Ex Parte Loyd

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 14, 2005

09867859 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 14, 2005)

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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte TRAVIS G. LOYD
____________
Appeal No. 2005-0194
Application No. 09/867,859
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before COHEN, MCQUADE and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1-18,
which are all of the claims pending in this application.
We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a system and process for supplying power to
a marine vessel comprising a retractable cord for conveying power for charging on-
Appeal No. 2005-0194
Application No. 09/867,859
Page 2
board batteries (specification, page 1). A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in
the appendix to the appellant's brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting
the appealed claims:
Neidenberg 3,604,381 Sep. 14, 1971
Race 3,769,926 Nov. 6, 1973
Nilssen 5,510,694 Apr. 23, 1996
Edwards et al. (Edwards) 5,671,833 Sep. 30, 1997
McNaught 5,803,216 Sep. 8, 1998
Rubin 5,816,870 Oct. 6, 1998
Davidson 6,263,825 Jul. 24, 2001
(filed Feb. 1, 1999)
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1-3, 9, 10, 13 and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Rubin in view of Neidenberg.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Rubin in view of Neidenberg and Davidson.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin
in view of Neidenberg and Nilssen.
Claims 7, 8, 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Rubin in view of Neidenberg and Race.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Rubin in view of Neidenberg, McNaught and Edwards.
Appeal No. 2005-0194
Application No. 09/867,859
Page 3
1 We find it implausible, however, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have immediately
envisaged a power cord for connection to shore power.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the
supplemental answer (Paper No. 16) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections and to the brief (Paper No. 13) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Rubin discloses an electric drive system for a boat and, more particularly, for
sailboats. The drive system includes battery chargers 6, 9 and batteries 4, 8 housed on
the boat, with the battery chargers being connected to shore power through a shore
power connector 5. Rubin does not disclose the details of the connection between the
battery chargers and shore power and thus lacks the retractable cord device called for
in independent claims 1 and 13.1
Neidenberg discloses a device for handling heavy-duty power cables to facilitate
their storage when not in use and, more particularly, to a device for handling power
cables employed to connect a power system of a boat to shore facilities while storing
Appeal No. 2005-0194
Application No. 09/867,859
Page 4
the cable during nonuse. The device includes a storage compartment 12 arranged
within the boat and means for driving the cable into and out of the compartment
according to the necessity of periodically connecting same to a stationary power source,
the cable driving device comprising a large main drive roller 25 driven by a reversible
electric motor 27. One end of the cable is permanently attached to a junction box on
the boat, while the other end includes a suitable electrical coupling 20 for connection to
a shore power outlet.
We agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention to provide a retractable power cable
and power cable handling device as taught by Neidenberg on Rubin’s boat to connect
Rubin’s battery chargers to shore power as disclosed by Rubin and illustrated in Figures
1 and 2 thereof when needed and to facilitate storage of such cable when not in use.
We appreciate appellant’s arguments on pages 8 and 9 of the brief that Rubin does not
disclose a cord and Neidenberg does not disclose batteries. We see nothing in these
aspects of the references, however, which leads us to believe that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have overlooked the evident advantages and applicability of
Neidenberg’s power cable handling device on Rubin’s boat for facilitating connection to
and disconnection from shore power and storage of the cable when not in use.
Appellant points out on page 9 of the brief that Neidenberg issued in 1971,
approximately 30 years prior to the filing of appellant’s application, and that the fact that,
in that time span, no one combined a battery, battery charger and retractable cord is
Appeal No. 2005-0194
Application No. 09/867,859
Page 5
additional evidence that the claimed invention is not obvious over the prior art.
However, it is well established that the mere age of the references is not persuasive of
the unobviousness of the combination of their teachings, absent evidence that,
notwithstanding knowledge of the references, the art tried and failed to solve the
problem. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127, 193 USPQ 332, 335 (CCPA 1977); In re
Neal, 481 F.2d 1346, 1347, 179 USPQ 56, 57 (CCPA 1973); In re McGuire, 416 F.2d
1322, 1327, 163 USPQ 417, 421 (CCPA 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 989 (1970).
Appellant has provided no such evidence in this case.
We also affirm the rejections of claims 4 and 5 as being unpatentable over Rubin
in view of Neidenberg and Davidson, claim 6 as being unpatentable over Rubin in view
of Neidenberg and Nilssen, claims 7, 8, 14 and 15 as being unpatentable over Rubin in
view of Neidenberg and Race and claims 11 and 12 as being unpatentable over Rubin
in view of Neidenberg, McNaught and Edwards since the appellant has not challenged
such with any reasonable specificity (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2
USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Appeal No. 2005-0194
Application No. 09/867,859
Page 6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. MCQUADE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2005-0194
Application No. 09/867,859
Page 7
JENKINS & GILCHRIST, P.C.
225 WEST WASHINGTON ST.
SUITE 2600
CHICAGO, IL 60606