Ex Parte Renner

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 2, 2010

10554003 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 2, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte DETLEF RENNER
____________________

Appeal 2009-006090
Application 10/554,003
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Decided: March 2, 2010
____________________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Detlef Renner (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the final rejection of claims 17-25 and 28-35. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

Appeal 2009-006090
Application 10/554,003

2
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to devices for displacing gas
turbines during maintenance (Spec. 1: para. [0001]).
Claims 17, 25, 34 and 35, reproduced below, are representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
17. A device for displacing gas turbines or gas
turbine modules, comprising a gas turbine
conveying device, the conveying device being
raisable to a raised state and lowerable to a
lowered state, the conveying device configured to
support and move a gas turbine or gas turbine
module when the conveying device is in the raised
state.

25. A device for displacing gas turbines or gas
turbine modules, comprising:
a gas turbine conveying device;
a holding device for supporting a gas turbine
or gas turbine module, the holding device
cooperating with the conveying device such that
the holding device, and the gas turbine or gas
turbine module supported thereon, are movable by
moving the conveying device.

34. A method for displacing gas turbines or gas
turbine modules, comprising the steps of:
raising a conveying device into a raised state
such that a gas turbine or gas turbine module to be
moved is raised, and
moving the conveying device such that the
gas turbine or gas turbine module is moved.

Appeal 2009-006090
Application 10/554,003

3
35. A method for displacing gas turbines or gas
turbine modules, comprising
supporting a gas turbine or gas turbine
module to be moved on a holding device;
moving the holding device and the gas
turbine or gas turbine module by moving a
conveying device which is cooperatively engaged
with the holding device.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Shyr US 5,743,375 Apr. 28, 1998

The following rejections by the Examiner are before us for review:
1. Claims 17, 18, 20-25, 28-32, 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Shyr.
2. Claims 19 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shyr.

ISSUES
The issues before us are:
(1) whether the Examiner erred in finding that Shyr describes a gas
turbine conveyor as called for in independent claims 17 and 25, that is,
whether the words “gas turbine” before the word “conveyor” imparts
patentability to claims 17 and 25 (App. Br. 4);
(2) whether the Examiner erred in finding that Shyr describes a
conveying device that is raised or lowered pneumatically as called for in
claim 23 (App. Br. 5);
Appeal 2009-006090
Application 10/554,003

4
(3) whether the Examiner erred in finding that Shyr describes that
(1) “the lifting device [is] configured to raise and lower the gas turbine . . .
when the conveying device is immobilized” as called for in claim 30 (App.
Br. 5); and (2) “the lifting device is configured to raise and lower the holding
device as well as the gas turbine . . . when the conveying device is
immobilized” as called for in claim 31 (App. Br. 5);
(4) whether the Examiner erred in finding that Shyr describes a
lifting device “situated in an area of each work station” as called for in claim
32 (App. Br. 5);
(5) whether the Examiner erred in finding that Shyr describes a gas
turbine as called for in claims 34 and 35 (App. Br. 6);
(6) whether the Examiner erred in concluding that it would have
been obvious to have the conveying device of Shyr “integrated into a floor
of a workshop” as called for in claim 19 (App. Br. 6); and
(7) whether the Examiner erred in concluding that it would have
been obvious to use a hydraulic lifting device in Shyr based on design and
space parameters for Shyr’s apparatus (App. Br. 7).

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings are supported by at
least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d
1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for
proceedings before the Office).
The Examiner’s Findings
1. The Examiner finds that in Shyr, “[t]he claimed structural elements
are clearly depicted on the previously attached cover sheet and
Appeal 2009-006090
Application 10/554,003

5
drawing figure 2[1], with one exception, pneumatic lifting (as
indicated at 91) was in error, however, the lifting chain device 71
contains eccentric cams 34 and 35 which perform the lifting
function.” (emphasis added) (Ans. 3).
2. The Examiner, in the cover sheet, points to Shyr as describing a
holding device, and as inherently including work stations. (See
Fact 1 and footnote1).
3. The Examiner finds that in regards to the device claims, “[t]he
mere claiming of a ‘gas turbine’ in front of a conveyor does not
add a patentable departure from the device of Shyr et al.” (Ans. 4).
4. The Examiner finds that “[t]he same argument holds true for the
method claims[2].” (See Fact 3) (Ans. 4).
5. The Examiner finds that Shyr describes all of the limitations called
for in claims 19 and 33, except that Shyr does not describe “having
the conveyor integrated into the floor [claim 19] and using a
hydraulic means to lift his [sic] chain conveyor [claim 33].” (Ans.
4).
6. The Examiner concludes that in regards to claims 19 and 33,
it would have been an obvious matter of design
choice as to what type of known lifting device
is used [claim 33] or on what type of surface
the device is placed [claim 19] based on the
exact design parameters of the specific
invention at hand. Such design parameters
would depend on (a) the space available for the

