Ex Parte Thorne et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 7, 2016

13109328 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/109,328 05/17/2011 Henry F. Thorne
140585 7590 11/07/2016
THE WEBB LAW FIRM!fHORLEY INDUSTRIES LLC
ONE GATEWAY CENTER
420 FT. DUQUESNE BL VD, SUITE 1200
PITTSBURGH, PA 15222
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
5983-111617 1200
EXAMINER
VANAMAN, FRANK BENNETT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3618
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
11/07/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HENRY F. THORNE, ROBERT D. DALEY, and
MARY J. KOES
Appeal2014-005047
Application 13/109,328
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Henry F. Thome et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the rejection of claims 1-5, 9, 13-15, 1 7, and 19. An oral hearing was
held on October 25, 2016. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal2014-005047
Application 13/109,328
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A stroller, comprising:
a first stroller component;
a second stroller component;
at least one of the first and second stroller components
being movable from a first position to a second position;
a drive mechanism comprising at least two motors, a first
one of the at least two motors is operatively engaged with at least
one of the first and second stroller components to move the at
least one of the first and second stroller components from its first
position to its second position;
one or more latches in operative engagement with at least
one of the first stroller component and the second stroller
component, which one or more latches are moveable by a second
one of the at least two motors between a latched position in which
the one or more latches prevent movement of at least one of the
first stroller component and the second stroller component
toward their second positions, and an unlatched position in which
the one or more latches allow movement of at least one of the
first stroller component and the second stroller component
toward their second positions; and
a control system operatively engaged with the drive
mechanism to actuate the drive mechanism to provide actuation
of the at least two motors upon actuation of a control switch such
that the first one of the at least two motors causes the at least one
of the first and second stroller components to move from its first
position to its second position and the second one of the at least
two motors causes the one or more latches to move from the
latched position to the unlatched position.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Singletary us 4,896,894 Jan.30, 1990
2
Appeal2014-005047
Application 13/109,328
Rogers
Bearup
Takahashi
US 5,409,277 Apr. 25, 1995
US 2007/0262565 Al Nov. 15, 2007
EP 719,693 A2 July 3, 1996
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 13-15, 17 and 19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takahashi,
Singletary, and Rogers.
II. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Takahashi, Singletary, Rogers, and Bearup.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Appellants argue that
The Takahashi publication, whether considered alone or in
combination with the Singletary patent and the Rogers patent,
provides no teaching or suggestion of a control system
configured to operate a first motor that causes the folding and
unfolding of a stroller and a second motor that actuates a latching
mechanism.
Appeal Br. 13.
Responding to this argument, the Examiner explains that
Takahashi teaches a controlling actuator including a switch
connected to the power supply and actuated by the operator, and
the Rogers reference similarly identi[f]ies a controlling actuator
including switch connected to a power supply and actuated by an
operator. Neither reference employs a complicated control
system and interestingly, both control systems are of notably
similar structure: both Takahashi and Rogers use a power supply,
an actuating switch, and a limit switch for their respective
motorized devices.
Ans. 5. The Examiner further explains that
3
Appeal2014-005047
Application 13/109,328
In this case, the integration of the Rogers reference's latch
or lock control motors into the stroller taught by Takahashi and
modified by Singletary would require little more than a routine
duplication of already-known structure (a user-operated
actuation switch, a connection to a power supply, and a limit
switch to prevent over-travel). At the most simplistic case, this
may be had by simply incorporating into the existing
arrangement a second switch which controls the latching
function, at which point the resulting control system would
include two control switches connected to the respective folding
and latch motors.
Id. at 6-7.
Addressing the Examiner's further explanation, Appellants contend
that "the combination of the Takahashi publication, the Singletary patent,
and the Rogers patent provides no teaching or suggestion of a control system
operatively engaged with the drive mechanism to actuate the drive
mechanism to provide actuation of the at least two motors upon actuation
of a control switch." Reply Br. 3. In support of this contention, Appellants
argue that "such an arrangement clearly does not meet the language of
independent claims 1 and 14, as each of these claims clearly requires a
control system to provide actuation of the at least two motors upon actuation
of a control switch." Id.
Appellants are correct. The rejection does not address actuation of
both of the motors by the same control switch. See Final Act. 2--4. Further,
as quoted supra, the proposed combination results in a switch for each
motor. The Examiner does not explain why it would have been obvious to
replace the separate control switches taught by the prior art with "a control
switch" as required by independent claims 1 and 14. Thus, the Examiner
fails to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness.
4
Appeal2014-005047
Application 13/109,328
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting
independent claims 1 and 14, and their respective dependent claims 2, 3, 5,
9, 13, 15, 17 and 19.
Rejection II
The rejection of claim 4 does not cure the deficiencies in the prima
facie case of obviousness discussed supra. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 4 for the same reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-5, 9, 13-15, 1 7, and 19 are
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
REVERSED
5