabilizer
mechanisms are provided on each side of the structure between the
framework 12 and carriage 14 to hold the carriage in a relatively rigid lateral
position when suspended” (id. at col. 5, ll. 8-12).
6. Specifically, Huffman describes a stabilizer mechanism 18
“composed of a series of scissor-like links which are pivotally attached at
their outer ends to each adjacent link. The corresponding mid-point of
intersecting links are also pivotally attached. Each link is nothing more than
an elongated, fairly narrow bar of suitable material which has mounting
holes at each end and in the middle.” (Id. at col. 8, ll. 40-46.)
7. Huffman also states that “attachment can be made by any
suitable device such as a permanent rivet or a threaded bolt which has a
suitable secured nut or fastening device” (id. at col. 8, ll. 53-56).
8. Sabounjian describes a laundry drying rack including “first and
second legs 12 and 14 which are interconnected by one or more connecting
rods 16” (Sabounjian, col. 5, ll. 55-58).
9. In particular, Sabounjian describes legs 12 and 14 that are
scissor linkages, which are expandable into an open configuration depicted
in Figure 1, “each scissor linkage 24 includ[ing] first and second elongated
members 26 and 28 which are pivotably connected near the center of the
members by a connector 22” (id. at col. 6, ll. 3-9).
8
Appeal 2007-2885
Application 10/164,241

10. In one embodiment, Sabounjian describes a connector including
a generally cylindrical body with a pair of legs longitudinally extending
from one end of the body and projections extending radially outward from
each of the legs (id. at col. 14, ll. 35-43, & Figs. 14-17).
11. Sabounjian describes inserting these projections into holes or
recesses in a connecting rod (id. at col. 14, ll. 43-45, & Figs. 14-16).
12. In particular, Sabounjian states that the projections “snap into
the recesses 124 and 126 to securely connect the rod 16 to the connector”
(id. at col. 14, l. 67, to col. 15, l. 2).
13. Sabounjian also states that the other end of the connector may
include “an outwardly extending flange 140 . . . to prevent the connector
from passing through elongated members 26 and 28” (id. at col. 15, ll. 26-
29, & Fig. 18).
14. In another embodiment, Sabounjian describes “an end
connector having a resilient pronged end and a post end,” the post end being
“configured to extend within [an] opening of the elongate leg member for
rotatably connecting the elongate leg member to the end connector” (id. at
col. 1, ll. 47-53, col. 19, ll. 44-63, & Figs. 26-28).
15. In this embodiment, Sabounjian states that the laundry drying
rack also contains a tubular coupling having a proximal end “configured to
axially receive the connecting rod” and a distal end “configured to axially
receive the resilient pronged end of the end connector.” An internal ridge in
the tubular coupling is “configured to concentrically engage the resilient
pronged end of the end connector for rotatable engagement of the tubular
9
Appeal 2007-2885
Application 10/164,241

coupling thereabout.” (Id. at col. 1, ll. 53-63, col. 19, l. 56, to col. 20, l. 15,
& Figs. 26-28.)
16. To assemble the device, Sabounjian describes inserting the
prongs into the tubular coupling “in order to fasten the [connecting] rods . . .
to the legs of the laundry rack,” stating that the “parts snap together” (id. at
col. 21, ll. 59-65).
Analysis
Huffman describes pivotally attaching scissor-like links “by any
suitable device such as a permanent rivet or a threaded bolt which has a
suitable secured nut or fastening device” (Findings of Fact (FF) 6-7).
Sabounjian also describes pivotally attaching scissor linkages using a
connector (FF 9). Sabounjian describes connectors that include a pair of
legs with projections that “snap into recesses” (FF 10-12) and connectors
having a resilient pronged end that snaps together with a tubular coupling
(FF 14-16). Sabounjian includes the legs or the pronged end in its
connectors in order to attach the connectors to connecting rods that extend
between the scissor linkages (FF 8, 11-12, & 15-16).
Sabounjian does not teach using the legs or the pronged end of the
connectors to attach the scissor linkages together. Therefore, we agree with
Appellant that the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case that it would
have been obvious to use the legs or the pronged end of Sabounjian’s
connectors in order to attach Huffman’s scissor-like links. In particular, the
Examiner has not provided an adequate explanation as to how, in the
absence of rods interconnecting the links, Sabounjian’s connectors would
have been used to attach Huffman’s scissor-like links. We therefore reverse
10
Appeal 2007-2885
Application 10/164,241

