Ex Parte Kagen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 29, 2004

09754291 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 29, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte KRISTIN W. KAGEN
____________
Appeal No. 2004-0890
Application No. 09/754,291
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before WARREN, KRATZ and DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-22, which are all of the claims pending in
this application.
BACKGROUND
Appellant's invention relates to a snow plow including a
heating element. An understanding of the invention can be
derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced
below.
Appeal No. 2004-0890
Application No. 09/754,291
Page 2
1. A hand-maneuvered snow clearing plow comprising:
a wedge-shape blade having at least one hinge;
a heating element secured along only a bottom edge of
said blade; and
a handle attached to a rear side of said blade.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Mason, Jr. (Mason) 1,276,672 Aug. 20, 1918
Klima et al. (Klima) 1,755,695 Apr. 22, 1930
Clements 2,700,096 Jan. 18, 1955
Denker et al. (Denker) 2,763,506 Sep. 18, 1956
Carlson 3,431,661 Mar. 11, 1969
Kim 5,357,646 Oct. 25, 1994
Kahley 5,676,412 Oct. 14, 1997
Sinclair, Jr. (Sinclair) 5,706,592 Jan. 13, 1998
Claims 1, 7-9, 11, 15-19, 21 and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mason in view of
Clements and Kim. Claims 2-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mason in view of Clements,
Kim, and Klima. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Mason in view of Clements, Kim, and
Denker. Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Mason in view of Clements, Kim and
Sinclair. Claims 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Mason in view of Clements, Kim and
Kahley. Claims 1-9, 11, 15-19, 21 and 22 stand rejected under
Appeal No. 2004-0890
Application No. 09/754,291
Page 3
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of
Clements and Kim. Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of
Clements, Kim and Sinclair. Claims 12-14 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of
Clements, Kim and Kahley.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
appellant and the examiner concerning the issues before us on
this appeal.
OPINION
Having carefully considered each of appellant’s arguments
set forth in the brief and reply brief, appellant has not
persuaded us of reversible error on the part of the examiner.
Accordingly, we will affirm the examiner’s rejections for
substantially the reasons set forth by the examiner in the
answer. We add the following for emphasis.
Appellant states that “[c]laims 2-17 and 19-21 stand or fall
together with the independent claim from which they depend”
(brief, page 4). Moreover, appellant does not furnish separate
arguments for independent claims 1 and 18. Consequently, we
select claim 1 as the representative claim on which we base our
Appeal No. 2004-0890
Application No. 09/754,291
Page 4
decision for each of the first and sixth rejections stated by the
examiner. As for the other six rejections that involve only
dependent claims, we note that appellant only argues against each
of those rejections based on the arguments made for the
patentability of representative independent claim 1. See pages 7
and 8 of the brief. On this record, it is manifest that our
disposition of those latter six rejections will follow from our
disposition of the rejections of claim 1. In this regard, four
of those rejections of dependent claims employ Mason as a primary
reference and their disposition will follow from the disposition
of the rejection of claim 1 that employs Mason as a primary
reference. The remaining two rejections of dependent claims list
Carlson as the primary reference and their disposition will
follow from the disposition of the rejection of claim 1 that
employs Carlson as a primary reference.
Mason provides a snow plow with wedge shaped mold boards (5)
that include hinges (6) and a handle (11 and 14) attached to the
rear thereof, as shown in the drawing figures. Carlson discloses
a snow plow with v-shaped portions (30) with hinge (39) and a
handle (11 and 14) attached to the rear thereof as shown in the
drawing figures of Carlson.
Appeal No. 2004-0890
Application No. 09/754,291
Page 5
Turning to the examiner’s rejections of representative claim
1, appellant does not dispute the examiner’s determination that
the snow plow of each of Mason and Carlson includes structure
corresponding to the claimed wedge-shaped blade having a hinge
and a handle attached to a rear side of the blade. The examiner
additionally relies on Clements and Kim as teaching the use of a
heating element with an ice scraper which, according to the
examiner, would have suggested the attachment of a heating
element to the snow plows of either Mason or Carlson to result in
a structure encompassed by representative claim 1.
It follows that the dispositive issues before us are: (1)
whether the combined teachings of Mason, Clements and Kim would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to add a heating
element to the snow plow of Mason in a manner so as to arrive at
a snow plow embraced by representative claim 1; and (2) whether
the combined teachings of Carlson, Clements and Kim would have
led one of ordinary skill in the art to add a heating element to
the snow plow of Carlson in a manner such that such heating
element addition results in a snow plow corresponding to a snow
plow embraced by representative claim 1? We answer those
questions in the affirmative.
Appeal No. 2004-0890
Application No. 09/754,291
Page 6
It is important to note that representative claim 1 does not
call for any particular type of heating element or any particular
heating element structural features. In this regard, appellant’s
specification (page 2) discloses that a resistance heating
element and a source of heat such as electricity or a carrier
substrate heating element and a chemical composition as a source
of heat may preferably be used. While representative claim 1 is
not limited to either of those described disparate preferred
embodiments, it is clear therefrom that the claimed heating
element includes any type of structure that may be secured to a
bottom edge of the claimed snow plow blade so long as that
structure represents a source of heat. Representative claim 1
requires that such a heating element is secured along only a
bottom edge of the snow plow blade.
