Ex Parte Meeker

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 15, 2008

10184361 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 15, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte PAUL K. MEEKER
__________

Appeal 2008-0043
Application 10/184,361
Technology Center 3600
__________

Decided: February 15, 2008
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, ERIC GRIMES, and JEFFREY N.
FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a step
stool, which the Examiner has rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm in part.

Appeal 2008-0043
Application 10/184,361

BACKGROUND
“Step stools have a step frame and one or more steps that people use
for elevation when reaching for objects, painting walls, or any everyday task
where extra elevation would be helpful” (Spec. 1). According to the
Specification, “[s]tep frames are often foldable for ease of storage when the
step stool is not being used” (Spec. 1).
Appellant teaches that
a step stool includes a step frame and a handrail movable
relative to the step frame between lowered and raised
positions. The handrail includes a handle and splayed left
and right handle support arms coupled to the handle to allow
sliding movement of the handle relative to the left and right
handle supports as the handrail is moved relative to the step
frame between the lowered and raised positions.

(Spec. 1.)
The Claims
Claims 1-7, 16-18 and 20-25 are on appeal. The Examiner has
withdrawn the rejections of dependent claims 8-15 and 19 (Ans. 6). The
claimed subject matter is reflected in representative claims 1, 4, 21, and 23
which read as follows:
1. A step stool comprising
a frame including two front legs, a left leg and a right leg,
arranged to lie in non-parallel relation,
steps coupled to the frame,
one rear leg pivotally coupled above all of the steps to one of
the two front legs, and
a movable handrail including a left handle support arm mounted
for movement in upward and downward directions along and collinear
with and slidably engaging the outside between the front and back of
the left leg, a right handle support arm mounted for movement in
2
Appeal 2008-0043
Application 10/184,361

upward and downward directions along and collinear with and
slidably engaging the outside between the front and back of the right
leg, a handle, and means for slidably coupling the handle to the left
and right handle support arms to cause a left end of the handle to
extend into a left-end opening formed in the left handle support arm
and a right end of the handle to extend into a right-end opening
formed in the right handle support arm to produce an exposed portion
of the handle in a position between the left and right handle support
arms and to support the handle for sliding movement relative to at
least one of the left and right handle support arms so that an effective
length of the exposed portion is maximized upon downward
movement of the left and right handle support arms relative to the
non-parallel left and right legs of the frame to establish a lowered
position of the movable handrail on the frame and is minimized upon
upward movement of the left and right handle support arms relative to
the left and right legs of the frame to establish a raised position of the
movable handrail on the frame.

4. The step stool of claim 3, wherein the handle mount is elbow-
shaped and includes a base segment arranged to lie at the obtuse angle
relative to the lateral segment and coupled to an upper end of the
elongated upright segment.

21. A step stool comprising
a frame having legs pivotally joined at a first end,
steps coupled to the frame and all of the steps located between
the first end and a second end of the legs,
a movable handrail including a handle having a left end and a
right end, a left handle support arm formed to include a handle
receiver arranged to receive the left end of the handle for slidable
movement therein, and a right handle support arm formed to include a
handle receiver arranged to receive the right end of the handle for
slidable movement therein, the left and right handle support arms
being mounted on the frame for downward movement slidably
engaging the frame to establish a lowered position relative to the
frame and for upward movement to establish a raised position relative
to the frame, and a lock mechanism mounted on one of the handle
support arms to move with the one of the handle support arms and
3
Appeal 2008-0043
Application 10/184,361

engage one of the legs in selected positions to anchor the handrail on
the frame.

23. The step stool of claim 21, wherein the lock mechanism includes a
pull knob coupled to a bo1t adapted to pass through an aperture in the
one of the legs to lock and unlock the handle rail to the frame.

