Ex Parte Wiggins et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 27, 201613023133 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/023, 133 02/08/2011 63565 7590 09/28/2016 HILL-ROM SERVICES, INC. Legal Dept., Mail Code K04 1069 State Road 46 East BATESVILLE, IN 47006 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Brian T. Wiggins 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. Nl-23039 8046 EXAMINER KURILLA, ERIC J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3673 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 09/28/2016 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 BRIANT. WIGGINS and RICHARD H. HEIMBROCK Appeal2014-007409 Application 13/023,133 Technology Center 3600 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge. STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants, Brian T. Wiggins et al., 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-16 and 18-23.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appellants identify Hill-Rom Services, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Claim 17 is allowable but for its dependence from a rejected base claim and intervening claims. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2014-007409 Application 13/023,133 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to "siderails of the type used on hospital beds and particularly to a siderail having a variable height." Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1, 9, and 18 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A siderail comprising: a rail having a lower edge extending longitudinally from a head end to a foot end; a longitudinally outer link comprising a head side outer link segment and a foot side outer link segment, each segment connected to the rail at a joint (OR) and connected to a host frame at a joint (OF); an inner link longitudinally intermediate the outer link segments, the inner link being connected to the rail at a joint (IR) and connected to the host frame at a joint (IF); the head side outer link segment extending longitudinally from approximately the head end of the rail lower edge toward the inner link without longitudinally overlapping the inner link; and the foot side outer link segment extending longitudinally from approximately the foot end of the rail lower edge toward the inner link without longitudinally overlapping the inner link. REFERENCES In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the following prior art: Simmonds Wu us 7,073,220 US 2009/0144898 Al 2 July 11, 2006 June 11, 2009 Appeal2014-007409 Application 13/023,133 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: 1. Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Simmonds. 2. Claims 18-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wu. Appellants seek our review of the rejections. ANALYSIS The Rejection of Claims 1-16 as Anticipated by Simmonds Claims 1-8 The Examiner finds that Simmonds discloses the following limitations in independent claim 1 (emphasis added): the head side outer link segment extending longitudinally from approximately the head end of the rail lov,rer edge toward the inner link without longitudinally overlapping the inner link; and the foot side outer link segment extending longitudinally from approximately the foot end of the rail lower edge toward the inner link without longitudinally overlapping the inner link. The Examiner also finds that: the word "approximately" is not a definite term and lends itself to a variety of interpretations. From the Examiner's viewpoint, rail 58 of Simmonds et al. can be divided into two halves. The head end could be from the middle of the rail to the right side of 58 in Fig. 8, and the foot end could be from the middle of the rail to the left side of 58 in Fig. 8. Outer link segment 68 on the right in Fig. 8 extends longitudinally toward inner link 72 from approximately the head end of the rail lower edge. Likewise, outer link segment 68 on the left in Fig. 8 extends longitudinally 3 Appeal2014-007409 Application 13/023,133 toward inner link 72 from approximately the foot end of the rail lower edge. Ans. 10. Thus, according to the Examiner, the "head end" is the entire right half of the rail, and the "foot end" is the entire left half of the rail. In response, Appellants argue that: The proposed division of rail member 58 appears to be an attempt to define a head end and a foot end of member 58 where "end" means a portion or a part that extends longitudinally from the line of division to the longitudinal extremity of the half- member. By contrast, applicants' specification clearly uses "end" to refer to the longitudinal extremities themselves, not to a portion of the member which extends from the line of division to one of the longitudinal extremities. Applicants' drawings and specification disclose ends 74, 76 as essentially discrete locations not as elements that have a spatial distribution. The essentially discrete character of ends 7 4, 7 6 is