Ex Parte Scott

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 29, 2009

10217992 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 29, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte EARL SCOTT, JR.
____________________

Appeal 2008-6057
Application 10/217,992
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Decided: January 29, 2009
____________________

Before RICHARD E. SCHAFER, JAMESON LEE, and SALLY C.
MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal by an Appellant under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from a final rejection of claims 18-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm-in-part.

Appeal 2008-6057
Application 10/217,992

References Relied on by the Examiner
Robinette 5,211,526 May 18, 1993
Godbersen 5,427,471 Jun. 27, 1995
Vela-Cuellar 6,109,855 Aug. 29, 2000
Frommer 6,250,483 Jun. 26, 2001
Burnstein 6,485,059 Nov. 26, 2002
Homer 6,626,748 Sep. 30, 2003
van der Horn 2003/0007855 Jan. 9, 2003

The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 18, 19, 22, 23, and 30 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Vela-Cuellar, Frommer, and
Robinette.
The Examiner rejected claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Vela-Cuellar, Frommer, Robinette, and Burnstein.
The Examiner rejected claims 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Vela-Cuellar, Frommer, Robinette, and Homer.
The Examiner rejected claims 26-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Vela-Cuellar, Frommer, Robinette, and van der Horn.
The Examiner rejected claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Vela-Cuellar, Frommer, Robinette, and Godbersen.

The Invention
The invention relates to a deer hoist adapted to be mounted on an all
terrain vehicle. (Spec. 1:1-3.)

2
Appeal 2008-6057
Application 10/217,992

Claim 18 is reproduced below (Claims App’x 18:1-16):
18. A deer hoist for an all terrain vehicle comprising:

a transverse mounting bar attachable at a first end to a vehicle
trailer hitch drawbar;

a beam vertically extending from a second end of said
mounting bar; said beam formed of a pair of separable sections;

an arm horizontally extending from an upper end of said beam;

a winch assembly mounted on said beam;

a laterally adjustable, height adjustable stabilizing means for
stabilizing said hoist and for minimizing toppling of said vehicle as
said winch is lifting a heavy animal.

a flange extending from one of said beam sections, said flange
having an aperture thereon;

an aperture on the other of said beam sections which is aligned
with said aperture on said flange;

a locking pin received within each of said apertures to secure
said beam sections in a disassembled, stored position.

B. ISSUES
1) Does Vela-Cuellar’s disclose an arm that extends horizontally
from the upper end of a vertical beam?
2) Would a person of ordinary skill in the art have recognized
from the teachings of Vela-Cuellar and Frommer that a beam may be
secured to a flange via an aperture in the beam?
3) Would a central stabilizer leg have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art in view of Robinette’s teachings?
3
Appeal 2008-6057
Application 10/217,992

4) Does Robinette teach attaching beam sections to one another
via a dowell connection that allows rotation of the beam sections?
5) Does Vela-Cuellar disclose a drawbar assembly with a receiver
that extends at an oblique angle from a strut?
6) Does Burnstein teach a flap assembly with a receptacle that
receives an elongated support member and is attached to a vertical beam?
7) Does van der Horn teach storage quills extending from a
horizontal sleeve?
C. FINDINGS OF FACT
Vela-Cuellar
1. Vela-Cuellar discloses a hoist and carrier apparatus for securing
game to a vehicle. (Vela-Cuellar Abstract.)
2. In Vela-Cuellar, element 20 is disclosed as a “horizontal
movable member” that forms a portion of a game hoist carrier 48. (Vela-
Cuellar 5:14-16.)
3. The horizontal moveable member 20 extends between sloped
members 64 and 66 and forms a lower support bar for the game hoist carrier
48. (Vela-Cuellar 5:26-36).
4. In Vela-Cuellar, when a deer carcass is attached, the horizontal
moveable member 20 is in a raised position. (Vela-Cuellar Figure 1.)
5. In that raised position, the member 20 extends horizontally
from an upper end of vertical beam 42. (Vela-Cuellar Figure 1.)
6. Vela-Cuellar’s game hoist includes a bracket 24 attached to
lower beam section 44. (Vela-Cuellar 5:5-8; Fig. 2.)
4
Appeal 2008-6057
Application 10/217,992

