Ex Parte Navarro

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 15, 2006

10775653 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 15, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte STEVE NAVARRO
____________

Appeal No. 2006-1129
Application No. 10/775653
____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before OWENS, CRAWFORD, and FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1 to 14.
Claims 15 to 21 have been withdrawn from consideration.

Appeal No. 2006-1129
Application No. 10/775653

Παγε 2
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a trailer brake and remote control system for
automotive use (specification, p. 1). A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the
appendix to the appellant's brief.
The prior art
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Pyle 4,653,770 Mar. 31, 1987

Admitted Prior art on page 4 of specification (APA)

The rejections

Claims 1, 4, 7, 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Pyle.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 12 to 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Pyle and Applicant's admitted prior art on page 4 of the
specification.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed November 10, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed August 3, 2005) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
Appeal No. 2006-1129
Application No. 10/775653

Παγε 3

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.
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 10 and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Pyle. We initially note that to support a
rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown that each element of the
claim is found, either expressly described or under principles of inherency, in a single
prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ
781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
The examiner's findings in regard to the rejection can be found on page 3 of the
answer.
We will not sustain this rejection because we agree with the appellant that Pyle
does not disclose a trailer hitch which further comprises a kingpin or a sliding
mechanism slidingly captured within the trailer frame, as required by claim 1. Pyle
discloses a kingpin attached to the towing vehicle (col. 1, line 58). In addition, Pyle
discloses a sliding mechanism 16 that is not captured within the trailer frame (see Fig. 6
and 7). Instead, Pyle's sliding mechanism remains within the tractor or truck pulling
Appeal No. 2006-1129
Application No. 10/775653

Παγε 4
the trailer (col. 2, lines 45 to 51). The examiner's argument that Pyle Fig. 7 depicts the
sliding mechanism within the trailer frame is unpersuasive because the mechanism
shown in Pyle Fig. 7 is actually within the truck bed or attached to a tractor, according to
Pyle.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim
1 or claims 4, 7, 10 and 11 dependent thereon.
We turn next to the examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 12 to 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pyle and APA on page 4 of the
specification. The examiner relies on APA for teaching that brake systems are normally
operated with pneumatic, electric or hydraulic energy.
We will not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9.
These claims depend from claim 1 and thus include the subject matter found lacking in
Pyle. APA does not cure the deficiencies found lacking in Pyle. We will likewise not
sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim 12 and claims 13 and 14 dependent
thereon because claim 12 also requires that the hitch comprise the kingpin and that the
sliding mechanism be slidingly captured within the trailer frame.

Appeal No. 2006-1129
Application No. 10/775653

Παγε 5
The decision of the examiner is reversed.

TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANTON W. FETTING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2006-1129
Application No. 10/775653

Παγε 6
LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY M. BARLOW
P.O. BOX 523272
SPRINGFIELD, VA 22152

MEC/lg
Comment [jvn1]: Type address