1 The previously attached cover sheet and drawing figure 2 referenced above
was attached to the non-final Office action mailed April 17, 2007.
2 Claims 34 and 35.
Appeal 2009-006090
Application 10/554,003

6
device, (b) the weight of the articles and (c) the
power required to raise the chains . . .
(Ans. 4).

The Board’s Findings
7. Shyr describes: (a) a conveyor transfer apparatus installed below a
conveyor for transferring an article 9 from a main conveyor 1 to a
secondary conveyor 2 (col. 2, ll. 16-23 and fig. 6); (b) the main
conveyor 1 includes rollers 11 (col. 2, ll. 24-44 and fig. 1); and (c)
the apparatus comprises a motor 30, eccentric sleeves 61-64,
sprockets 34-37, and side-roller-chains 71, 72. (col. 2, ll. 46-63).
8. Shyr describes that the “top surface of the chain 71 will be moved
alternatively from below to above the top surface of roller 11.”
(col. 2, l. 64- col. 3, l. 1).
9. Shyr describes that:
Referring to FIG. 6, when an article 9 being
moved from main conveyor 1 to secondary
conveyor 2, article 9 is first carried above the
transfer apparatus of the invention, then is
stopped by a stopper [sic] of the conveyor or by
the stopping of the rollers. Motor 30 is then
activated and drives sprockets 34, 35, 36 and 37
and side-roller-chain 71, 72 which are lifted by
eccentric sleeves 61, 62, 63 and 64. When
chains 71 and 72 are moved above the rollers
11, article 9 is lifted and carried in a tangential
direction . . .
(col. 3, ll. 22-40).
10. Appellant has not contested the Examiner’s finding regarding Shyr
describing a holding device. (See Fact 2).
Appeal 2009-006090
Application 10/554,003

7
11. Shyr is silent as to whether the conveyor transfer apparatus is
integrated into a floor of a workshop.
12. Shyr shows in figures 1 and 4 that (1) conveyors 1, 2 contain
supports for rollers 11, and (2) the transfer conveyor apparatus is
formed as an integral self-contained apparatus.
13. The ordinary meaning of the word “workstation” includes “an area
with equipment for the performance of a specialized task usu. by a
single individual.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE
DICTIONARY (10th ed. 1996).
14. The ordinary meaning of the word “integrate” includes “to form.”
MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (10th ed. 1996).
15. Additional findings as necessary appear in the Analysis portion of
this opinion.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Appellant’s Burden
Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error
in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection
[under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness
or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
1998)). See also Ex parte Yamaguchi, 88 USPQ2d 1606, 1614 (BPAI 2008)
[burden on appeal] (on appeal, applicant must show examiner erred); Ex
parte Fu, 89 USPQ2d 1115, 1123 (BPAI 2008); Ex parte Catan, 83
Appeal 2009-006090
Application 10/554,003

8
USPQ2d 1569, 1577 (BPAI 2007); and Ex parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509,
1519 (BPAI 2007).

Examiner’s Burden
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the examiner bears the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Anticipation
“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 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It is not necessary that the
reference teach what the subject application teaches, but only that the claim
read on something disclosed in the reference, i.e., that all of the limitations
in the claim be found in or fully met by the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly-
Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Obviousness
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
Appeal 2009-006090
Application 10/554,003

9
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3)
the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See
also KSR, 550 U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be
reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the
inquiry that controls.”).
In KSR, the Supreme Court noted that “[t]o facilitate review, this
analysis should be made explicit.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds
cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.”)). However, “the analysis need not seek
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id.
In KSR, the Supreme Court held that “[a] person of ordinary skill is
also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton . . . . When there is a
design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has
good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” Id. at 421.
The legal conclusion of obviousness must be
supported by facts. Where the legal conclusion is
not supported by facts it cannot stand.
. . . .
Appeal 2009-006090
Application 10/554,003

10
A rejection based on section 103 clearly
must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must
be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of
the invention from the prior art. In making this
evaluation, all facts must be considered. The
Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the
factual basis for its rejection. It may not, because
it may doubt that the invention is patentable, resort
to speculation, unfounded assumptions or
hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in
its factual basis.”