7. When the game hoist is disassembled, bracket 24 receives an
upper beam piece 43 and holds that beam piece in place by action of a pin 26
that extends through recesses in the bracket. (Vela-Cuellar 5:8-12; Fig. 3.)
8. Upper beam piece 43 is attached to lower beam piece 44 by
means of a narrowed portion at one end. (Vela-Cuellar Figure 4.)
9. When beam piece 43 is separated from, and arranged adjacent
to, beam piece 44, the narrowed portion is received in a receptacle at the
base of beam piece 44. (Vela-Cuellar Figure 4.)
10. Vela-Cuellar’s game hoist 48 is provided to lift the carcass of
an animal 14 (Vela-Cuellar 5:38-52) and is shown having a triangular
shaped frame that includes the frame elements of angled member 64, 66, and
lower cross member 20. (Vela-Cuellar Figure 3).
11. In the context of the Appellant’s specification, a gambrel is a
device for securing and lifting the carcass of an animal. (Spec. 7:16-17.)
12. In the Appellant’s Figure 4, gambrel 21 is shown as a triangular
shaped frame suspended from cable 90.
Frommer
13. Frommer teaches a game hoist in which a beam 120 is stored in
a storage collar 107 by operation of a pin 154 that extends through holes in
the beam. (Frommer 4:37-43.)
Robinette
14. Robinette discloses a readily assembled and disassembled crane
which is attached to a trailer hitch drawbar. (Robinette 1:5-7.)
15. To steady the crane and support weight, Robinette provides
outriggers 70. (Robinette 3:58-60.)

5
Appeal 2008-6057
Application 10/217,992

16. Robinette’s Figure 2 is reproduced below:

Figure 2 shows an exploded view of crane 10 and outriggers 70
17. Outriggers 70 are formed by vertical shafts 72 that engage
lower feet 74 and are attached to a central receptacle unit 36 via intermediate
arms 76A. (Robinette 3:60-63.)
18. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have regarded
the teachings of Robinette as limited to only two outriggers.
19. Instead, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that additional outriggers would provide the hoist greater
stability and weight supporting ability.
20. Robinette also discloses that an annular lower extremity 40 of a
central column 12 of the crane 10 is rotatably received within a receptacle 38
6
Appeal 2008-6057
Application 10/217,992

(Robinette 3:20-23) in a manner that allows for a load to be raised in one
location and lowered in another location (Robinette 2:19-21).
Burnstein
21. Burnstein discloses a mud flap assembly for vehicles.
(Burnstein Abstract.)
22. In Burnstein, connector 40 is disclosed as a “pin structure” that
is configured for insertion through the bore of a horizontal hitch of a vehicle.
(Burnstein 2:64-66; Figure 2.)
van der Horn
23. van der Horn discloses a hoist for attachment to a vehicle trailer
hitch. (van der Horn ¶ 1.)
24. In van der Horn, elements 8a are disclosed as “plates” that are
“attached to jib post 8 that support the legs 9.” (van der Horn 3:¶41.)
D. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Circ. 1986); In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
A combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007). 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. Id. at 1740. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art is
also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Id. at 1742.
7
Appeal 2008-6057
Application 10/217,992

A prior art reference must be considered for everything it teaches by
way of technology and is not limited to the particular invention it is
describing and attempting to protect. EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc.,
755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985). One with ordinary skill in the art is
presumed to have skills apart from what the prior art references explicitly
say. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed.Cir. 1985).
E. ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 18, 19, 22, 23, and 30
over Vela-Cuellar, Frommer, and Robinette

