Ex Parte White

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 18, 2006

10622157 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 18, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication in and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
___________

Ex parte WARREN R. WHITE
___________

Appeal No. 2006-0923
Application No. 10/622,157
___________

ON BRIEF
___________

Before OWENS, BAHR, and HORNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal is from a rejection of claims 12-17 and 32-34,
which are all of the pending claims.
THE INVENTION
The appellant claims a mobile cattle hospital for treating
pens of cattle close to the pens. Claims 12 and 33 are
illustrative:

Appeal Number: 2006-0923
Application Number: 10/622,157
12. A mobile animal hospital comprising:
a trailer having a frame and at least one set of
wheels;
a squeeze chute mounted on the trailer, and wherein
the squeeze chute remains stationary in a horizontal plane
with respect to the set of wheels; and
wherein the at least one set of wheels is adapted to
raise relative to the frame of the trailer such that at
least a portion of the frame of the trailer rests at ground
level when treating animals.

33. A structure comprising:
a trailer having tongue, a frame, and at least one set
of wheels; and
a squeeze chute coupled to the frame of the trailer,
and wherein the position of the squeeze chute relative to
the tongue is the same for both treating animals using the
squeeze chute and relocation of the trailer;
wherein the at least one set of wheels is adapted to
raise relative to the frame of the trailer such that at
least a portion of the frame of the trailer rests at ground
level when treating animals.

THE REFERENCES
Lerma et al. (Lerma) 4,842,316 Jun. 27, 1989
Mollhagen RE 33,959 Jun. 16, 1992
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 12-17, 33
and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Mollhagen, and
claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Mollhagen in view
of Lerma.
2
Appeal Number: 2006-0923
Application Number: 10/622,157
OPINION
The rejections are affirmed as to claims 12, 13, 15-17
and 32, and reversed as to claims 14, 33 and 34.
Claims 12, 13, 15-17 and 32
The appellant indicates that claims 12, 13, 15-17 and 32
stand or fall together (brief, page 4). Although an additional
reference is applied in the rejection of claim 32, the appellant
does not provide a substantive argument as to the separate
patentability of that claim (brief, pages 7-8). We therefore
limit our discussion to one of claims 12, 13, 15-17 and 32,
i.e., claim 12. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
The only element of claim 12 that the appellant argues is
missing from Mollhagen is a squeeze chute that remains
stationary in a horizontal plane with respect to the set of
wheels (brief, page 7).
Mollhagen’s squeeze chute (112, figure 3)1 is mounted on an
extension base (108) in communication with the open back
end (76) of a back enclosure (3) (col. 7, lines 53-56). When
Mollhagen’s animal working device is switched from its transport
configuration to its working configuration a front enclosure (2)