In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).

Claim Interpretation
“[I]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure
being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312
F.2d 937, 940 (CCPA 1963).

Inherency
Under principles of inherency, when a reference is silent about an
asserted inherent characteristic, it must be clear that the missing descriptive
matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference.
Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir.
1991).
ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 17, 18, 20-25, 28-32, 34 and 35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Shyr
Claims 17, 18, 20-22, 24, 25, 28 and 29
Appellant argues claims 17, 18, 20-22 and 24 as a group, and claims
25, 28 and 29 as a group (App. Br. 4). As such, we select claims 17 and 25
Appeal 2009-006090
Application 10/554,003

11
as representative of the groups, and claims 18, 20-22, 24, 25, 28 and 29 will
stand or fall with claims 17 and 25, respectively. 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2007).
Appellant argues claims 23, 30-32, 34 and 35 separately (App. Br. 5-
6).
Appellant contends that Shyr does not describe a gas turbine conveyor
as called for in independent claims 17 and 25 as Shyr does not describe
conveying any type of gas turbine (App. Br. 4).
The Examiner found that in regards to the device claims, “[t]he mere
claiming of a ‘gas turbine’ in front of a conveyor does not add a patentable
departure from the device of Shyr et al.” (Fact 3).
Claims 17 and 25 call for, inter alia, a gas turbine conveying device.
It is well established that the particular article conveyed does not
impart patentability to independent claims 17 and 25. See In re Otto, 312
F.2d at 940 (holding that the “inclusion of the material or article worked
upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the
claims.”).
We find that Shyr describes the particular conveyor, albeit, not a
conveyor for gas turbines called for in claims 17 and 25 (Facts 7-10).
Therefore, since the particular article conveyed does not impart
patentability to claims, we find that Shyr describes the conveying device as
called for in independent claims 17 and 25.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred in rejecting
independent claims 17 and 25 over Shyr. Likewise, the Examiner has not
erred in rejecting dependent claims 18, 20-22, 24, 25, 28 and 29, which
stand or fall with independent claims 17 and 25, respectively.
Appeal 2009-006090
Application 10/554,003

12
Claim 23
Appellant contends that Shyr does not describe that “the conveying
device is raised and lowered pneumatically” as called for in claim 23 (App.
Br. 5).
The Examiner found that claim 23 is anticipated by Shyr as “the
lifting device 71 contains eccentric cams 34 and 35 which perform the lifting
function.” (Fact 1).
We find that in Shyr, the conveying device, that is, the side-roller-
chains 71, 72 are raised and lowered by eccentric sleeves 61-64 (Facts 7-9),
and not “pneumatically” as called for in claim 23.
Therefore, Shyr does not anticipate claim 23. See RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
(holding that “[a]nticipation 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.”).
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 23
over Shyr.
Claims 30 and 313
Appellant contends that Shyr does not describe that (1) “the lifting
device [is] configured to raise and lower the gas turbine . . . when the
conveying device is immobilized” as called for in claim 30 (App. Br. 5), and
(2) “the lifting device is configured to raise and lower the holding device as
well as the gas turbine . . . when the conveying device is immobilized” as
called for in claim 31 (App. Br. 5).

3 Claim 31 depends from claim 30, and claim 30 depends from claim 25.
Appeal 2009-006090
Application 10/554,003

13
As we previously found regarding claim 25, it is well established that
the particular article conveyed does not impart patentability to independent
claims 17 and 25. See In re Otto, 312 F.2d at 940.
Appellant has not contested the Examiner’s finding regarding Shyr
describing a holding device (Fact 10, see also Fact 2).
Shyr describes that after the conveyor or rollers 11 are stopped, motor
30 is then activated to drive sprockets 34, 35, 36 and 37 and side-roller-chain
71, 72, which are lifted by eccentric sleeves 61, 62, 63 and 64. (Fact 9, see
also Fact 8).
Therefore, Shyr describes that (1) the lifting device is configured to
raise and lower the article when the conveying device is immobilized
(stopped) as called for in claim 30, and (2) the lifting device is configured to
raise and lower the holding device as well as the article when the conveying
device is immobilized (stopped) as called for in claim 31.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred in rejecting
claims 30 and 31 over Shyr.
Claim 32
Appellant contends that Shyr does not describe a lifting device
situated in the area of each work station as called for in claim 32 (App. Br.
5).
The Examiner found that Shyr inherently describes work stations
(Fact 2). In particular, the Examiner annotated the previously attached cover
sheet with the notation “inherent work stations.”4
Appellant further contends that since the Examiner is relying on the
theory of inherency, the Examiner must provide a basis in fact or technical