The Appellant argues each claim of this rejection separately.
Claim 18
We focus on the disputed limitations. The Appellant first contends
that the limitation of “an arm horizontally extending from an upper end of
said beam” is not satisfied by the prior art.
The Examiner found that “Vela-Cuellar discloses a transfer mounting
bar 30, 32, beam having separable sections 43, 44, arm 20 (it is noted that
claim 18 does not recite an arm connectedly affixed to a beam).” (Ans.
3:18-20.)
The Appellant argues that in Vela-Cuellar “[e]lement 20 refers to a
triangular rack or gambrel that is slidable along the beam.” (App. Br. 9:11-
12.) According to the Appellant, the element 20 does not relate to an arm or
satisfy the requirement of an arm that horizontally extends from an upper
end of a beam.
Vela-Cuellar discloses that element 20 is a “horizontal movable
member” that forms a portion of a game hoist carrier 48. (Vela-Cuellar
5:14-16.) The horizontal moveable member 20 extends between sloped
8
Appeal 2008-6057
Application 10/217,992

members 64 and 66 and forms a lower support bar for the game hoist carrier
48. (Vela-Cuellar 5:26-36.) As a support bar spanning between the
members 64 and 66, the member 20 is reasonably considered an arm. The
Appellant does not explain why horizontal movable member 20 does not
“relate to an arm.”
Furthermore, as shown in Figure 1, when a deer carcass is attached,
the horizontal moveable member 20 is in a raised position. In that position,
the member 20 indisputably extends horizontally from an upper end of
vertical beam 42. The Appellant’s claim 18 does not require that the arm be
permanently affixed to the upper end of the beam at all times. It is sufficient
to meet the claim limitation that while a deer carcass is being prepared the
arm extends horizontally from the top of the beam.
With further regard to claim 18, the Appellant argues that Frommer
does not satisfy the requirement of (Claims App’x 19:11-16):
a flange extending from one of said beam section, said flange
having an aperture thereon;

an aperture on the other of said beam section which is aligned
with said aperture on said flange;

a locking pin received within each of said apertures to secure
said beam sections in a disassembled, stored position.

The Appellant’s argument is misplaced. One cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d at
1097; In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
Here, the Examiner relied on the combined teachings of Vela-Cuellar
and Frommer to satisfy that limitation. The Examiner found that Vela-
9
Appeal 2008-6057
Application 10/217,992

Cuellar discloses a flange extending from beam piece 44 where the flange
includes an aperture 24. (Ans. 3:19-22.) The Examiner determined that
Vela-Cuellar lacks an aperture on the other of the beam sections, i.e. beam
piece 43. To remedy the deficiency, the Examiner pointed to Frommer.
According to the Examiner (Ans. 4:4-7):
Frommer discloses an aperture 142 on [the] other of said beams
C4/L31-43 for the purpose of slidably receiving a beam 120 within a
flange 107 that extends from a boom section 104, 105 which is
quicker and easier to disassembly [sic] over conventional deer hoists.
C1.

The Examiner then reasoned (Ans. 4:7-10):
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the
apparatus of Vela-Cuellar to include a beam section aperture, as per
the teachings of Frommer, to improve the disassembly of portable
deer hoists.

A combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
KSR Int’l Co., 127 S. Ct. at 1739. 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. Id. at 1740.
Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton. Id. at 1742.
Vela-Cuellar’s game hoist includes a bracket 24 attached to lower
beam piece 44. (Vela-Cuellar 5:5-8; Fig. 2.) When the game hoist is
disassembled, bracket 24 receives upper beam piece 43 and holds that beam
piece in place by action of a pin 26 that extends through recesses in the
10
Appeal 2008-6057
Application 10/217,992

bracket. (Vela-Cuellar 5:8-12; Fig. 3.) Frommer teaches a game hoist in
which a beam 120 is stored in a storage collar 107 by operation of a pin 154
that extends through holes in the beam. (Frommer 4:37-43.)
The Examiner’s reasoning in combining the teaching Vela-Cuellar
and Frommer is logical and rational. A person of ordinary creativity would
have readily recognized that Vela-Cuellar’s beam 43 would also be held in
place within bracket 24 if pin 26 extends through a hole in the beam in the
well known manner taught in Frommer.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Vela-Cuellar, Frommer, and
Robinette.
Claim 19
Claim 19 is dependent on claim 18 and adds these limitations (Claims
App’x 19:1-5):
a plate horizontally extending from one of said beam sections,
said plate having an opening;

a male dowel portion on an end of the other of said beam
sections, said male dowel portion received within said plate opening
to further secure said beam sections in a stored position.