the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1, 7, 22, and 30 and of
claims 2, 8, 10-16, 21, 24, 25, 27-29, and 31-35, which depend from
claims 1, 7, 22, or 30.
OBVIOUSNESS - HUFFMAN IN VIEW OF BORST
Claims 37-60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Huffman in view of Borst (US 4,664,434, May 12, 1987). The Examiner
relies on Huffman as discussed above. The Examiner relies on Borst for
disclosing “cables (616F) (Fig. 22) . . . extending along the scissor links”
(Final Rejection 3). The Examiner concludes that “[t]o provide conduits or
cables extending along the scissor link or scissor links would have been
obvious as [an] electrical or mechanical design [choice] because it is well
known that running cables on the top or bottom surfaces of the scissor link
or along the scissor links or in the channel along the scissor links would
protect the conduit or cables as shown in Fig. 22 of Borst” (id.)
With regard to claims 50-54, the Examiner finds that “to provide cable
couplers or straps extending through an aperture or apertures of the scissor
links to hold or secure the conduits/cables would also have been obvious as
[an] electrical or mechanical design choice in holding cables in place
involving only routine skill in the art” (id. at 3-4). With regard to claims 55-
60, the Examiner finds that “to provide shield or shields or equivalent
methods such as [a] channel along the scissor links to protect cables or
conduits would also have been obvious as [an] electrical or mechanical
design choice in protecting cables/conduits as shown in Fig. 22 of Borst” (id.
at 4).
11
Appeal 2007-2885
Application 10/164,241

Appellant contends that the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie
case that claims 37-60 would have been obvious over Huffman in view of
Borst (App. Br. 12-17; Reply Br. 3-4).
Findings of Fact
17. Borst describes a “hoist for rearranging and lifting a plurality of
projectiles simultaneously” (Borst, col. 2, ll. 26-29).
18. In particular, Borst describes a hoist including a linkage
assembly including “a plurality of ‘S-shaped’ links 582 which are pivotably
attached to each other at their ends” and “[c]ross links 586 [that] extend
across the [S-shaped] links 582 and are pivotably attached to each other”
and, at center pivot points, to an S-shaped link (id. at col. 15, ll. 1-21).
19. Borst describes the linkage assembly as a “scissors mechanism”
(id. at col. 15, ll. 63-64).
20. Borst states that, as depicted in Figure 23, the S-shaped links
“include two elongate pieces 604F and 604B which may be connected
together by pieces 606” (id. at col. 16, ll. 13-15).
21. Borst also states that “[b]etween each of the twin members
604F and 604B . . . is a channel 614 . . . through which a pressurized fluid
power conduit or hydraulic hose 616F extends” (id. at col. 16, ll. 36-39).
22. In addition, Borst states that “electrical cables . . . may extend
in the channels 614” (id. at col. 17, ll. 25-27).
23. The term “along” is defined as “[o]n a line or course parallel
and close to.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
(4th ed. 2000) (definition attached).
12
Appeal 2007-2885
Application 10/164,241

24. As depicted in Figure 22, Borst describes extending the cables
along a top or bottom surface of the S-shaped links (Borst, Fig. 22).
Analysis
Huffman describes a projector lift comprising a ceiling mount, a
projector mount, and scissor pairs (FF 1-7). Borst describes extending
cables along scissor links (FF 17-23). Based on the teachings in Borst, we
agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to extend cables
along the scissor links described in Huffman to provide, for example, power
to the projector.
Appellant argues, however, that Borst is not analogous art (App.
Br. 12). In particular, Appellant argues:
Borst is clearly not in the same field of endeavor as the
Applicant’s invention. The Applicant’s field of endeavor
relates to audio/visual equipment[, w]hereas, Borst relates to
equipment for rearranging munitions. The problem solved by
the Applicant’s invention is the raising and lowering of
audio/visual equipment. The problem solved by Borst is
transferring munitions from one pallet to a different pallet,
storage rack, or battlefield magazine.
(Id.)
We are not persuaded by this argument. “In order to rely on a
reference as a basis for rejection of the applicant’s invention, the reference
must either be in the field of the applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was
concerned.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992). A
problem faced by Appellant was how to get power cables to the projector.
Borst is reasonably pertinent to this problem. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that Borst is not non-analogous art.
13
Appeal 2007-2885
Application 10/164,241

