Ex Parte Falck-Schmidt

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 3, 2013

10593455 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAN FALCK-SCHMIDT
____________

Appeal 2011-005231
Application 10/593,455
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, NEIL T. POWELL, and
BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 2-4. App. Br. 5. Claim 1 is cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2011-005231
Application 10/593,455

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 2 and 3 are independent. Claim 3 is reproduced below:
3. A vehicle comprising a bottom and a set of wheels
movably disposed between a first position and a second
position with respect to the vehicle, wherein in the first position
the set of wheels extend above the bottom of the vehicle and in
the second position the set of wheels are lowered to extend
under the bottom of the vehicle such that the vehicle is raised
from a support surface supporting the vehicle.

REJECTION
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Routledge (US 4,619,578; iss. Oct. 28, 1986).
ANALYSIS
Regarding claim 2, the Examiner found that Routledge discloses a
self-propelled vehicle (semi-trailer 10 and trailer 11) comprising a bottom
(bottom of frame 12) and a set of wheels 19 movably disposed in a first
position on the vehicle, a first distance between the bottom of the vehicle
and surface and a second distance between the vehicle bottom and surface
formed by moving the wheels to a second position so the vehicle is raised
from the surface to a second distance that is substantially greater than the
first distance as seen in Figures 1 and 2. Ans. 3, 4.
Appellant argues that Routledge does not disclose a self-propelled
vehicle because the trailer 11 is an unpowered vehicle pulled by a powered
vehicle and cannot be self-propelled. App. Br. 11. This argument does not
persuade us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Routledge discloses a
self-propelled vehicle comprising a semi-trailer truck 10 and trailer 11 and
the truck 10 is propelled by its own engine power. Ans. 4.
Appeal 2011-005231
Application 10/593,455

3
Appellant also argues that the bottom of the vehicle 10 remains at the
same height and only the trailer 11 and side frame members 12 are lowered
so the bottom of the vehicle 10 does not move first and second distances to
the surface. Reply Br. 1. This argument does not persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s findings that Routledge discloses a self-propelled vehicle with a
truck 10 and trailer 11 and the trailer 11 has a bottom (i.e., the bottom of side
frame members 12) that is raised and lowered. Claim 2 calls for the vehicle
to have “a bottom” that is moved between a first distance from a surface to a
second distance from the surface by moving a set of wheels.
Appellant further argues that the raising and lowering of the trailer 11
and frame 12 is accomplished by letting air out of airbags 21 and 24, rather
than by wheels, which are not even connected to the air bags 44. Reply Br.
1-2. This argument does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings
that Routledge discloses a vehicle with wheels 19 that move between a first
and second position as shown in Figures 1-3 to move the trailer 11 a first and
second distance from the surface. Claim 2 does not recite any features of the
manner in which the wheels are movably disposed.
Appellant also asserts that Routledge’s trailer 11 has no bottom just
long thin frames 12. Reply Br. 2. This argument does not persuade us of
error in the Examiner’s finding that the frame 12 of Routledge’s trailer 11
has a bottom that is moved first and second distances from the ground as
shown in Figures 1 and 2. Ans. 3.
Regarding claim 3, the Examiner found that Routledge discloses a
vehicle with a bottom (bottom of frame 12) and a set of wheels 19 movably
disposed between a first position where the wheels extend above the bottom
of the vehicle (as shown in Figure 2) and a second position where the wheels
Appeal 2011-005231
Application 10/593,455

4
are lowered to extend under the bottom of frame 12 of the vehicle (as shown
in Figure 1) so that the vehicle is raised from the support surface. Ans. 4.
Appellant argues that Routledge discloses wheel assemblies mounted
out-board to a side of trailer frame 12 and therefore the wheels 19 cannot be
lowered to extend under the bottom of the vehicle. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 2.
Appellant also argues that the wheels 19 do not extend above the bottom of
the vehicle in a first position. App. Br. 12. Appellant’s arguments do not
persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings that Routledge’s wheels 19
extend under a bottom of frame 12 and above the bottom of frame 12 as
shown in Figures 1 and 2. Ans. 5; see also Routledge, figs. 4, 6.
Regarding claim 4, the Examiner found that Routledge discloses a tow
bar (hitch structure 51) for towing the trailer 11 with the truck 10. Ans. 4, 5.
Appellant argues that the hitch structure 51 is rigidly attached to a front of
suspension arm 52 of the trailer 11 in Figures 10 and 11 and is not a tow bar.
App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 3. This argument does not persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s findings that Routledge’s hitch structure 51 corresponds to the
claimed tow bar and is capable of towing the trailer 11 as recited in claim 4.
A reference does not have to satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test to disclose a
claimed feature and Appellant does not identify any feature of the claimed
tow bar that distinguishes over Routledge’s hitch structure 51.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 2-4.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
Appeal 2011-005231
Application 10/593,455

5
ke