The Examiner found those limitations satisfied by Vela-Cuellar and
supplied an annotated version of portions of Vela-Cuellar’s Figure 4
identifying the corresponding elements.
The Appellant argues that Vela-Cuellar does not disclose the above-
noted limitations.
We reject the Appellant’s argument that Vela-Cuellar does not satisfy
claim 19.
11
Appeal 2008-6057
Application 10/217,992

The Examiner’s annotated version of portions of Vela-Cuellar’s
Figure 4 is reproduced below (Ans. 11):

The Figure shows the Examiner’s annotations of portions of
Vela-Cuellar’s Figure 4.

It is apparent from the above annotated version, as well as Vela-
Ceullar’s Figure 4 itself, which elements in Vela-Cuellar the Examiner
found as corresponding to the elements of claim 19. Vela-Cuellar’s Figure 4
shows that upper vertical beam 43 is attached to lower vertical beam 44 by
means of a narrowed portion at one end. When beam 43 is separated from
and arranged adjacent to beam 44, the narrowed portion is received in a
receptacle at the base of beam 44. The Examiner determined that the lower
receptacle satisfies the plate and opening limitation and the narrowed
portions satisfies the male dowel limitation. The Appellant does not explain
why there is error in that determination.
We sustain the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Vela-Cuellar, Frommer, and Robinette.
Claim 22
Claim 22 is dependent upon claim 18 and introduces several
additional limitations relating to the stabilizing means. Of those additional
12
Appeal 2008-6057
Application 10/217,992

limitations, only one is in dispute. The disputed limitation reads “a central
stabilizer leg telescopically received within said intermediate sleeve.”
(Claims App’x 20:8-9.)
The Examiner pointed to Robinette as showing a stabilizing means
that is both laterally and vertically adjustable. Robinette discloses a mobile
crane that is mounted on a vehicle trailer hitch drawbar. (Robinette
Abstract.) To steady the crane and support weight, Robinette provides
outriggers 70. (Robinette 3:58-60.)
Robinette’s Figure 2 is reproduced below:

Figure 2 shows an exploded view of crane 10 and outriggers 70.
As shown in Figure 2, outriggers 70 are formed by vertical shafts 72
that engage lower feet 74 and are attached to a central receptacle unit 36 via
intermediate arms 76A. (Robinette 3:60-63.) Although Figure 2 does not
13
Appeal 2008-6057
Application 10/217,992

illustrate a central outrigger, a prior art reference must be considered for
everything it teaches by way of technology and is not limited to the
particular invention it is describing and attempting to protect. EWP Corp,
755 F.2d 898 at 907. One with ordinary skill in the art is presumed to have
skills apart from what the prior art references explicitly say. See In re
Sovish, 769 F.2d at 743. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art is
also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. KSR Int’l Co.,127
S.Ct. at 1742.
Here, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from
Robinette that outriggers are provided for stability and support the weight of
the hoist, and in exercising ordinary creativity would have recognized that
additional outriggers would provide a hoist with greater stability and support
more weight. In that regard, factors such as the hoist weight and the weight
of load that it supports would have been considered in determining the
desired number of outriggers. Furthermore, a skilled artisan following the
teachings of Robinette that the outriggers are attached to the receptacle unit
36 (Robinette 3:60-63) would have recognized the option of attaching an
outrigger at a central location with respect to the other outriggers to provide
a balanced configuration.
Evidently, the Examiner took the position that the central stabilizer
leg limitation of claim 22 is satisfied by Vela-Cuellar’s element 43. (Ans.
12:1-5.) We do not agree that Vela-Cuellar’s element 43 can be properly
considered as a “central stabilizer leg.” Element 43 forms the upper portion
of the vertical beam member 42 and does not form a “leg” of a stabilizing
means for Vela-Cuellar’s hoist. However, the Examiner’s position is
14
Appeal 2008-6057
Application 10/217,992