4 See footnote 1.
Appeal 2009-006090
Application 10/554,003

14
reasoning to support the determination that the necessarily inherent
characteristics flow from the teachings of Shyr (App. Br. 6).
Under principles of inherency, when a reference is silent about an
asserted inherent characteristic, it must be clear that the missing descriptive
matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference.
Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir.
1991).
Claim 32 calls for “wherein a respective lifting device is situated in
the area of each work station.”
Appellant’s Specification does not provide any definition of the words
“work station” or the word “workstation.” Therefore, we look to the
dictionary to provide us with the ordinary meaning of the words “work
station” or “workstation.” The ordinary meaning of the word “workstation”
includes “an area with equipment for the performance of a specialized task
usu. by a single individual.” (Fact 13). Claim 32 does not call for (1) a
nexus or an association between the work station, and the lifting device, or
(2) the work being performed at the work station. A person having ordinary
skill in the art would understand the phrase “a respective lifting device is
situated in the area of each work station,” as called for in claim 32 and in
light of the ordinary meaning of the word “workstation,” to mean that the
lifting device is situated in an area where a work station is located, that is,
where some type of task can be performed. To satisfy the limitation of a
“work station,” it is not necessary that any particular work actually be
performed, only that work can be performed at the location corresponding to
the “work station.”
Appeal 2009-006090
Application 10/554,003

15
Shyr describes that the conveyor or rollers 11 are stopped at the lifting
device, that is at the side-roller-chains 71, 72, which are lifted by the
eccentric sleeves 61-64 (Fact 9, see also Fact 8).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that when
the conveyor or rollers 11 are stopped, some type of task can be, or is being,
performed in the area of the stopped conveyor or stopped rollers 11.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Shyr inherently describes work
stations (Fact 2).
Therefore, we find that Shyr describes a lifting device situated in the
area of a work station as called for in claim 32.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred in rejecting
claim 32 over Shyr.
Claims 34 and 35
Claims 34 and 35 are reproduced below:
34. A method for displacing gas turbines or gas
turbine modules, comprising the steps of:
raising a conveying device into a raised state
such that a gas turbine or gas turbine module to be
moved is raised, and
moving the conveying device such that the
gas turbine or gas turbine module is moved.
(emphasis added).
35. A method for displacing gas turbines or gas
turbine modules, comprising
supporting a gas turbine or gas turbine
module to be moved on a holding device;
moving the holding device and the gas
turbine or gas turbine module by moving a
conveying device which is cooperatively engaged
with the holding device. (emphasis added).
Appeal 2009-006090
Application 10/554,003

16
Appellant contends that (1) a gas turbine is positively called for in
claims 34 and 35, and (2) Shyr does not describe the gas turbine called for in
claims 34 and 35. (App. Br. 6).
The Examiner found that the mere claiming of a gas turbine in front of
a conveyor does not add a patentable departure from the device of Shyr
(Facts 3, 4).
The Examiner’s reasoning is inapposite here, as claims 34 and 35 are
method claims, and positively call for a gas turbine. Claim 34, as
emphasized above, calls for, inter alia, raising and moving a conveying
device into a raised state such that a gas turbine or turbine module is raised.
Claim 35, as emphasized above, calls for, inter alia, supporting and moving
a gas turbine.
We agree with Appellant that Shyr does not describe a gas turbine, or
any manipulation of a gas turbine.
Therefore, we find that Shyr does not describe and, therefore, does not
anticipate the positively recited gas turbine called for in claims 34 and 35.
See RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1984).
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 34
and 35 over Shyr.
Rejection of claims 19 and33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shyr
Claim 19
Appellant contends that (1) “it would not have been obvious . . . to
have the conveying device of Shyr ‘integrated into a floor of a workshop’”
as called for in claim 19 (App. Br. 6). Appellant further contends that the
Appeal 2009-006090
Application 10/554,003