The Issues
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Cloyes US 294,199 Feb. 26, 1884
Miller US 376,102 Jan. 10, 1888
Corduan US 656,946 Aug. 28, 1900
Meier US 2,208,266 Jul. 16, 1940
Hedglon US 2,614,744 Oct. 21, 1952
Ledgerwood US 2,923,373 Feb. 2, 1960
Schlecht US 3,305,045 Feb. 21, 1967
Callahan US 4,320,816 Mar. 23, 1982

Locksley GB 680,931 Oct. 15, 1952

The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
A. Claims 1-7, 16-18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
being obvious over Locksley, Miller, Meier, Ledgerwood, and Hedglon.
B. Claims 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being obvious over
Locksley, Miller, Meier, Ledgerwood, Hedglon, and Callahan.
C. Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being
obvious over Locksley, Miller, Meier, Hedglon, and Schlecht.
D. Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being
obvious over Corduan, Miller, Meier, and Hedglon.
4
Appeal 2008-0043
Application 10/184,361

E. Claims 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being obvious
over Corduan, Miller, Meier, Hedglon, and Cloyes.
A. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Locksley, Miller, Meier, Ledgerwood, and
Hedglon
The Examiner’s position is that
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to modify Locksley
to comprise a rear leg pivotally connected above all his
steps, as taught by Miller or Meier, to enhance stability of
his step stool, and to locate his hand rails supports on the
outer side of his legs, as taught by Ledgerwood, to enable a
wider spacing between his hand rails supports and to
comprise a hand rail coupled to angled rail supports, as
taught by Hedglon, for slidable receiving the handrail to the
hand rail supports off set from the rail supporting members.

(Ans. 4).
Appellant argues that “[a]t the very least some redesign of the
elements of Locksley would be necessary to incorporate Miller's or Meier's
pivot above the steps. In both Miller and Meier the legs are in parallel
planes and can be coupled via a pin so that the legs pivot in their parallel
planes about the pin” (App. Br. 6). Appellant further argues “there is no
basis, other than impermissible hindsight, for the suggestion of rearranging
Locksley's structure to have legs pivotally coupled above all of the steps as
recited in applicant's claim 1” (App. Br. 7).
Appellant further contends that “[a]t least because Locksley's supports
are on the inside, not the outside, Locksley and Ledgerwood cannot combine
to arrive at the claimed invention as recited in claim 1” (App. Br. 7).
5
Appeal 2008-0043
Application 10/184,361

In view of these conflicting positions, we frame the issue before us as
follows:
Would it have been obvious to an ordinary artisan to incorporate a
pivot, telescoping joint and exterior handrail supports into the stepladder of
Locksley in view of the teachings of Miller, Meier, Ledgerwood, and
Hedglon?
Findings of Fact
1. Locksley teaches a step stool ladder comprising a frame
including two front legs which are arranged in a non-parallel relationship or
“tapered ladder” (Locksley 1:76-77; fig. 1).
2. Locksley teaches a step stool ladder with steps that are coupled
to the frame (Locksley, fig. 1).
3. Locksley discloses a step stool ladder with a rear leg that is
coupled to the front legs (see Locksley, fig. 1).
4. Locksley teaches a “horizontal guard rail carried by a pair of
telescopic supports secured or adapted to be secured to the ladder sides and
which in use can be extended to the required height above the top step of the
ladder and firmly secured” (Locksley 1:21-26; fig. 1).
5. Miller teaches a step ladder with a rear leg that is pivotally
coupled above all the steps to the front legs (Miller 1:52-56; fig. 1).
6. Meier teaches a step ladder with a rear leg that is pivotally
coupled above all the steps to the front legs (Meier 2:3-26; fig. 1).
7. Ledgerwood teaches an extensible platform apparatus with “a
pair of platforms which are extensible above the ladder for the truck in a
direction parallel to the incline of the ladder” (Ledgerwood 1:54-57; fig. 1).
6
Appeal 2008-0043
Application 10/184,361