harmless error because, for the reasons given above, a central stabilizer leg
would have been obvious in light of the teachings of Robinette.
We sustain the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Vela-Cuellar, Frommer, and Robinette.
Claim 23
Claim 23 is dependent on claim 18 and adds the additional limitation
(Claims App’x 20:12-14):
wherein said beam sections are joined with a dowel connection which
allows each of said beam sections to rotate independently when said
beam sections are connected.

The Examiner found that Vela-Cueller lacks those claim features and
turned to Robinette to remedy the deficiency. The Examiner referenced
Robinette’s element 38 as a dowell connection allowing beam sections to
rotate independently. (Ans. 5:12-17.)
The Appellant contends that element 38 is a “receptacle within a
receptacle unit that surrounds a lower annular extremity.” (App. Br. 11:3-6.)
We do not know the significance of that argument in the context of the
independent rotation of claim 23.
The Examiner’s stated rationale makes sense. Robinette discloses that
an annular lower extremity 40 of a central column 12 of the crane 10 is
“rotatably” received within a receptacle 38. (Robinette 3:20-23.) The
rotatable configuration allows for a load to be raised in one location and
lowered in another location. (Robinette 2:19-21.) The Examiner determined
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the beams of
Vela-Cuellar to incorporate a rotatable connection, such as that of Robinette,
for the benefit of the raising and lowering loads in different locations. That
15
Appeal 2008-6057
Application 10/217,992

determination reasonably accounts for the ordinary skill and creativity of
one with ordinary skill in the art. The Appellant has not shown error in that
determination.
We sustain the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Vela-Cuellar, Frommer, and Robinette.
Claim 30
Claim 30 is dependent on claim 18 and adds the limitation (Claims
App’x 21:19 - 22:4):
further comprising a drawbar adapter assembly including a mounting
strut attachable at a first end to a vehicle drawbar and a receiver
attached to a second end of said strut; said receiver obliquely
extending at a predetermined angle from said strut; said transverse
mounting bar positioned within said receiver.

According to the Examiner, the requirement that the receiver is
“obliquely extending at a predetermined angle from said strut” is satisfied by
the orientation of a “receiver” 56c and “strut” shown in Robinette’s Figure 6.
The following is the Examiner’s annotated version of a portion of
Robinette’s Figure 6 (Ans. 12.):

The Examiner’s Annotated version of a portion of Robinette’s
showing anchoring unit 54b and projections 56c.

The Appellant argues that the anchoring unit 54b does not satisfy the
requirement of a receiver “obliquely extending” at angle from a strut.
16
Appeal 2008-6057
Application 10/217,992

The Appellant’s argument is persuasive. “Oblique” means “neither
perpendicular nor parallel” or “having no right angle.” Merriam Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary 802 (10th ed. 1996). That is, an “oblique angle”
excludes a 90 degree or right angle. Based on our review, the angle
identified by the Examiner as an “oblique angle” in the annotated figure
above is a 90 degree angle. Thus, the projections 56c, termed a receiver by
the Examiner, are not “obliquely extending” from the “strut” as required by
the claim. The Examiner does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the
art would have had reason to modify that angle to be anything other than the
90 degree angle shown.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Vela-Cuellar, Frommer, and Robinette.
The rejection of claims 20 and 21 over
Vela-Cuellar, Frommer, Robinette, and Burnstein

Claim 20 is dependent upon claim 19 and includes the additional
limitations of (Claims App’x 19:7-12):
a receptacle attached to said beam;

an elongated support member received within said receptacle
and extending outwardly from said beam;

an elongated strip affixed to an end of said support member;

a flap removable attached to said strip for deflecting debris
projected from a vehicle’s tires.