With regard to claim 37, Appellant argues that the “suggested
combination of Huffman and Borst fails to teach or suggest a combination
including a ‘first scissor pair including first and second scissor links coupled
together to define an X-pattern, and first and second cables, the first cable
extending along the first scissor link, the second cable extending along the
second scissor link.’” (App. Br. 15). In particular, Appellant argues that, in
Borst, “there is only one hydraulic hose 616F that extends along each link
582. There is no second hydraulic hose 616F that extends along the other
links 586 corresponding to links 582.” (Id.)
We are not persuaded by this argument. Instead, we agree with the
Examiner that it would have been obvious to include a second cable
extending along the second scissor link in order to extend an additional cable
to the projector mount. “[M]ere duplication of parts has no patentable
significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” In re Harza,
274 F.2d 669, 671 (CCPA 1960).
With regard to claim 43, Appellant argues that “the suggested
combination of Huffman and Borst fails to teach or suggest a combination
including a ‘first scissor link including a top surface, a bottom surface
spaced apart from the top surface, and a pair of side surfaces, and a first
cable extending along the top or bottom surfaces of the first scissor link’”
(App. Br. 16). In particular, Appellant argues that, “[a]s shown in Fig. 23 of
Borst, hydraulic hose 616F does not extend along the top or bottom surface
of link 582, but is positioned within link 582” (id.).
We are not persuaded by this argument. Borst describes extending
cable in the channel between elongate pieces 604F and 604B of the S-shaped
14
Appeal 2007-2885
Application 10/164,241

link (FF 20-22). However, we do not agree that this cable is not “along” the
top or bottom surfaces of the link (FF 23-24).
Also with regard to claim 43, Appellant argues that, “[i]f cables were
provided on the top or bottom surfaces of the links of stabilizers 16, 18 of
Huffman, . . . the result would be a system that detracts from the intended
function of Huffman and . . . results in a dangerous situation” (App. Br. 13).
In particular, Appellant argues:
Providing cables on the top or bottom surfaces of the links of
stabilizers 16, 18 of Huffman would increase the retracted
length of stabilizers 16, 18 requiring additional space in the
ceiling to fully conceal projector P. Increasing the height of
projector lift 10 is against at least one of the critical objectives
of Huffman. “[T]he overall height of the present invention is
critical in order to obtain the desired novel results.” Column 4,
lines 61-62, Huffman.
(Id.) Appellant argues that, “[b]ecause[] the Examiner’s suggested
modification of Huffman detracts from one of the critical objectives of
Huffman by increasing the height of Huffman, there is no suggestion or
motivation to modify Huffman as suggested by the Examiner” (id. at 14). In
addition, Appellant argues that “[p]lacing conduits or cables on the top or
bottoms of the links of Huffman would cause the cables to be pinched when
stabilizers 16, 18 are fully retracted as shown in Fig. 4 of Huffman. This
could damage the cables, not protect them as suggested by the Examiner,
causing a potential fire hazard.” (Id.)
Claim 43 does not recite that the first cable is on the top or bottom
surfaces of the links. For at least this reason, we are unpersuaded by
Appellant’s arguments.
15
Appeal 2007-2885
Application 10/164,241

With regard to claim 50, Appellant “disagrees with the Examiner’s
conclusion that ‘to provide cable couplers or straps extending through an
aperture or apertures of the scissor links to hold or secure the conduits/cables
would also have been obvious as [an] electrical or mechanical design
choice’” (App. Br. 14). In particular, Appellant argues:
If such an aperture and “cable couplers or straps extending
through” the aperture are provided on the links of stabilizers 16,
18 of Huffman, as suggested by the Examiner, the cable
couplers and straps would interfere with the links of Huffman.
As shown best in Fig. 5 of Huffman, there is little or no
clearance provided between the scissor links of Huffman.
Thus, anything positioned between the links would increase the
retracted height of the stabilizers 16, 18 of Huffman and would
also be pinched when the stabilizers 16, 18 are retracted as
shown in Fig. 4. This increase in height is directly against a
critical objective of Huffman and the pinching would
potentially damage the suggested cable couplers or straps and
interfere with the movement of the stabilizers 16, 18.
(Id. at 14-15.)
Claim 50 does not require that the cable couplers are between
Huffman’s links. Instead, they could be within a channel of a link as
described in Borst. For at least this reason, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s argument.
Also with regard to claim 50, Appellant argues that “Huffman in
combination with Borst fails to teach or suggest a combination including a
‘first scissor link including an aperture therein, a first cable extending along
the first scissor link, and a coupler extending through the aperture in the first
scissor link to couple the first cable to the first scissor link’” (App Br. 16).
In particular, Appellant argues that, “[o]ther than to suggest that the claimed
16
Appeal 2007-2885
Application 10/164,241

