Ex Parte Sibley et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 15, 2012

11369496 (B.P.A.I. May. 15, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/369,496 03/07/2006 Richard J. Sibley JR. HOL001 P493 9567
277 7590 05/16/2012
PRICE HENEVELD LLP
695 KENMOOR SE
P O BOX 2567
GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49501
EXAMINER
BOEHLER, ANNE MARIE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3611
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/16/2012 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RICHARD J. SIBLEY JR., GREGORY R. THORWALL,
RUDOLPH A. BAHNSEN, JUSTIN D. KEATLEY,
JOHN G. WIERINGA, and GERRY W. HUNGERINK
____________

Appeal 2010-004695
Application 11/369,496
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and
STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004695
Application 11/369,496

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Richard J. Sibley Jr. et al. (Appellants) seek our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention “relates to fifth wheel coupling
assemblies, and in particular to a slider assembly for adjustably supporting a
fifth wheel hitch assembly from a frame of an associated vehicle.” Spec. 1,
para. [0002]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A fifth wheel slider assembly, comprising:
at least one rack member having a first side and a second
side and supportable above a vehicle frame;
a hitch plate with a throat for receiving a kingpin of a
trailer;
a pair of support brackets pivotably supporting the hitch
plate and slidably abutting the first side of the at least one rack
member;
a guide plate slidably abutting the second side of the at
least one rack member and detachably coupled to the pair of
support brackets by a plurality of mechanical fasteners; and
an engagement assembly releasably engaging the at least
one rack member at incremental points along a length of the at
least one rack member, thereby selectively positioning the hitch
plate with respect to the at least one rack member.

Appeal 2010-004695
Application 11/369,496

3
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies upon the following evidence:
Brown US 3,117,772 Jan. 14, 1964
Fontaine US 3,606,384 Sep. 20, 1971
Laarman US 6,488,305 B2 Dec. 3, 2002
Alguera Gallego US 6,592,140 B1 Jul. 15, 2003
Stunder US 2004/0173992 A1 Sep. 9, 2004
THE REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 3-5, 10, 12-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fontaine and Laarman.
2. Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Fontaine, Laarman, and Alguera Gallego.
3. Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Fontaine, Laarman, and Stunder.
4. Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fontaine, Laarman, and Brown.
ISSUES
The issues presented by this appeal are:
Does Fontaine’s plate 23 and channel member 27 comprise the
claimed “guide plate?”
Did the Examiner provide adequate reasoning based on rational
underpinnings to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention would have been led by the teaching of Laarman to replace the
Appeal 2010-004695
Application 11/369,496

4
welded connection between the guide plate and each support bracket with
bolts?
ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 10, 12-16, 18, and 20 based on Fontaine and
Laarman
Appellants offer the same arguments for all the claims subject to this
rejection. App. Br. 3-6.1 We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Claim 1 calls for “a guide plate slidably abutting the second side of
the at least one rack member.” The Examiner determined that Fontaine’s
members 21 and plate 22 comprise the claimed “rack member” and plate 23
and channel member 27 comprise the claimed “guide plate.” Ans. 3.
Appellants argue that “Fontaine et al. further fails to disclose that the
channel members 27, 28 themselves guide along the rail 16.” App. Br. 4.
Fontaine discloses members 21 are welded to rails 16 and 17 and to
cover plates 22 so that the ends 21a of the members 21 project just inwardly
of the inner edges of the cover plates 22. Col. 2, ll. 18-22; fig. 4. Fontaine
discloses that channel member 27 is welded adjacent its end to plate 23 and
that plate 23 is of a width to slide on rails 16 and 17, along the upper
surfaces thereof inwardly of the members 21. Col. 2, ll. 23-25 and 41-43.

1 Although the Appeal Brief includes separate subheadings for independent
claim 13 and dependent claims 2-5, 10, 12, 14-16, 18, and 20, the arguments
presented under these subheadings are the same as those presented in
support of claim 1. App. Br. 5-6. As such, these claims stand or fall with
claim 1.
Appeal 2010-004695
Application 11/369,496