The Examiner relies on Burnstein as teaching those limitations,
finding that “Burnstein discloses a receptacle 40, elongated support member
20, strip and flap 60, 62 having a slot.” (Ans. 6:13-14.)
17
Appeal 2008-6057
Application 10/217,992

The Appellant argues that Burnstein does not teach a receptacle that is
attached to said beam. According to the Appellant, Burnstein’s element 40
is simply a connector that is inserted to a bore extending through a receiver
and hitch of a vehicle.
The Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. Claim 20 requires that a
receptacle is attached to the vertically extending beam of the hoist and
includes an elongated support member received within that receptacle that
extends outwardly from the beam. Burnstein’s connector 40 is disclosed as
a “pin structure” that is configured for insertion through the bore of a
horizontal hitch of a vehicle. (Burnstein 2:64-66; Figure 2.) The Examiner
does not explain how a “pin structure” extending through a horizontal
vehicle hitch can also reasonably form a receptacle that is mounted to a
vertically extending beam and receive an elongated support member.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Vela-Cuellar, Frommer, Robinette, and Burnstein.
Claim 21 is dependent on claim 20. We also do not sustain the
rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Vela-
Cuellar, Frommer, Robinette, and Burnstein.
The rejection of claims 24 and 25 over
Vela-Cuellar, Frommer, Robinette, and Homer

Claims 24 and 25 are each dependent on claim 18 and include
additional elements relating to a light or a storage rack.
To account for the additional limitations of those claims, the
Examiner relied on Homer. (Ans. 7:7-22.)
The Appellant does not dispute that Homer discloses a light and a
storage rack but argues that the reference taken alone does not disclose the
18
Appeal 2008-6057
Application 10/217,992

combination of a light and storage rack along with all the elements of claim
18. (App. Br. 1418 - 15:2.)
The Appellant’s argument is misplaced. As noted above, one cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d at 1097; In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
Here, the Examiner did not rely on Homer taken alone but instead
relied on the combined teachings of Vela-Cuellar, Frommer, Robinette, and
Homer in resolving the obviousness of the Appellant’s claims 24 and 25.
The Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s determination that
those claims are satisfied by the combined teachings of the prior art.
We sustain the rejection of claims 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Vela-Cuellar, Frommer, Robinette, and Homer.
The rejection of claims 26-28 over
Vela-Cuellar, Frommer, Robinette, and van der Horn

Claims 26-28 are argued collectively. Claim 26 is dependent on claim
22 and adds the limitation (Claims App’x 20:19 - 21:3):
further comprising two pairs of vertical, juxtaposed storage quills
extending from said horizontal sleeve, each pair of quills for
respectively receiving a brace member and a leg to store said
stabilizing means when not in use.

The Examiner pointed to van der Horn as satisfying the added
limitation of claim 26. The Examiner stated that “van der Horn discloses a
pair of storage quills 8a, e.g. hollow structure allowing stabilizing means 9
to be at least partially inserted when said stabilizing means are placed in a
storage position. FIG. 5.” (Ans. 8:9-11.)
19
Appeal 2008-6057
Application 10/217,992

The Appellant argues that the elements 8a of van der Horn are not
storage quills but instead are simply plates that support the legs of a boom.
(App. Br. 15:6-9) The Appellant further contends that van der Horn does
not satisfy the requirement that storage quills extend from a horizontal
sleeve. (App. Br. 15:16 - 16:3.)
The Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. “Quill” means “a hollow
shaft often surrounding another shaft and used in various mechanical
devices.” Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 958 (10th ed. 1996). In
the context of the Appellant’s specification, the storage quills are hollow
shafts mounted on the horizontal sleeve and receive and store the
disassembled leg and brace portions of the stabilizing means. (Spec. 9:9-15;
Figures 2 & 3.)
On the other hand, in van der Horn elements 8a are disclosed as
“plates” that are “attached to jib post 8 that support the legs 9.” (van der
Horn 3:¶41.) The Examiner does not explain how “plates” can reasonably
form hollow shafts that receive the leg and brace portions of a stabilizing
means for storage. Furthermore, claim 26 requires that the storage quills are
vertically extending from a horizontal sleeve. In van der Horn, jib post 8 is
shown extending vertically in between plates 8a and does not form a
“horizontal sleeve.” (van der Horn Figure 5.)
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 26-28 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Vela-Cuellar, Frommer, Robinette, and van der
Horn.

