Ex Parte Miknich

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 12, 2008

10283820 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 12, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHARLES MIKNICH
____________

Appeal 2008-1622
Application 10/283,820
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: March 12, 2008
____________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and
RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. The Examiner has
objected to claim 3 and indicated that claims 10-20 are allowable (App. Br.
1). This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves claims 1, 2, and 4-9. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2008-1622
Application 10/283,820

INTRODUCTION
The claims are directed to a hunting blind for mounting on a boat
having a gunwale, a bow, a stern, and motor. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A hunting blind for mounting on a boat having a
gunwale, a bow, a stern and a motor comprising:
a) a shell having an open top, a front, a back, a right side
and a left side, removably secured to said gunwale;
b) a top cover, slidably attached to said shell;
c) a pair of removable clamshell covers; and
d) a means for hingably securing said pair of clamshell
covers to the bow of said boat.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference to show
unpatentability:
Mycroft US 3,280,785 Oct. 25, 1966

The rejection as presented by the Examiner is as follows:
Claims 1, 2, and 4-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Mycroft.
We reverse.

2
Appeal 2008-1622
Application 10/283,820

DISCUSSION
For clarity, we reproduce Mycroft’s figures 1 and 3 below:

“FIGURE 1 is a perspective view of [an] amphibious vehicle structure
constructed in accordance with the invention [of Mycroft] with the wheels
down and the wheel fairings in position for land travel” (Mycroft, col. 2, ll.
27-30). “FIGURE 3 is a transverse section of [a] . . . portion of the vehicle
. . . with one door of the roof and door structure partly open and the other
door fully open” (Mycroft, col. 2, ll. 34-38).
The Examiner finds that Mycroft discloses:
1. “a hunting blind for mounting on a boat 10 having a gunwale 54, a bow, a
stern and a motor” (Ans. 3);
2. a “shell having an open top, a front, a back, a right side and left side,
removably secured to said gunwale[, which] is made up of the windshield
and fixed roof portion 32” (id.);
3. an open top in the shell “covered by top cover roof and door structure 12”
(id.);
4. a top cover “slidably attached to the shell” (id.);
5. a “pair of removable clamshell covers [(e.g., doors)] . . . 44 and 46” (id.);
3
Appeal 2008-1622
Application 10/283,820

6. “[t]he means for hingably securing the pair of clamshell covers [(doors)]
44 and 46 to the bow of the boat are the forward hinges of hinges 48 and 50”
(id.); and
7. the clamshell covers (e.g. doors) 44 and 46 “are ‘hingably secured to the
bow of the amphibious vehicle … through hinges 48 and 50, roof and door
structure 12, and the body of the boat’” (Ans. 6).
Claim 1 is reproduced above. Claims 2 and 4-9 depend directly or
indirectly from claim 1. Appellant asserts that Mycroft’s doors 44 and 46
“are not hingably attached to [the] bow [(front)] of the boat” (App. Br. 5)
and, in contrast to the Examiner’s assertion (Ans. 3), Mycroft does not
disclose a means for “hingably” securing the doors to the bow (App. Br. 6).
In response the Examiner asserts that “none of the appealed claims
define hinge parts to be mounted on the bow of the boat” (Ans. 8) and that
“[c]laim 1 does not define the clamshell covers as being hingably attached to
the bow of the boat” (Ans. 9). In this regard, the Examiner reasons that
hinges 48 and 50 of Mycroft hingably secure the doors “44 and 46 to the
roof and door structure 12, and [the] roof and door structure 12 secure the
hinges 48 and 50 and the . . . [doors] 44 and 46 to the bow of the amphibious
vehicle” (Ans. 8). While all of this may be true, as the Examiner recognizes,
hinges 48 and 50 hingably secure doors 44 and 46 to the roof and door
structure 12.
As Mycroft’s Fig. 1 illustrates, the roof and door structure 12 are not
at the front or bow of the vehicle. The limitation at issue in claim 1 requires
“a means for hingably securing said pair of clamshell covers to the bow of
said boat” (Claim 1). Hingably securing doors to the roof and door structure
12 as taught by Mycroft is not a means for hingably securing a pair of
4
Appeal 2008-1622
Application 10/283,820

clamshell covers to the bow of a boat. No doubt that Mycroft’s roof and
door structure 12 are ultimately attached in some indirect manner to the front
or bow of the vehicle, however, one would not reasonably understand this
configuration to read on the claimed “means for hingably securing” a pair of
clamshell covers or doors to the front or bow of the vehicle. To the contrary,
such a configuration reads on a means for hingably securing a pair of doors
to the roof and door structure 12 which are not located at the bow of
Mycroft’s vehicle.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-9 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Mycroft.

CONCLUSION
In summary, we reverse the rejection of record.

REVERSED

Ssc:

MICHAEL TAVELLA
2051 BRIGADIER DRIVE
ANCHORAGE, AK 99507
5