invention is obvious, the Examiner has failed to suggest how Huffman in
combination with Borst, teaches this claimed invention” (id.).
We are not persuaded by this argument. As discussed above, the
Examiner finds that “to provide cable couplers or straps extending through
an aperture or apertures of the scissor links to hold or secure the
conduits/cables would . . . have been obvious as [an] electrical or mechanical
design choice in holding cables in place involving only routine skill in the
art” (Final Rejection 3-4). Appellant has not provided any persuasive reason
why the Examiner’s finding is incorrect.
With regard to claim 55, Appellant argues:
If the channel links 582, 586 of Borst are provided on Huffman,
the overall retracted height of the modified stabilizers would be
greater than the unmodified stabilizers 16, 18 of Huffman
because the “S-shape” links 582 of Borst do not collapse as fully
as the “straight” links of stabilizers 16, 18 of Huffman. This
would increase the overall height and bulk of the projector lift 10
of Huffman. Thus the suggested modification detracts from a
critical objective of Huffman to minimize the height of projector
lift 10. Therefore, such a modification would not be obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art and fails to establish a case of
prima facie obviousness.
(App. Br. 15.)
Huffman indicates that a critical feature of its lift “is its ability to
accommodate the large projectors which are intended to be used and still
allow these projectors to be concealed and positioned within the ceiling
structure” and that therefore the overall height of the lift is “critical” (FF 3).
In addition, it appears that using Borst’s S-shape links could increase the
retracted height of Huffman’s stabilizers. However, Appellant has not
shown that any such increase would interfere with the ability of the lift to
17
Appeal 2007-2885
Application 10/164,241

conceal the projectors within the ceiling structure. Therefore, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s argument.
Also with regard to claim 55, Appellant argues that “Huffman in
combination with Borst fails to teach or suggest a combination including a
‘shield positioned to protect the first cable’” (App. Br. 16).
We are not persuaded by this argument. Instead, we find that Borst
teaches a shield. In particular, we find that elongate piece 604B can be
designated the first link and elongate piece 604F can be designated the
shield or vice versa.
Appellant has not rebutted the prima facie case that claims 37, 43, 50,
and 55 would have been obvious over Huffman in view of Borst. We
therefore affirm the rejection of claims 37, 43, 50, and 55 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). Claims 40, 46, 51, and 53 have not been argued separately and
therefore fall with claims 37, 43, 50, and 55. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellant also argues that
the Examiner has failed to specify where the following . . .
limitations of the rejected dependent claims are taught by
Huffman in combination with Borst: “first cable [] positioned
over the top surface” of claim 38 (see also claims 44, 47, 48,
and 59), the “first cable [] positioned under the bottom surface”
of claim 39 (see also claims 45, 47, 48, and 59), the “first cable
extend[ing] beyond the first end of the first scissor link” of
claim 41, “the first coupler spans at least one of the first and
second links” of claim 42 (see also claim 49), “the first link is
made of a plastics material” of claim 52, the coupler includes “a
ratchet mechanism” of claim 54, “the first shield is coupled to
the first scissor pair” of claim 56, the “second shield” of
claim 57, “the first and second shields are positioned between
the first and second links” of claim 58 (see also claim 60).
(App. Br. 16-17.)
18
Appeal 2007-2885
Application 10/164,241

With regard to claims 42, 47-49, 56-58, and 60, we are not persuaded
by this argument. Huffman describes attaching the link by “any suitable
device such as a permanent rivet or a threaded bolt” (FF 6-7). Therefore, as
pointed out by the Examiner (Final Rejection 3), Huffman describes a
coupler that spans at least one of the links, as recited in claim 42.
As discussed above with regard to claim 43, we agree with the
Examiner that Borst describes a cable extending along the top or bottom
surface of a first scissor link. For the substantially the same reason, we
agree with the Examiner that Borst describes extending this cable along the
top or bottom surface of a second scissor link of a second scissor pair
(FF 17-24), as recited in claim 47.
As discussed above with regard to claim 55, we find that elongate
piece 604B can be designated the first link and elongate piece 604F can be
designated the shield or vice versa. Borst states that these elongate pieces
may be connected together by piece 606 (FF 20). Therefore, Borst describes
a first shield coupled to a first scissor pair, as recited in claim 56.
As discussed above with regard to claim 37, we agree with the
Examiner that it would have been obvious to include a second cable
extending along the second scissor link. For the same reason, we agree with
the Examiner that it would have been obvious to include a second shield
coupled to the second scissor link, as recited in claim 57.
In addition, as depicted in Figure 23, when elongate piece 604B is
designated the first link and elongate piece 604F is designated the shield, the
shield is between the first and second links, as recited in claim 58.
19
Appeal 2007-2885
Application 10/164,241