8. Ledgerwood teaches a “collapsible step and platforms are
carried at each end by a telescopic extension mechanism slidably mounted in
one of the uprights for the main truck ladder. Each of the extension
mechanisms include three concentrically arranged support members”
(Ledgerwood 2:14-18; fig. 1).
9. Ledgerwood discloses that the supports for the telescopic
mechanism are located within the frame, noting “A hand rail 67 is provided
on each side of the ladder. The hand rails are secured at their bottom ends to
the base of the truck and are held outwardly from the top of the ladder by
braces 69” (Ledgerwood 3:72-75; fig. 2, 5).
10. Hedglon teaches angled supports which receive a handrail
(Hedglon 1:47-51, fig. 1).
11. Hedglon discloses a mount on the step stool which is elbow
shaped (see Hedglon, fig. 4, element 13).
12. Hedglon discloses that the mount is bent at an obtuse angle
relative to the lateral segment and can be coupled to an upper end of the
elongated upright segment (see Hedglon, fig. 4, where the mount is attached
to the step stool of fig. 2).
13. Schlect discloses a ladder having a telescoping handle with a
lock mechanism mounted on it to move with the handle and engage ladder
side or rail in selected positions to anchor the handle on the ladder (see
Schlecht 1:53-64 and fig. 5).
Discussion of § 103(a) over Locksley, Miller, Meier, Ledgerwood, and
Hedglon
We begin by interpreting the claims. See, e.g., In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d
1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are
7
Appeal 2008-0043
Application 10/184,361

given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification.”). Claim 1 requires that the handrail has a left handle support
arm that is “mounted for movement in upward and downward directions
along and colinear with and slidably engaging the outside between the front
and back of the left leg”. Claim 1 also requires a right handle support arm
that is also “mounted for movement in upward and downward directions
along and colinear with and slidably engaging the ouside between the front
and back of the right leg”.
The clear language of the claim requires that the handrail is mounted
“outside” the left and right sides of the legs (see claim 1). Since the claim
has already established a front and back orientation, the only reasonable
interpretation of this claim requirement consistent with the language of
claim 1 is that the handrail is mounted “outside” the legs as viewed from the
front or back of the ladder.
Applying this intepretation to the prior art, it is clear that none of the
cited art shows handrails that are mounted “outside” the legs when viewed
from the front of the ladder. While Locksley teaches a tapered stepstool (see
FF 1-3), the Locksley handrails are not mounted “outside” of the legs when
viewed from the front or back of the ladder (see Locksley, fig. 1). Miller
and Meier teach ladders with pivot points, but do not disclose ladders with
handrails “outside” the legs (FF 5-6).
We disagree with the Examiner’s conclusion that “Ledgerwood shows
ladder legs 12, 13 with tray supports 83 mounted on the outer side of the
ladder legs” (Ans. 4). While the handrails of Ledgerwood are not mounted
within the ladder legs, they are not “outside” the legs when viewed from the
8
Appeal 2008-0043
Application 10/184,361

front or back of the ladder as required by claim 1 (see FF 7-9). Ledgerwood
shows handrails mounted in front of the legs, not “between the front and
back” of the legs as required by claim 1. Consequently, Ledgerwood does
not support the obviousness rejection. The final reference, Hedglon, also
shows handrails in the same orientation as that of Ledgerwood, and these
handrails are not “between the front and back of the left leg” or “between the
front and back of the right leg” as required by claim 1.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-7, 16-
18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Locksley,
Miller, Meier, Ledgerwood, and Hedglon.
B. § 103(a) over Locksley, Miller, Meier, Ledgerwood, Hedglon and
Callahan
Since we have already concluded that the combination of Locksley,
Miller, Meier, Ledgerwood, and Hedglon fails to teach or suggest a handrail
which is “outside” the legs as required by claim 1, and since Callahan does
not disclose such a handrail, we also reverse the rejection of claim 4 over
Locksley, Miller, Meier, Ledgerwood, Hedglon, and Callahan.
C. § 103(a) over Locksley, Miller, Meier, Hedglon, and Schlecht.
In analyzing claim 21, this claim lacks the limitation in claim 1 that
the handrail is located “outside” the legs (see claim 21). Consequently, we
agree with the Examiner that the prior art teaches the elements of claim 21
(Ans. 6). Locksley teaches a ladder with a frame and legs with steps
coupled to the frame (FF 1-3). Locksley also teaches a movable handrail
with receivers that can be slidably moved and which are mounted on the
frame (FF 4). Adjusting the step stool of Locksley to incorporate pivot
points as taught in the step stools of Miller and Meier and the lock
9
Appeal 2008-0043
Application 10/184,361

