Ex Parte Swink et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 31, 2002

09348141 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2002)

1
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not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the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. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte EDWARD A. SWINK,
CLAYTON M. SMITH,
CARL L. MURPHY
and RICK LAVELOCK
__________
Appeal No. 2002-0492
Application 09/348,141
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before FRANKFORT, MCQUADE, and BAHR, Administrative Patent
Judges.
MCQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Edward A. Swink et al. appeal from the final rejection of
claim 16. Claims 1, 8 through 12, 14 and 15, the only other
claims pending in the application, stand allowed.
THE INVENTION
The appellants’ invention relates to “a folding ramp that
provides access between two surfaces of different heights, such
Appeal No. 2002-0492
Application 09/348,141
2
as from a truck or dock surface to the ground surface”
(specification, page 1). Appealed claim 16 reads as follows:
16. A folding portable ramp, comprising:
a first platform section having first and second ends;
a second platform section having first and second ends, said
first end of said second section pivotally coupled to said second
end of said first section, said second section adapted to be
pivoted relative to said first section between a storage position
wherein said second section overlies said first section and an
extended position, wherein said first and second sections form an
obtuse angle; and
a leg support structure pivotally coupled to at least one of
said second end of said first section and said first end of said
second section, said leg support structure adapted to be pivoted
between a first position, wherein said leg support structure
overlies said second section when said section is in said storage
position, and a second position wherein said leg support
structure extends outwardly away from said first and second
sections;
and wherein said leg support structure includes a latching
mechanism that releasably maintains said leg support structure in
said second position.
THE REJECTION
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,795,304 to Dudley.
Attention is directed to the appellants’ brief (Paper No.
10) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 11) for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner with
regard to the merits of this rejection.
Appeal No. 2002-0492
Application 09/348,141
3
DISCUSSION
Dudley discloses a pickup truck loading ramp 20 comprising a
forward panel 22 having its forward end pivotally connected at 32
to the rear bumper 18 of the pickup and its sides slidably
mounted to the tailgate of the pickup by sleeves 34, a rearward
panel 24 having its forward end hingedly connected to the
rearward end of the forward panel, and a pair of posts 46
pivotally connected to the panels adjacent their hinged
connection. As described by Dudley,
[i]n operation, assuming the ramp is in its folded
stored position adjacent the rearward limit of the
closed pickup tailgate 16 (FIG. 2)[, the] tailgate
latch, not shown, is manually released and the tailgate
lowered to the position of FIG. 1 with the rearward
ramp panel 24 hingedly pivoted rearwardly so that the
rearward limit of its beams 40 and 42 contact[s] the
surface of the earth rearwardly of the pickup.
Simultaneously, with the lowering action of the
tailgate, the forward panel supporting sleeve 34 slides
along the beam box-channels 26' so that the plane of
the forward ramp panel 22 describes a plane
substantially parallel with the plane of the lowered
tailgate. The ramp posts 46 are manually positioned
vertically (FIG. 1). The ramp 20 is then in position
for loading a wheeled vehicle, not shown, into or out
of the pickup truck bed 10.
After utilizing the ramp for loading or unloading
it is moved to a stored position by simply pivoting the
forward panel vertically about its hinged connection
with the bumper while simultaneously the tailgate is
pivoting forwardly to its closed position wherein the
sleeve 34 again slides along the beam box members 26
and the rearward ramp panel 24 pivot[s] to a vertical
juxtaposed position with the forward ramp panel 22
[column 2, line 65, through column 3, line 12].
Appeal No. 2002-0492
Application 09/348,141
4
It is not disputed that Dudley meets all of the limitations
in claim 16 except for the one requiring the leg support
structure to include “a latching mechanism that releasably
maintains said leg support structure in said second position.”
As conceded by the examiner, Dudley “is silent regarding a
latching mechanism on the leg support structure [posts 46]”
(answer, page 3). Nonetheless, the examiner submits that
[i]t is common to latch legs in an extended position in
order to prevent collapse (folding tables, for example)
and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
at the time the invention was made to have used a latch
on the leg support structure to releasably maintain the
leg support structure in the second position for this
purpose [answer, page 3].
Of this proposed modification of the Dudley ramp, the
appellants argue that
it is untenable to look to the teachings of folding
tables and other unrelated devices. In order to modify
a reference, and [in] combining references, there must
be motivation. The broad desire to lock a leg in
vastly unrelated fields [does] not provide this
motivation. Since the Dudley patent admittedly does
not provide the requisite motivation, and the broad
desire to lock a leg in other unrelated contexts is
insufficient, applicants submit that the modification
is improper [brief, pages 7 and 8].
A conclusion of obviousness may be based on common knowledge
and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art
without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular
Appeal No. 2002-0492
Application 09/348,141
5
reference. In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549
(CCPA 1969). In the present case, the appellants have not
challenged, and in fact appear to acquiesce to, the examiner’s
finding that the latching of hinged legs, such as found in a
folding table, in their operative position to prevent collapse
was a generally known and conventional expedient at the time the
appellants’ invention was made. Although the examiner’s folding
table example is somewhat removed from ramps of the sort at issue
here, it is not unreasonable in cases involving relatively simple
everyday-type mechanical concepts to permit inquiry into other
areas where one of even limited technical skill would be aware
that similar problems exist. In re Heldt, 433 F.2d 808, 812, 167
USPQ 676, 679 (CCPA 1970). A person of ordinary skill in the art
would have readily appreciated, as a simple matter of common
sense, that Dudley’s unlatched leg support structure has a
certain degree of instability, and that this problem would be
diminished by a conventional leg latching mechanism of the type
alluded to by the examiner. This recognition would have
furnished the artisan with ample suggestion or motivation to
incorporate such a mechanism into the Dudley ramp, thereby
arriving at the subject matter recited in claim 16.
Appeal No. 2002-0492
Application 09/348,141
6
Hence, the teachings of Dudley considered in conjunction
with the unchallenged common knowledge noted by the examiner
justify the examiner’s conclusion that the differences between
the subject matter recited in claim 16 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.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 16.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claim 16 is affirmed.
Appeal No. 2002-0492
Application 09/348,141
7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
) APPEALS AND
JOHN P. MCQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JPM/kis
Appeal No. 2002-0492
Application 09/348,141
8
DEVON ROLF
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON
ONE KANSAS CITY PLACE
1200 MAIN STREET
KANSAS CITY, MO 64105-2118