17
“[t]he conveying device of Shyr may not fit in the floor of a workshop.”
(App. Br. 6).
The Examiner found that Shyr does not describe “having the conveyor
integrated into the floor” (Fact 5).
The Examiner concluded that it would have been an obvious matter of
design choice as to the type of surface that the device was placed on,
wherein the type of surface would depend on the space available for the
device (Fact 6).
Claim 19 calls for, inter alia, “wherein the conveying device is
integrated into a floor of a workshop.”
We look to the dictionary to provide us with the ordinary meaning of
the word “integrate.” The ordinary meaning of the word “integrate”
includes “to form.” (Fact 14).
Shyr is silent as to whether the conveyor transfer apparatus is
integrated in, that is, formed in a floor of a workshop (Fact 11).
Shyr shows in figures 1 and 4 that (1) conveyors 1, 2 contain supports
for rollers 11, and (2) the transfer conveyor apparatus is formed as an
integral self-contained apparatus (Fact 12).
We find that if space were a premium, a person having ordinary skill
in the art would place Shyr’s integrally formed conveyor transfer apparatus
in a recess in a floor, as this would not change the operation of Shyr’s
conveyor transfer apparatus and would predictably save space. See KSR,
550 U.S. at 421 (holding that “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton. . . .Where there is a design need or
market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of
identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason
Appeal 2009-006090
Application 10/554,003

18
to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads
to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of
ordinary skill and common sense.”) Id. at 421.
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred in rejecting
claim 19 over Shyr.
Claim 33
Appellant contends that “[i]t would not have been obvious to one
skilled in the art to use a hydraulic lifting device based on design and space
parameters for the device.” (App. Br. 7).
The Examiner found that Shyr does not describe using a hydraulic
means to lift the chain conveyor (Fact 5).
The Examiner concluded that “it would have been an obvious matter
of design choice as to what type of known lifting device is used . . . based on
the exact design parameters of the specific invention at hand.” (Fact 6).
Claim 33 calls for “the conveying device is raised and lowered
hydraulically.”
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the examiner bears the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
While the Examiner’s position appears to be that the use of any
known lifting device would have been obvious, the Examiner has not made
any finding as to the particular type of lifting device called for in the claim,
namely, a hydraulic lifting device. We find that the Examiner’s legal
conclusion of obviousness (Fact 6) is not supported by facts, and thus,
cannot stand. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967)
Appeal 2009-006090
Application 10/554,003

19
(holding that “[t]he legal conclusion of obviousness must be supported by
facts. Where the legal conclusion is not supported by facts it cannot
stand.”).
Therefore, we are constrained to reverse the rejection of claim 33 over
Shyr.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
33 over Shyr.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner has not erred in finding that Shyr describes a gas
turbine conveyor as called for in independent claims 17 and 25, that is,
whether the words “gas turbine” before the word “conveyor” imparts
patentability to claims 17 and 25.
The Examiner has erred in finding that Shyr describes a conveying
device that is raised or lowered pneumatically as called for in claim 23.
The Examiner has not erred in finding that Shyr describes that (1) “the
lifting device [is] configured to raise and lower the gas turbine . . . when the
conveying device is immobilized” as called for in claim 30, and (2) “the
lifting device is configured to raise and lower the holding device as well as
the gas turbine . . . when the conveying device is immobilized” as called for
in claim 31.
The Examiner has not erred in finding that Shyr describes a lifting
device “situated in the area of each work station” as called for in claim 32.
The Examiner has erred in finding that Shyr describes a gas turbine as
called for in claims 34 and 35.
Appeal 2009-006090
Application 10/554,003

20
The Examiner has not erred in concluding that it would have been
obvious to have the conveying device of Shyr “integrated into a floor of a
workshop” as called for in claim 19.
The Examiner has erred in concluding that it would have been
obvious to use a hydraulic lifting device in Shyr based on design and space
parameters for Shyr’s apparatus.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 17-22, 24, 25 and 28-32
is affirmed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 23 and 33-35 is
reversed.
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) (2007).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Klh

DAVIDSON, DAVIDSON & KAPPEL, LLC
485 7TH AVENUE
14TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10018