Appellant has not rebutted the prima facie case that claims 42, 47, and
56-58 would have been obvious over Huffman in view of Borst. We
therefore affirm the rejection of claims 42, 47, and 56-58 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). Claims 48, 49, and 60 are argued with claims 47, 42, and 58,
respectively, and therefore fall with these claims. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
With regard to claims 38, 39, 41, 44, 45, 52, 54, and 59, we reverse
the rejection. “In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.
Only if that burden is met, does the burden of coming forward with evidence
or argument shift to the applicant.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). Whether or not the Examiner is correct in the conclusion that
claims 38, 39, 41, 44, 45, 52, 54, and 59 would have been obvious, we agree
with Appellant that the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case that
these claims would have been obvious. In particular, we agree with
Appellant that the Examiner has not set forth where the features of these
claims are taught or suggested by Huffman in combination with Borst.
OBVIOUSNESS - HUFFMAN IN VIEW OF SPRINGER
Claims 61-66 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Huffman in view of Springer (EP 0,985,612 B1, Mar. 15, 2000). The
Examiner relies on Huffman as discussed above. The Examiner relies on
Springer for teaching “bumpers to . . . minimize[] shock, impact and noise to
the dumper truck structure when the receptacle is lowered” (Final
Rejection 4). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to
add a bumper or bumpers [to] the side members of Huffman or at any
20
Appeal 2007-2885
Application 10/164,241

desired locations in order to minimize shock, noise or impact when the
projector mount is lowered as taught by Springer” (id.).
Appellant contends:
Lowering of projector P of Huffman is controlled by cables 20,
22, cable drum 30, and drive motor 28 so that carriage
structure 14 of Huffman moves away from framework 12.
Thus, framework 12 of Huffman does not impact carriage
structure 14 during lowering. Indeed, it is unclear what
components, if any, of Huffman experience “shock, impact, and
noise” during lowering. The Examiner provides no examples
of such components and leaves it to the Applicant to speculate
as to what improvements to Huffman are actually being made
by the suggested combination.
(App. Br. 18.) Thus, Appellant argues that the “proposed motivation
provides no apparent benefit to Huffman” (id.).
In addition, Appellant contends that
the Examiner provides no guidance to indicate what “side
members” of Huffman he proposes adding one or more
bumpers to. . . . Likewise, the Examiner’s suggestion to
provide[] a bumper on “any desired location” also provides no
guidance to the Applicant. . . . Without an understanding of
the proposed combination, one cannot determine whether the
Examiner has properly established a case of prima facie
obviousness.
(Id.) In summary, Appellant argues that, “[h]aving failed to provide an
indication as to how the lowering of Huffman is improved by the suggested
combination or even how the suggested combination is provided, the
Examiner has failed to provide a prima facie case of obviousness” (id.).
21
Appeal 2007-2885
Application 10/164,241

Findings of Fact
25. Springer describes a device for emptying containers into a
collecting container (Springer 3*).
26. In particular, Springer describes a device including an abutment
element containing a retaining panel 12 and a U-shaped elastic molding 14
that consists of rubber (id.).
Analysis
“In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the
initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Only if that
burden is met, does the burden of coming forward with evidence or
argument shift to the applicant.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d at 1532. We agree
with Appellant that the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case that it
would have been obvious to include Springer’s elastic molding in Huffman’s
device. In particular, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not
provided an adequate explanation of how these references are being
combined. We therefore reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claim 61 and of claims 62-66, which depend from claim 61.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 37, 40, 42, 43, 46-51,
53, 55-58, and 60. However, we reverse the obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10-16, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27-35, 38, 39, 41, 44, 45, 52, 54, 59,
and 61-66.

* The references to Springer are to the translation of record.
22
Appeal 2007-2885
Application 10/164,241

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ssc:
BAKER & DANIELS LLP
300 NORTH MERIDAN STREET
SUITE 2700
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
23