Ex Parte Gündogan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 4, 2017

13887479 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 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.
13/887,479 05/06/2013 Birol Gtindogan 509702 7496
53609 7590 08/08/2017
REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C.
2215 PERRYGREEN WAY
ROCKFORD, IL 61107
EXAMINER
EVANS, BRYAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/08/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
RockMail@reinhartlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BIROL GUNDOGEN
Appeal 2016-005090
Application 13/8 87,4791
Technology Center 3600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—15, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Jung Hebe-Und
Transporttechnik GmbH. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-005090
Application 13/887,479
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
The claimed invention relates to a running gear with a carrier plate for
transporting a load. Spec. H 1—2. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is
illustrative of the invention and the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as
follows:
1. A running gear for transporting a load, having a carrier
plate, which extends in a plane of extent, wherein the running
gear comprises:
a first roller, which can rotate about a first rolling axis
running parallel to the plane of extent, on an underside of the
carrier plate;
a second roller, which is at a distance from the first roller
and can rotate about a second rolling axis running parallel to the
plane of extent, on the underside;
a third roller, which is at a distance from the first roller and
the second roller and can rotate about a third rolling axis running
parallel to the plane of extent, on the underside;
wherein the first roller can rotate about a first rotation axis
running perpendicularly to the plane of extent on the carrier
plate;
wherein the second roller can rotate about a second
rotation axis running perpendicularly to the plane of extent on
the carrier plate; and
wherein the third roller is arranged on the carrier plate in
a rotationally fixed manner in relation to axes running
perpendicularly to the plane of extent.
App. Br. 15 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
2
Appeal 2016-005090
Application 13/887,479
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—13 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Le Toumeau (US 2,337,670; filed Oct. 25, 1941)
and Terhune (US 4,767,128; iss. Aug. 30, 1988). Final Act. 2—6.
Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Le Toumeau, Terhune, and Willis (US 7,506,405
B2; iss. March 24, 2009). Id. at 6—7.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellant could have
made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41,37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in
the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer,
and provide the following for highlighting and emphasis.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1—13
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in combining Le Toumeau and
Terhune, because the Examiner’s proposed modification of Le Toumeau
would render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, and one of ordinary
skill would have no reasonable expectation of success in combining the
references. App. Br. 5—6, 9-10; Reply Br. 7—9. Accordingly, Appellant
argues, the Examiner has not “articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning” to support the conclusion of obviousness regarding claims 1—
13, as required by KSR Int 7 v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Reply Br. 9. We, however, are not persuaded of error.
3
Appeal 2016-005090
Application 13/887,479
Turning to Appellant’s Specification for context, an understanding of
the claimed invention may be gleaned from Figure 1, reproduced below.
Figure 1 illustrates a running gear 1 including carrier plate 2 supported by
rollers 5, 6, and 7. Spec. 37, 42. Shaft holder 15 supports attachment of a
shaft, so the running gear may be pulled. Spec. 1 52. “Third” roller 7,
shown in Figure 1 under the rear of the carrier plate (as indicated by reverse
travel direction arrow 17), rotates only on an axis parallel to the carrier plate
(i.e., rolls forward or backward, but does not swivel). “First” and “second”
rollers 5 and 6, in contrast, are attached to roller carriers 28 and 29,
respectively, which rotate on an axis perpendicular to the carrier plate.
Spec. 142. Consequently, first and second rollers 5 and 6 (shown in Figure
1 under the front of the carrier plate) roll forward/backward and swivel
around the roller carriers in order to facilitate change of direction.
The Examiner finds all of the elements of claim 1 taught or suggested
in the combination of Le Toumeau, which is directed to an industrial
4
Appeal 2016-005090
Application 13/887,479
turntable for moving “mold boxes” in foundries, Le Toumeau col. 1,11. 3—6,
with Terhune, which discloses a wheelbarrow operable in “three wheel
mode,” Terhune col. 2,11. 20—22. Le Toumeau Figure 1 is reproduced
below.
Le Toumeau Figure 1 illustrates a circular platform 1, supported by radial
spokes 3, attached (as shown by 25) to a yoke 22 and pull handle 24. Under
circular platform 1, two supporting wheels 19 are fixed at the rear of the
platform, and wheel 23 is fixed under the front of platform 1 between the
arms of yoke 22. Le Toumeau col. 2,11. 28—38. Yoke 22 also is connected
to a “pivoted vertical spindle 21,” which allows wheel 23 to pivot directions
(and thus the platform to be steered) based upon the direction handle 24 is
pulled. Id.
Accordingly, unlike Appellant’s claim 1, Le Toumeau discloses a
single swiveling wheel (rather than two swiveling wheels) at the front
(handle side) of the platform, and two fixed wheels (rather than a single
5
Appeal 2016-005090
Application 13/887,479
fixed wheel) at the rear. The Examiner finds, however, that one of ordinary
skill would have modified Le Toumeau with the teachings of Terhune,
which illustrates a wheelbarrow with two pivoting wheels at the handle side,
and one fixed wheel on the opposite end, just like Appellant’s invention.