20
Appeal 2008-6057
Application 10/217,992

The rejection of claim 29 over
Vela-Cuellar, Frommer, Robinette, and Godbersen

Claim 29 is dependent upon claim 18 and adds the limitations (Claims
App’x 21:14-18):
wherein said winch assembly comprises:

a brake winch mounted on said beam;

a cable operably connected to said brake winch and guided
along a predetermined path by at least one pulley mounted on said
arm;

a gambrel attached to a distal end of said cable.

The Appellant disputes that the gambrel requirement is satisfied by
the prior art. According to the Appellant, the Examiner has improperly
relied on Vela-Cuellar’s element 20 as forming a gambrel because element
20 was already used to satisfy the horizontally extending arm limitation of
claim 18. (App. Br. 16:10-15.)
In the context of the Appellant’s specification, a gambrel is a device
for securing and lifting the carcass of an animal. (Spec. 7:16-17.) In the
Appellant’s Figure 4, gambrel 21 is shown as a triangular shaped frame
suspended from cable 90.
In Vela-Cuellar, game hoist 48 is provided to lift the carcass of an
animal 14 (Vela-Cuellar 5:38-52) and is shown having a triangular shaped
frame that includes the frame elements of angled member 64, 66, and lower
cross member 20 (Vela-Cuellar Figure 3). Game hoist 48 is a gambrel.
As previously discussed, Vela-Cuellar’s lower cross member 20
satisfies the requirement in claim 18 of “an arm horizontally extending from
21
Appeal 2008-6057
Application 10/217,992

an upper end of said beam.” Neither claim 18 nor claim 20 exclude an arm
that both extends horizontally from the beam and forms a portion of the
gambrel. Vela-Cuellar’s gambrel 48, which includes lower cross member
20, satisfies the gambrel requirement of claim 29.
We sustain the rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Vela-Cuellar, Frommer, Robinette, and Godbersen.
F. CONCLUSION
1) Vela-Cuellar does disclose an arm that extends horizontally
from the upper end of a vertical beam.
2) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
from the teachings of Vela-Cuellar and Frommer that a beam may be
secured to a flange via an aperture in the beam.
3) A central stabilizer leg would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art in view of Robinette’s teachings.
4) Robinette does teach attaching beam sections to one another via
a dowell connection that allows rotation of the beam sections.
5) Vela-Cuellar does not disclose a drawbar assembly with a
receiver that extends at an oblique angle from a strut.
6) Burnstein does not teach a flap assembly with a receptacle that
receives an elongated support member and is attached to a vertical beam.
7) van der Horn does not teach storage quills extending from a
horizontal sleeve.
G. ORDER
The rejection of claims 18, 19, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Vela-Cuellar, Frommer, and Robinette is affirmed.
22
Appeal 2008-6057
Application 10/217,992

The rejection of claims 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Vela-Cuellar, Frommer, Robinette, and Homer is
affirmed.
The rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Vela-Cuellar, Frommer, Robinette, and Godbersen is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Vela-Cuellar, Frommer, and Robinette is reversed.
The rejection of claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Vela-Cuellar, Frommer, Robinette, and van der Horn is
reversed.
The rejection of claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Vela-Cuellar, Frommer, Robinette, and Burnstein 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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

rvb

Kenneth L. Tolar
2908 Hessmer Avenue
Metrairie, LA 70002
23