Ex Parte ONO

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 23, 2003

09091788 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 23, 2003)

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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 47
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte KENJI ONO
____________
Appeal No. 2004-0260
Application No. 09/091,788
____________
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 2 and 5-
14, which are all of the claims pending in this application.
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 2004-0260
Application No. 09/091,788
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a self-propelled vehicle which can be driven
with an operator riding on the vehicle or with an operator not riding on the vehicle.
Further understanding of appellant’s invention can be obtained from a reading of
representative claim 14, which is reproduced in the appendix to the appellant's brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting
the appealed claims:
Brandenfels 4,750,578 Jun. 14, 1988
Brown 5,010,973 Apr. 30, 1991
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 14, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Brandenfels.
Claims 7, 9 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brandenfels in view of Brown.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 45) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief (Paper No. 43) 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
Appeal No. 2004-0260
Application No. 09/091,788
Page 3
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 14, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 10-12 as
being anticipated by Brandenfels. Simply stated, Brandenfels lacks disclosure of a
vehicle comprising a driving portion which can be selectively switched between a
forward driving mode and a backward driving mode and which drives the vehicle
forward when the driving portion is in the forward driving mode and drives the vehicle
backward when the driving portion is in the backward driving mode, as called for in
independent claim 14. Brandenfels’ driving portion, as discussed in column 5, lines 4-
38, comprises a motor 136 which drives a pulley 140 which in turn drives a belt 144
entrained about a pulley 142 on the wheel 82 of the vehicle. The belt 144 is arranged
to normally slip in a nondriving relation such that the wheel 82 is normally freewheeling
and power drive of the wheel is accomplished by depressing an operator lever 156
which, via cable 154, actuates a belt tightener 148. Depression of the lever 156 also
simultaneously closes the circuit to the motor. Consequently, “when the lever 156 is
depressed by the operator, the belt is tightened and the wheel is powered, and when
the lever 156 is released, power to the wheel is shut off and the belt tightener is
released, thus allowing slippage of the belt and freewheeling of wheel 82" (column 5,
lines 33-38). This drive arrangement does not appear to provide any means for
switching between a forward driving mode, wherein the driving portion drives the vehicle
Appeal No. 2004-0260
Application No. 09/091,788
Page 4
forward, and a backward driving mode, wherein the driving portion drives the vehicle
backward.
The examiner’s reliance on the disclosure in Brandenfels in column 6, lines 44-
48, for a teaching of this bi-directional drive capability is misplaced. Specifically,
Brandenfels discloses that
[t]he cart can also be used as a dolly, as shown in FIG. 4, for
carrying luggage L, by unlatching the handle from its upright
position and pivoting it forward so that the user can guide
the cart. The user can push or pull the cart or can use the
hand lever 156 to power it.
The disclosure that the user can push or pull the cart, in either a forward or backward
direction, does not constitute a teaching of a driving portion which drives the vehicle
forward in a forward driving mode and backward in a backward driving mode. Rather,
this is a teaching of forward and backward movement in a non-drive mode. The further
disclosure that the user can use the hand lever 156 to power the vehicle or dolly is
silent about selective driving in forward and backward driving modes and, in light of the
disclosed drive arrangement discussed above, would seem to refer to drive in a single
direction only.
Appeal No. 2004-0260
Application No. 09/091,788
Page 5
1 Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under
the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other words, there must be
no difference between the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of
ordinary skill in the field of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d
1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the subject matter of claim 14 is not
anticipated1 by Brandenfels. It follows that we shall not sustain the anticipation
rejection of claim 14 or claims 2, 5, 6, 8 and 10-12 depending therefrom.
The additional teachings of Brown provide no cure for the deficiency of
Brandenfels noted above. We therefore also shall not sustain the rejection of claims 7,
9 and 13 as being unpatentable over Brandenfels in view of Brown.
CONCLUSION
Appeal No. 2004-0260
Application No. 09/091,788
Page 6
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2 and 5-14 is
reversed.
REVERSED
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. 2004-0260
Application No. 09/091,788
Page 7
Burr & Brown
PO Box 7068
Syracuse, NY 13261-7068