5
Fontaine discloses that “by providing the members 21, individually formed
and individually secured to the top surfaces of the rails 16 and 17, along the
outer portions of the top surfaces thereof, we provide room for the plates 23
to slide immediately along and in contact with the inner ends of the members
21.” Col. 3, ll. 9-14. Thus, Fontaine discloses that the welded combination
of plate 23 and channel member 27 slides along and in contact with the inner
ends of the members 21, which form part of the rack member. As such, we
agree with the Examiner that Fontaine’s plate 23 and channel member 27
comprise the claimed “guide plate.”
Appellants also argue that neither Fontaine nor Laarman discloses a
detachable connection between a guide plate and a pair of support brackets.
App. Br. 4. Claim 1 calls for the guide plate to be “detachably coupled to
the pair of support brackets by a plurality of mechanical fasteners.” Both the
Examiner and Appellants agree that Fontaine does not disclose the guide
plate detachably coupled to the pair of support brackets. Ans. 3 (finding that
Fontaine lacks removable fasteners between a guide plate (plate 23 and
channel member 27) and each support bracket (vertical plates 43 which are
welded to the upper surface of the upper plate 24 of the slide)); App. Br. 4.
The Examiner cited to Laarman as “showing a fifth wheel slider
arrangement, similar to that of Fontaine, with a cross brace [29] removably
connected to bracket members [67] by nut and bolt fasteners [58]” and
determined that it would have been obvious to use nut and bolt fasteners
between the guide plate and the bracket of Fontaine “to facilitate assembly
and disassembly of the mechanism.” Ans. 4, 6. Appellants argue that
Appeal 2010-004695
Application 11/369,496

6
because Laarman’s cross plate 29 is not a guide plate and does not slidably
abut a side of a rack member and is not detachably coupled to a pair of
support brackets, the rejection is based on improper picking and choosing of
the elements from within each of the cited references without considering
what each of these references disclose as a whole. App. Br. 4-5.
While Fontaine discloses that channel member 27 is welded to plate
24, which is welded to vertical plates 43 (col. 2, ll. 41-43 and 69-70),
Fontaine does not provide any indication that welding is necessary or that
other means of connecting channel member 27 and plate 24 would be
unsuitable. Laarman discloses that conventional fifth wheel assemblies have
the slide plates or carrier assemblies that are usually custom made to fit a
particular type of tractor frame and that any adjustment to the position of the
carriage assembly on the carrier assembly “is relatively complicated and
expensive due to the welding and unwelding of various parts.” Col. 1, ll. 24-
36. Laarman discloses that its invention “provides a carrier assembly for
movably supporting a fifth wheel assembly of a tractor trailer combination
which is readily adjustably mounted on the spaced frame members of a
tractor by a plurality of bolts along the length of the frame mounting angle.”
Col. 2, ll. 12-16. In particular, Laarman discloses using bolts 58 for securing
mounting brackets 55 to pedestal support plate 28 so as to adjustably
movably mount carriage assembly 13 on carrier assembly 15. Col. 5, ll. 5-9.
Laarman also discloses the use of bolts elsewhere so as to render the entire
assembly easy to adjust and assemble and disassemble. For example,
Laarman discloses using bolts 43 for rigidly attaching slide rail 40 to tractor
Appeal 2010-004695
Application 11/369,496

7
frame leg 27A (col. 4, ll. 54-55) and bolts 88 for securing plate 80 in an
adjusted position on the ends of stop plate 36 (col. 6, ll. 5-7). As such,
Laarman would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that it is
desirable to replace welded connections in a conventional fifth wheel
assembly with nut and bolt fasteners so as to render the entire assembly
easily adjustable and less expensive to install and maintain.
Based on this teaching in Laarman, we find that the Examiner’s stated
reason to modify the welded connection of channel 27 to plate 24 with a nut
and bolt fastener “to facilitate assembly and disassembly of the mechanism”
is based on a rational underpinning. Appellants have provided us with no
reason to believe that the Examiner’s proposed combination is not feasible
as Appellants have not argued or provided evidence that the use of nut and
bolt fasteners to connect channel 27 to plate 24 of Fontaine’s assembly
would render Fontaine’s assembly inoperable or would be beyond the level
of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, Appellants have not
otherwise persuaded us that the Examiner’s proposed modification to
Fontaine’s assembly in light of Laarman is non-obvious. As such, we
sustain the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Fontaine and Laarman.
Claims 3-5, 10, 12-16, 18, and 20 fall with claim 1.
Rejections of claims 2, 6-9, 11, 17, and 19
The remaining rejections rely on the base combination of Fontaine
and Laarman with the further teaching of Alguera Gallego, Stunder, or
Brown. Appellants argue for each of these rejections that the dependent
claims are patentable based on their dependence from independent claims 1
Appeal 2010-004695
Application 11/369,496

8
or 13, thereby relying on the arguments presented for patentability of claim 1
that we found unpersuasive for the reasons provided supra. App. Br. 6-7.
As such, we sustain the rejections of claims 2, 6-9, 11, 17, and 19 for the
same reasons as claim 1.
CONCLUSIONS
Fontaine’s plate 23 and channel member 27 comprise the claimed
“guide plate.”
The Examiner provided adequate reasoning based on rational
underpinnings to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention would have been led by the teaching of Laarman to replace the
welded connection between the guide plate and each support bracket with
bolts.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh