Ex Parte Kuck et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 23, 2018

14331650 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/331,650 07/15/2014
29673 7590 04/25/2018
STEVENS & SHOWALTER LLP
7019 CORPORATE WAY
DAYTON, OH 45459-4238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
JayL. Kuck
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
CRN505N2A 4791
EXAMINER
BERRY JR, WILLIE WENDELL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2018 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):
PTO@sspatlaw.com
ssllp@speakeasy.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAY L. KUCK and LEE M. WENTE
Appeal2017-006355
Application 14/331,650
Technology Center 3600
Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JILL D. HILL, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1
and 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal2017-006355
Application 14/331,650
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a fork carriage apparatus for a materials
handling vehicle. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1 A materials handling vehicle comprising:
a vehicle power unit;
a monomast coupled to said vehicle power unit; and
a fork carriage apparatus supported on said monomast;
said fork carriage apparatus comprising:
a mast carriage assembly including first and second
side members movably coupled to said monomast, said
mast carriage assembly including upper and lower
elements connected to and extending between said side
members at vertically opposing upper and lower ends of
said side members, and at least one carriage frame member
having opposing ends attached at an engagement location
on each of said side members and extending laterally
across a front side of said monomast and located in
vertically spaced relation between said upper and lower
ends;
a fork carriage mechanism to which forks are mounted;
and
a reach mechanism coupled to and supported on said side
members of said mast carriage assembly, and said reach
mechanism coupled to said fork carriage mechanism for
effecting movement of said fork carriage mechanism
between an extended position and a retracted position, said
reach mechanism including at least one laterally extending
cross member which is located in vertically spaced
relation and intersecting a common vertical plane with
said carriage frame member, said vertical plane extending
in front of and generally parallel to said monomast when
said fork carriage mechanism is in said retracted position,
wherein said carriage frame member extends laterally
across said front side of said monomast at a fixed vertical
location on said mast carriage assembly throughout
2
Appeal2017-006355
Application 14/331,650
movement of said fork carriage mechanism between said
extended and retracted positions.
REJECTION
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Dammeyer (US 5,738,187). 1
OPINION
Appellants have correctly and concisely identified two shortcomings
in the Examiner's rejection, either of which undermines the Examiner's
finding of anticipation. Reply. Br. 2--4.
First, the Examiner appears to have neglected the claim language
"on," replacing it with "to" in order to incorrectly conclude all the carriage
frame member of claim 1 requires is the "the two elements [, the opposing
ends of the frame member and each side member,] being attached." Reply.
Br. 2; Ans. 2. From this incorrect construction the Examiner concludes the
claim limitation in this regard includes indirect attachment. See Ans. 2. All
words, even minor ones, must be considered when judging patentability. In
re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970).
Second, even if the Examiner's position, that the limitation "wherein
said carriage frame member extends laterally across said front side of said
monomast at a fixed vertical location on said mast carriage assembly" is met
"because Dammeyer's carriage frame member (94) is non-detachably
affixed to side members (200) indirectly through elements [234, 256, 208
and 210]" is reasonable, the Examiner's position still appears to ignore the
1 The Examiner appears to have inadvertently included allowed claims 6-9
in the rejection statement. C/Final Act. 2 with 4.
3
Appeal2017-006355
Application 14/331,650
language of the claim requiring such fixation "throughout movement of said
fork. .. " Reply. Br. 4--5. Appellants correctly argue that the [structure
regarded by the Examiner as the recited] "'carriage frame member' 94 of
Dammeyer is vertically movable relative to the mast carriage assembly
(element 70) during extension and retraction of the reach mechanism, as can
be seen, e.g., by comparing Figs. 18, 20, and 22 of Dammeyer." Reply. Br.
4.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Examiner's anticipation
rejection cannot be sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection is reversed.
REVERSED
4