mechanism taught by Schlect is a predictable variant of the step stool of
Locksley (FF 1-6).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “[a]t the very
least some redesign of the elements of Locksley would be necessary to
incorporate Miller's or Meier's pivot above the steps” (App. Br. 6).
Attaching the rear leg of the Locksley ladder to the front leg by a pivot as
taught by Miller or Meier instead of by screws as shown in Locksley would
not change the basic principles of operation of Locksley's ladder to a degree
suggesting nonobviousness. As the Supreme Court noted, “A person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”
KSR v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742 (2007). We think ordinary
creativity would have permitted the substituion of a known pivot connection
for step stools for the screws used by Locksley (FF 1-6).
We also disagree with Appellant’s conclusion regarding the rejection
of claims 21 and 22 over Locksley, Miller, Meier, Hedglon, and Schlecht
that “[i]t makes no sense to replace Locksley’s spring plug locking
mechanism with Schelcht’s [sic] pin 11 fixed to the interior of the
telescoping member” (App. Br. 16). The two locking mechanisms represent
known alternatives in the art. “Express suggestion to substitute one
equivalent for another need not be present to render such substitution
obvious.” In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982). We therefore affirm
the rejection of claim 21 over Locksley, Miller, Meier, Hedglon, and
Schlecht. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2006), we also affirm the
rejection of claim 22, as this claim was not argued separately.
10
Appeal 2008-0043
Application 10/184,361

D. § 103(a) over Corduan, Miller, Meier, and Hedglon.
The Examiner contends that “Corduan shows the claimed step stool
with the exception of the rear leg being pivotally coupled above all the steps,
[and] the slidable connected handle” (Ans. 5). The Examiner relies upon
Miller and Meier to teach a pivot and Hedglon to show the movable handrail
(Ans. 6).
The Appellant argues “there is no basis, other than impermissible
hindsight, for the suggestion of rearranging Corduan's structure to have legs
pivotally coupled at an end of the legs spaced from all of the steps as recited
in applicant's claim” (App. Br. 16). Appellant also argues that “Providing
Heglon's slidable connected handle makes no sense in Corduan since 1)
there would be no sliding of the handle as it moved up and down, and 2)
how would one provide Heglon's handle in Corduan without destroying
Corduan's receptacle D?” (App. Br. 17).
In view of these conflicting positions, we frame the issue before us as
follows:
Would it have been obvious to an ordinary artisan to incorporate a
pivot and exterior handrail supports into the stepladder of Corduan in view
of the teachings of Miller, Meier, and Hedglon?
Findings of Fact
14. Corduan teaches a stepladder with a frame and steps coupled to
the frame (Corduan, fig. 1).
15. Corduan teaches that all of the steps are located between a first
end and a second end of the legs (Corduan, fig. 1).
11
Appeal 2008-0043
Application 10/184,361