Both Kim and Clements teach or suggest that adding heat to a
cleaning edge of an ice scraper enhances removal of ice from
surfaces such as a windshield by softening or loosening the ice.
Kim (column 1, lines 10-19) also discloses that the use of heated
blades on sidewalks and highway surfaces was known in the prior
art.
Given those prior art disclosures, we agree with the
examiner that it would have been prima facie obvious to one of
Appeal No. 2004-0890
Application No. 09/754,291
Page 7
ordinary skill in the art to secure a heating element to only a
bottom of the blades of the snow plows of either Mason or Carlson
to aid in ice/snow removal since that is at the snow contacting
edge where the heat would be desired to be applied in softening
snow/ice to be removed as one of ordinary skill in the art would
readily appreciate.
We agree with the examiner’s comments in the paragraph
bridging pages 9 and 10 of the answer, especially concerning the
prior art disclosure furnished in Kim, which disclosure
effectively disposes of appellant’s erroneous contentions to the
effect that Clements and Kim represent non-analogous art.
Concerning the representative claim 1 requirement that the
heating element is “secured along only a bottom edge of said
blade,” appellant’s arguments are misdirected in focusing on an
alleged lack of such a secured heating element in either Clements
or Kim. This is so since the examiner’s rejections are over the
combined teachings of either Carlson or Mason taken with Clements
or Kim. When looked at in the context of a snow plow as
disclosed by Carlson or Mason, it is manifest that one of
ordinary skill in the art would secure a heating element, such as
suggested by Kim or Clements to the bottom edge of the snow plow
blade since that is the location where securing such an element
Appeal No. 2004-0890
Application No. 09/754,291
Page 8
would be recognized as being most likely to be of assistance to a
user of a snow plow. For example, in arguing against the
combination with the Carlson snow plow, appellant maintains that
removal of the scraper bar (32) of Carlson, which is secured to
the bottom edge of the plow, would be necessary and contrary to
the teachings of Carlson since Carlson employs that scraper bar
to assist “in cleaning snow from a surface.” However, contrary
to appellant’s viewpoint, it is our opinion that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have recognized at the time of the
invention that the removable scraper bar (32) of Carlson is
precisely the location where a heating element would have been
located. Indeed, the collapsible and storable snow plow of
Carlson or at least the detachable scraper bar thereof is clearly
capable of being stored in a garage or other structure which
reasonably would have been maintained at a temperature greater
than the snow to be cleared. As such, the scraper bar (32) of
Carlson would be embraced by the claimed heating element required
by representative claim 1 since no particular type or structure
for the heating element is specified in that representative
claim. In other words stored heat in such a scraper bar would
result in the scraper bar being a heating element as broadly
claimed. Moreover, in light of the teachings of the secondary
Appeal No. 2004-0890
Application No. 09/754,291
Page 9
references, we agree with the examiner that replacement of such a
scraper bar in Carlson with a scraper heating element that has
been modified to include heating means, such as an electric
heating device, would have been suggested by the combined
teachings of the applied references to aid in snow/ice removal.
Similarly, the addition of such a removable scraper/heating
element to the bottom edge of the snow plow blade of Mason would
have been suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art with a
reasonable expectation of success based on the combined teachings
of the applied references, especially given the disclosure in Kim
concerning the prior application of heated blade scrapers in
sidewalk and highway ice clearing. Certainly, it is within the
ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to employ an ice
scraper/heating element structure that is amendable for securing
to a snow plow based on the combined teachings of the applied
references. Thus, appellant’s contention that the sharp leading
edge of the ice scrapers designed for window ice scraping of the
secondary references would not be compatible with a snow plow
structure misses the mark in that one of ordinary skill in the
art would recognize that a different size and type of leading
edge is appropriate for a sidewalk or driveway clearing snow plow
Appeal No. 2004-0890
Application No. 09/754,291
Page 10
than for a hand window scraper. See the prior art described in
the first column of Kim, for example.
We note that appellant bases no arguments on the
presentation of evidence of unexpected results.
In light of the above and for reasons set forth in the
answer, we will sustain all of the examiner’s rejections on this
record.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 7-9, 11,
15-19, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Mason in view of Clements and Kim; to reject claims 2-5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mason in view
of Clements, Kim, and Klima; to reject claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mason in view of Clements,
Kim, and Denker; to reject claims 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mason in view of Clements,
Kim and Sinclair; to reject claims 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Mason in view of Clements, Kim and
Kahley; to reject claims 1-9, 11, 15-19, 21 and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of
Clements and Kim; to reject claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of
Appeal No. 2004-0890
Application No. 09/754,291
Page 11
Clements, Kim and Sinclair; to reject claims 12-14 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carlson in
view of Clements, Kim and Kahley is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PETER F. KRATZ ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ROMULO H. DELMENDO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
PFK/sld
Appeal No. 2004-0890
Application No. 09/754,291
Page 12
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
1100 N GLEBE ROAD
8TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-4714