Ex Parte IdenDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 11, 201512490966 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MICHAEL E. IDEN ____________________ Appeal 2012-010249 Application 12/490,966 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1–6, 9–12, 15–25, 28–30, 34, 35, and 37. App. Br. 20. Claims 7, 8, 26, and 27 are allowed by the Examiner and claims 13 and 14 are objected to by the Examiner as depending upon a rejected claim. Ans. 4. Claims 31–33 and 36 are cancelled. App. Br. 26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2012-010249 Application 12/490,966 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 15, 19, and 34 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A locomotive comprising: a body; track engaging wheels; a power system in the body for driving the wheels to move the locomotive along a pair of tracks; a walkway provided at a longitudinal end of the locomotive, the walkway extending to enable lateral passage of a person across the longitudinal end of the locomotive; a handrail extending vertically and laterally along the walkway in a spaced relation to a face of the longitudinal end of the locomotive body for grasping by a person on the walkway; a plurality of aerodynamic drag reducing devices attached adjacent to the walkway, each drag reducing device being positioned with respect to a centerline of the locomotive so as to reduce drag on the locomotive, wherein the aerodynamic drag reducing devices are in a spaced relation to the face of the longitudinal end of the locomotive body so as to permit lateral passage of a person along the walkway. REJECTION Claims 1–6, 9–12, 15–25, 28–30, 34, 35, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Iszkula (US 2008/0105157 A1; pub. May 8, 2008) and Topliss (GB 2,270,658 A; pub. Mar. 23, 1994).1 1 The Answer lists claims 1–6, 9–25, and 28–37 as subject to this rejection. Ans. 2. We treat this listing as an administrative error in view of the listing of claims 7, 8, 26, and 27 as allowed, and claims 13 and 14 as objected to due to their dependence from a rejected base claim. Ans. 4. The Office Action Summary of the Final Rejection, from which this appeal is taken, indicates claims 1–6, 9–12, 15–25, 28–30, 34, 35, 37 as rejected, and claims 13 and 14 as objected to. Final Reject. 1 (PTOL-326). Appeal 2012-010249 Application 12/490,966 3 ANALYSIS The Examiner found that Iszkula discloses a locomotive, as recited in independent claims 1, 15, 19, and 34, except for a plurality of drag reducing devices attached adjacent a walkway. Ans. 2–3. The Examiner found that Topliss discloses such drag reducing devices (aerofoils 11), and determined that it would have been obvious to provide aerofoils 11 in Iszkula to reduce drag on the locomotive. Id. at 3. The Examiner reasoned that the aerofoils of Topliss could be reduced in size and attached to the handrail of Iszkula, and that using the aerofoils of Topliss with the handrail at the longitudinal end of the car of Iszkula would reduce drag on the locomotive. Id. at 5. Appellant argues that Topliss does not disclose aerodynamic drag reducing devices on a locomotive but instead discloses fixed, vertical aerofoils or fins 11 that are positioned on the corners of a vehicle to balance forces and improve aerodynamics for cornering of vehicles. Reply Br. 6. Appellant also argues that Topliss discloses that the air flow and forces from the fins 11 cancel each other out as the vehicle 10 moves forward. Id. Appellant further argues that Topliss provides aerofoil devices 11 on corners of the vehicle and does not disclose a walkway or positioning drag-reducing devices adjacent to a walkway of a locomotive, as claimed. Id. The Examiner has not established, by evidence or technical reasoning, a sufficient factual basis to reasonably support the conclusion that a skilled artisan would have had a reason to add aerofoils 11 of Topliss to Iszkula to reduce drag on the locomotive of Iszkula. The Examiner’s reasoning to do so, because “Topliss does disclose drag reducing devices (11),” lacks rational underpinning because Topliss discloses that four forward-pointing aerofoils 11, which are attached to corners of a vehicle, create an overall Appeal 2012-010249 Application 12/490,966 4 resultant force into the corner when vehicle 10 travels around a corner thereby adding to centripetal force from friction between the tires and road. Topliss, p. 2, ll. 8–14; Abstract; Figs. 1, 4, 7; see Ans. 3. The increased centripetal force allows vehicle 10 to travel around a corner at a higher speed. See id. at 1, ll. 1–7. Topliss also discloses that when vehicle 10 moves straight down the road, the airflow 13 over each aerofoil 11 produces a force F toward the middle of vehicle, and the forces F cancel each other out producing no resultant force. Id. at p. 2, ll. 1–5; Abstract; Figs. 1, 3, 7. The Examiner has not identified any disclosure in Topliss of aerofoils 11 reducing drag on vehicle 10. See Ans. 3, 5. We find no such disclosure in Topliss. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–6, 9–12, 15–25, 28–30, 34, 35, and 37. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 9–12, 15–25, 28–30, 34, 35, and 37. REVERSED Klh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation