Ex Parte Sewell

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2013

11610428 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CODY L. SEWELL
____________________

Appeal 2011-001082
Application 11/610,428
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: LINDA E. HORNER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001082
Application 11/610,428
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Cody L. Sewell (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 and 7-11. Claims 4-6 were canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed generally “to stand-up, ride-on
articulated construction equipment.” Spec., para. [0002]. Claim 1,
reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An articulated work vehicle, comprising:
a base unit, having a front end and a back end, the base
unit comprising a power unit adapted to power the work
vehicle, and at least one ground drive member powered by the
power unit and adapted to provide mobility to the work vehicle;
an operator station, extending from the back end of the
base unit, the operator station adapted to allow operation of the
vehicle while walking behind or standing on the vehicle;
an articulation joint comprising a work attachment plate
and a pivot attachment, the pivot attachment operatively
connected to the front end of the base unit such that the
articulation joint is pivotally connected to the base unit about
a substantially vertical axis to the base unit; and
an equipment chassis, removably attachable to the work
attachment plate of the articulation joint comprising at least one
ground support member, adapted to provide mobility and
support to the equipment chassis and the base unit.

Appeal 2011-001082
Application 11/610,428
3

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Bainter US 6,658,768 B1 Dec. 9, 2003

THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1-3 and 7-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Bainter. Ans. 3.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Bainter teaches each limitation of claims 1-3
and 7-11, and in pertinent part finds that Bainter discloses a base unit 100
with an articulation joint comprised of a work attachment plate 16 and a
pivot attachment 18. Ans. 3. Appellant argues that “rear portion 16 of the
carriage 12 extends from and is integrally attached to the power system 100”
and “the ‘articulation joint’ (18, 16) of Bainter is integral with the ‘base
unit.’” Reply Br. 4. In the Answer, the Examiner states that “the
articulation joint comprises the work plate and pivot (18, 16).” Ans. 4.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s findings do not support
at least that “the articulation joint is pivotally connected to the base unit” as
required by claim 1 because, as Appellant states, “[f]or Bainter to anticipate
Appellant’s [c]laim 1, elements 18, 16 must pivot relative to the ‘base unit’”
and “[r]ear portion 16 and carriage pivot joint 18 do not pivot relative to the
base unit.” Reply Br. 4. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-3, and 7-11.
Appeal 2011-001082
Application 11/610,428
4

DECISION
For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 1-3 and 7-11.

REVERSED

mls