Ex Parte Valli

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 17, 2009

10467414 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 17, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GIOVANNI VALLI
____________

Appeal 2009-000533
Application 10/467,414
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: September 17, 2009
____________

Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, JOHN C. KERINS, and MICHAEL W.
O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Giovanni Valli (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the final rejection of claims 34-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bianca (US 3,159,293, issued Dec. 1, 1964), Grove (US
Appeal 2009-000533
Application 10/467,414

2
2,840,248, issued Jun. 24, 1958), and Valli (US 4,793,760, issued Dec. 27,
1988). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We REVERSE.

OPINION
The claimed invention is to a carriage for the horizontal transfer of
motor vehicles within an automatic mechanical car park. Spec. 1:4-27.
Claim 34, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
34. A self-propelled carriage on wheels for
transferring a motor vehicle by lifting wheels of the vehicle, the
carriage comprising:
two parts that are joined together with a hinge, one
of said two parts having four support wheels and another of said
two parts having two support wheels, each of said two parts
carrying the wheels of a respective axle of the vehicle being
transferred; and
each of said two parts comprising,
a wheel lifting frame that moves vertically,
a rotatable gear carried by said frame and engaging
a pair of geared racks that move symmetrically and in opposite
directions perpendicularly with respect to a longitudinal axis of
the carriage,
a pair of centering bars carried by said frame and
that are parallel to the longitudinal axis of the carriage and that
are each connected to a respective different one of said geared
racks and that move in opposite directions perpendicular to the
longitudinal axis of the carriage when impelled by said geared
racks into engagement with interior sides of the wheels of the
vehicle being transferred, and
each of said centering bars having plural supports
that extend parallel to said racks and that are arranged and
adapted to engage a tread of a respective wheel of the vehicle
being transferred,
said centering bars and plural supports moving
vertically with said frame to lift the vehicle.
Appeal 2009-000533
Application 10/467,414

3
The Examiner found that Bianca does not disclose the claimed
centering bars. Ans. 3. The Examiner found that Valli discloses centering
bars. Ans. 4. The Examiner proposes to modify Bianca’s root bars 24 with
the teaching of Valli’s centering bars 53. Ans. 5 and 7.
Appellant contends that the Examiner has not clearly explained how a
person of ordinary skill in the art would modify Bianca with the teachings of
Valli’s centering bars because Valli’s device slides the motor vehicle
sideways on the platform and there is no space in Bianca’s device for such
an operation. Appellant further contends that the mechanical complications
of such a combination “would be daunting and there is nothing of record
indicating how these mechanical complications could be overcome by one of
skill in the art in absence of the present invention.” App. Br. 6.
While we consider Appellant’s contention that applying the teachings
of Valli’s centering bars 53 to Bianca’s root bars 24 would be “daunting” to
be slight hyperbole, we nonetheless agree with Appellant that applying the
teachings of Valli to Bianca as the Examiner has proposed would pose a
great difficulty for a person of ordinary skill in the art in achieving the result
of the centering bars and plural supports moving vertically with the frame to
lift the vehicle. The Examiner has not articulated how a person of ordinary
skill in the art could readily modify Bianca’s root bars 24 to perform the
centering as it is performed by Valli’s centering bars 53, or otherwise.
Bianca’s root bars 24 are structured to secure the gripper portions 22 thereto
and to hold the weight of the vehicle. (Bianca, col. 4, ll. 8-28). Valli’s
centering bars 53 are stationary and do not appear to have such structure to
support a gripper portion for a wheel, nor a weight bearing component, i.e.,
the capability to lift a portion of a vehicle.
Appeal 2009-000533
Application 10/467,414

4
This case is not seen as being an obvious combination of prior art
elements or simple substitution of one known element for another, leading to
predictable results, or any other indicator of potential obviousness. Rather
the extensive amount of modification needed is suggested nowhere in the
cited art, and is born from the use of impermissible hindsight reconstruction
in view of Appellant’s Specification.

CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the Appellant has demonstrated error in the
Examiner’s proposed modification of Bianca in view of the teachings of
Valli.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject the claims is

REVERSED

mls

YOUNG & THOMPSON
209 MADISON STREET
SUITE 500
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314