1 Mollhagen’s item 112 is not mentioned in the specification. However,
Mollhagen’s figure 3 and the discussion of the squeeze chute in Mollhagen’s
specification (col. 7, lines 53-53) indicate that item 112 is a squeeze
chute, and the appellant refers to that item as a squeeze chute (brief,
page 7).
3
Appeal Number: 2006-0923
Application Number: 10/622,157
is pulled along rollers away from the back enclosure (col. 6,
lines 49-52). Thus, as indicated by a comparison of Mollhagen’s
figures 2 and 3, during the switching between the transport and
working configurations the squeeze chute is moved horizontally
with respect to the wheels of the trailer on which the animal
working device is mounted.
The appellant’s claim 33 requires that the position of the
squeeze chute relative to the tongue of the trailer is the same
for both treating animals using the squeeze chute and relocation
of the trailer. Claim 12, however, does not require that the
squeeze chute remains stationary in a horizontal plane with
respect to the set of wheels both when treating animals and
relocating the trailer. Hence, in view of claim 33, claim 12
reasonably can be more broadly interpreted as encompassing a
stationary position of the squeeze chute relative to the wheels
during either treatment of animals or relocation of the trailer.
Mollhagen’s squeeze chute remains stationary with respect
to the trailer’s wheels in one position during treatment of
animals (figure 3) and in a different position during relocation
of the trailer (figure 2). Since claim 12 is open to those
positions being different, we are not convinced of reversible
error in the examiner’s rejection of that claim. Accordingly,
4
Appeal Number: 2006-0923
Application Number: 10/622,157
we affirm the rejection of claim 12 and claims 13, 15-17 and 32
that stand or fall therewith.
Claim 14
Claim 14, which depends from claim 12, requires first,
second and third gates that are proximate to the front of the
trailer and are proximate, respectively, to a first side, a
second side and the center of the trailer, and which may be
selectively arranged to allow egress of an animal off one of the
first and second sides of the trailer after the animal exits the
squeeze chute.
The examiner argues that “Mollhagen discloses a first
gate 49, a second gate 63 and a third gate 102” (final rejection
mailed April 26, 2004, page 3). Mollhagen’s gates 49 and 102
are at, respectively, the front of the front enclosure and the
rear of the back enclosure (figures 1-3). Gate 63 is at the
front of the back enclosure and, therefore, is at the front of
the trailer in the transport position and in the middle of the
trailer in the animal treatment position (figures 2, 3 and 5).
Gates 102 (one on each side of the rear of the back enclosure
(figure 4)) never are proximate to the front of the trailer as
required by the appellant’s claim 14.
The examiner argues that the selective arrangement
limitation in claim 14 is a method limitation rather than an
5
Appeal Number: 2006-0923
Application Number: 10/622,157
apparatus limitation (answer, page 4). The claim requires that
the three gates are structurally configured such that they are
capable of being selectively arranged to allow egress of an
animal off one of the first and second sides of the trailer
after the animal exits the squeeze chute. That claim
requirement is a structural limitation of the apparatus. The
only gates on the side of Mollhagen’s animal working device are
gates 102 (figure 4), and those gates are disclosed as providing
access to animals in the device (col. 7, lines 36-37).
Gates 102 are not disclosed as being capable of animal egress.
Even if such egress can take place, the gates are not proximate
to the front of the trailer as required by claim 14.
We therefore reverse the rejection of claim 14.
Claim 33
The examiner argues that 1) “the position of [Mollhagen’s]
squeeze chute relative to the tongue 123 is the same for both
treating animals using the squeeze chute and relocation of the
trailer (no movement of the tongue relaitive [sic] to the chute
is necessary, as the chute is located at the rear of the trailer
and the tongue at the front of the trailer)” (final rejection
mailed April 26, 2004, page 4), and 2) “[f]rom Figs. 1-3, it
would appear that the position of the squeeze chute relative to
the tongue is the same” (answer, page 5). The examiner is
6
Appeal Number: 2006-0923
Application Number: 10/622,157
correct that Mollhagen’s trailer tongue always is proximate to
the front of the animal working device (figure 2) and the
squeeze chute always is at the rear of the back enclosure
(figure 3). However, the position of the squeeze chute relative
to the tongue is not the same for both treating animals using
the squeeze chute and relocating the trailer. As indicated by a
comparison of Mollhagen’s figures 2 and 3, the squeeze chute is
closer to the tongue in the transport position (figure 2) than
in the animal treatment position (figure 3).
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim 33 and its
dependent claim 34.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 12-17, 33 and 34 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Mollhagen is affirmed as to claims 12,
13 and 15-17, and reversed as to claims 14, 33 and 34. The
rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mollhagen in
view of Lerma is affirmed.
7
Appeal Number: 2006-0923
Application Number: 10/622,157
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JENNIFER D. BAHR ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LINDA E. HORNER )
Administrative Patent Judge )

8
Appeal Number: 2006-0923
Application Number: 10/622,157
CONLEY ROSE, P.C.
P. O. BOX 3267
HOUSTON, TX 77253-3267

TJO/jrg

9