Final Act. 3^4. Terhune Figure 1 is reproduced below.
Terhune Figure 1 illustrates wheelbarrow 10 including two “swivel caster
wheel assemblies 32” at the handle side of the wheelbarrow (where it is
pushed) and one fixed “forward wheel assembly 12.” Terhune col. 3,11. 4—
5, 33-35,
The Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art would have
modified the turntable of Fe Toumeau with Terhune’s teaching of dual
swiveling wheels on the handle side of the device (instead of a single
swiveling wheel), and a single fixed wheel at the rear of the device (instead
of dual fixed wheels). Ans. 9-11. Doing so, the Examiner finds, would
have been a “simple” adjustment using a “known technique” (flipping the
wheel configuration), yielding the “expected result of allowing the device to
turn about the fixed wheel while allowing the device to track straight.” Final
Act. 4. We agree with the Examiner’s findings.
io
i-__ a)
6
Appeal 2016-005090
Application 13/887,479
Appellant first argues the Examiner’s proposed modification of Le
Toumeau would not be steerable, App. Br. 10-11, and subsequently argues
that even if it is steerable, the resulting configuration would be “unstable,”
Reply Br. 7.2 Appellant, however, presents no evidence for either argument.
See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney arguments
and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are
entitled to little probative value); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699,
705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Appellant argues turning the handle on the Examiner’s
modified version of Fe Toumeau would cause a “large torque” to be
imparted on the shaft as a result of the front wheel being fixed, thereby
“breaking] the [Fe] Toumeau handle,” but as discussed above, the
Examiner’s proposed modification actually consists of swiveling caster
wheels on the handle side of the device, as in Terhune. Ans. 11.
Appellant further argues placing two caster wheels at the handle of Fe
Toumeau would “unbalance” the load, because the three wheels would no
longer be equidistant from one another (i.e., forming an equilateral triangle
for ideal weight distribution) but rather would form an “isosceles” triangle
with the front two wheels being closer together. Reply Br. 7. Again,
2 Appellant’s Opening Brief appears to reflect a misunderstanding of the
Examiner’s proposed modification of Fe Toumeau, which the Examiner
clarifies in the Answer. See App. Br. 11; Ans. 10—11. Because the Answer
included further detail not explicit in the Final Action, we consider
Appellant’s “new” position in the Reply Brief to be timely and we fully
consider Appellant’s arguments. Any assertion that the Examiner’s findings
in the Answer are a “new grounds of rejection,” however, have been waived
by Appellant. See Reply Br. 5 (choosing to “address this new ground of
rejection in the Reply Brief instead of petitioning” the Director pursuant to
37 C.F.R. §41.40).
7
Appeal 2016-005090
Application 13/887,479
however, Appellant has presented no evidence regarding instability, and
more importantly, the Examiner’s findings do not restrict the placement of
the front two caster wheels as being close together (or any particular
distance). Rather, like Appellant’s claim 1 (which merely requires the
rollers be at “a distance” from one another), Terhune teaches placement of
three wheels, not precisely defined distances. See Terhune col. 3,1. 11—col.
4,1. 2. Le Toumeau teaches equidistant wheels. See, e.g., Fig. 1. To the
extent Appellant is interpreting the Examiner’s rough sketches in the
Answer (at 10) as requiring the modified wheels form an “isosceles
triangle,” there is no indication that such sketches are intended to reflect any
distance or scale. Rather, they simply clarity (in response to Appellant’s
Opening Brief) that the Examiner’s proposed modification of Le Toumeau is
two wheels on the handle side of the device rather than one.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the cited combination of
references renders Le Toumeau unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or
otherwise is erroneous. Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 as obvious over Le Toumeau and Terhune.
Appellant argues dependent claims 3,5, and 6 separately, contending
the combination of references fails to meet the claim limitations because the
Examiner’s configuration places a single roller at the shaft (handle side) and
two rollers in the rear of the carrier plate, and are not symmetrical. App. Br.
12—13. The arguments for these dependent claims, however, all are
unpersuasive for the same reasons set forth above, i.e., Appellant
misconstmes the Examiner’s finding as to the modification of Le Toumeau,
wherein the teachings of Terhune are applied to result in two swiveling
wheels on the handle side of the device, and a fixed wheel at the rear.
8
Appeal 2016-005090
Application 13/887,479
Accordingly, Appellant does not address these dependent claims in the
Reply Brief, after the Examiner’s Answer clarified the combination relied
upon. We, therefore, discern no error in the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 3,5, and 6. Appellant does not argue dependent claims 2,
4, and 7—13 separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1—13 as
unpatentable over Le Toumeau and Terhune.
Obviousness Rejection of Dependent Claims 14 and 15
Appellant argues the Willis reference “does not rectify the
deficiencies” of Le Toumeau and Terhune with respect to independent claim
1, and therefore concludes dependent claims 14 and 15 are patentable for the
same reasons as claim 1. App. Br. 14. Because we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, we also sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 15 as
unpatentable over Le Toumeau, Terhune, and Willis. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—15.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
9