16. Corduan teaches “one purpose of the improvement is to
arrange, guide and support in a simple and effective manner one or two
movable hand-rails, which will serve to remove a source of danger when
going to the top of the ladder” (Corduan 1:78-82).
17. Corduan discloses that the handrails can slidably move along
the frame (Corduan, fig. 1).
18. Corduan teaches a lock mechanism in which “a slotted or
slitted curved metallic strip is attached to the side piece for receiving the pin
which sustains the handrails in an elevated position” (Corduan 1:41-44).
Discussion of § 103(a) over Corduan, Miller, Meier, and Hedglon
We agree with the Examiner that Corduan, Miller, Meier and Hedglon
teach the elements of claim 21 (see Ans. 6). Corduan teaches a stepladder
with a movable handrail and a lock mechanism (FF 13-17). Miller and
Meier teach the use of pivots in ladders (FF 5-6). Adjusting the step stool of
Corduan to incorporate pivot points as taught in the step stools of Miller and
Meier is a predictable variant of the step stool of Corduan (FF 5-6, 13-17).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “[a]t the very
least some redesign of the elements of Corduan would be necessary to
incorporate Miller's or Meier's pivot above the steps” (App. Br. 16). As
with the rejection over Locksley, we think that attaching the rear leg of the
Corduan ladder to the front leg by a pivot as taught by Miller or Meier
instead of by the attachment shown in Corduan would not change the basic
principles of operation of Corduan’s ladder. As the Supreme Court noted,
“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742 (2007). We think ordinary creativity
would have permitted the substitution of a known pivot connection for step
12
Appeal 2008-0043
Application 10/184,361

stools for the attachment of Corduan. We affirm the rejection of claim 21
over Corduan, Miller, Meier, and Hedglon. Pursuant to
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2006), we also affirm the rejection of claim 22, as this
claim was not argued separately.
E. § 103(a) over Corduan, Miller, Meier, Hedglon, and Cloyes
Findings of Fact
19. Cloyes teaches a telescopic connection in which a pull knob is
coupled to a pin which passses through a hole in one of the legs to lock and
unlock an extension to the stool frame (Cloyes 1:50-65, fig. 1).
Discussion of § 103(a) over Corduan, Miller, Meier, Hedglon, and Cloyes
We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to
substitute the locking mechanism of Cloyes for the locking mechanism used
in Corduan (see FF 13-18). “The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by
a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.”
KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741 (2007). The KSR court noted that “if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way,
using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or
her skill.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740 (2007). We agree with the Examiner that
improvement of the step stool of Corduan by applying features found in the
other prior art step stools of Miller, Meier, Hedglon and Cloyes would have
been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art.
We also reject Appellant’s argument that Corduan teaches away from
the combination because removal of the pins would render the rails
unattached and the step stool would become unstable (see App. Br. 17).
This argument reduces the ordinary practitioner to an automaton, who
13
Appeal 2008-0043
Application 10/184,361

combines the elements without thought or logic. “A person of ordinary skill
is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at
1742 (2007). We think ordinary creativity would have permitted the
modification of the Corduan step stool to include a locking mechanism
shown by Cloyes and to incorporate that locking mechanism without
rendering the step stool of Corduan less functional. We affirm the rejection
of claim 23 over Corduan, Miller, Meier, Hedglon, and Cloyes. Pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2006), we also affirm the rejection of claims 24
and 25, as these claims were not argued separately.
SUMMARY
We reverse the rejections of claims 1-7, 16-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Locksley, Miller, Meier, Ledgerwood,
and Hedglon. We also reverse the rejection of claim 4 over Locksley,
Miller, Meier, Ledgerwood, Hedglon, and Callahan. We affirm the rejection
of claim 21 over Locksley, Miller, Meier, Hedglon, and Schlecht. Pursuant
to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2006), we also affirm the rejection of claim
22, as this claim was not argued separately. We affirm the rejection of claim
21 over Corduan, Miller, Meier, and Hedglon. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2006), we also affirm the rejection of claim 22, as this
claim was not argued separately. We affirm the rejection of claim 23 over
Corduan, Miller, Meier, Hedglon, and Cloyes. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2006), we also affirm the rejection of claims 24 and 25, as
these claims were not argued separately.

14
Appeal 2008-0043
Application 10/184,361

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)(iv)(2006).

AFFIRMED IN PART

Ssc:

BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
11 SOUTH MERIDIAN
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
15