reinforced by their use as endpoints for defining the length or longitudinal extent L of the lower edge (pg. 5 lines 8-12). Reply Br. 2 (emphasis added). Appellants correctly state that the Specification describes the head end and foot end as the outermost endpoints of rail lower edge 72. Paragraph 8, lines 8-12 of the Specification, for example, states: "Referring to FIGS. 3- 10, right side head end siderail 52 includes a rail 70 having a lower edge 72 extending longitudinally from a rail head end 74 to a rail foot end 76, thereby defining the longitudinal extent L of the lower edge." The Examiner's determination that the "head end" is the entire right half of the rail, and the "foot end" is the entire left half of the rail is not reasonable because it is not consistent with the use of the claim term "end" in the Specification. During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969)(emphasis 4 Appeal2014-007409 Application 13/023,133 added); Jn re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Referring to Figure 6, Simmonds discloses that head end outer link element 68 is located in the middle of the rail lower edge, and extends from the middle of the rail lower edge - not the head end - towards the inner link 72. Because the Examiner's finding that Simmonds' head end outer link element 68 extends from "approximately the head end of the rail lower edge" is incorrect, Simmonds does not anticipate claim 1. Thus, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-8 which depend from claim 1. Claims 9-16 The Examiner finds that Simmonds discloses all of the limitations in independent claim 9, including a "rail lower panel being stationary with respect to the outer link." Final Act. 8-9. According to the Examiner, Simmonds "wholly reads on this limitation when the rail is in either the deployed state (Fig. 6) or the stowed state (Fig. 7). There is no movement in either of these states, therefore the rail lower panel 90 is stationary with respect to outer link 68." Ans. 11 (emphasis added). Thus, according to the Examiner, the lower panel is only stationary with respect to outer link 68 in the deployed state (Fig. 6) and the stowed state (Fig. 7). In response, Appellants argue that: [Simmonds] doesn't disclose the claim limitation that the alleged lower panel (reference flanges 90) is stationary with respect to the outer link segments (reference second links 68). The claim limitation "the rail lower panel being stationary with respect to the outer link" clearly refers to the transient condition when the siderail is in transit between one position and another, e.g. 5 Appeal2014-007409 Application 13/023,133 deployed to stored or vice versa. . . . When rail member 58 is moved, base plate 86 and flanges 90 move with it, i.e. flanges 90 don't move relative to base plate 86, or relative to third link 70, which is merely base plate 86 and its associated flanges 88, 90. But flanges 90 and second links 68 do move relative to each other. So, even if one were to construe flanges 90 as the equivalent of applicants' lower panel, the flanges wouldn't meet the claimed limitation of being stationary with respect second links 68, which are the analogues of applicants' outer link segments. Appeal Br. 20-21. The Specification teaches that rail lower panel 94 is stationary with respect to the outer link in the deployed position, the stored position, and while the siderail is moving between the two positions. See, e.g., Spec. i-f 16 ("The rail lower panel 94 comprises head side and foot side subpanels 94 'H, 94'F, each of which is connected to one of the outer link segments by the fasteners 142 so that the subpanels, and therefore the lower panel 94' as a whole, are stationary with respect to the outer link 80."). In light of the Specification and Appellants' arguments, the broadest reasonable interpretation of "stationary" means that the rail lower panel does not move3 with respect to the outer link, which includes when the siderail is moving between the deployed and stored positions. In Simmonds, lower panel (flange 90) moves relative to outer link (link 68) during movement of rail 58. See Simmonds 5 :30-60, 6:30-45, Fig. 8. Because Simmonds does not disclose a lower panel stationary relative to 3 See Stationary. (2011 ). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English language, Houghton Mifflin, retrieved Sept. 27, 2016 from http:// search. credoreference. com/ content/ entry /hmdictenglang/ stationary /0. 6 Appeal2014-007409 Application 13/023,133 the outer link, it does not anticipate claim 9. Thus, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 9 and claims 10-16 which depend from claim 9. The Rejection of Claims 18-23 as Anticipated by Wu Independent claim 18 recites, in part, "a head side outer link segment and a foot side outer link segment each comprising:" "a wing portion longitudinally outboard of the inner link." In finding that Wu discloses all of the limitations of claim 18, the Examiner states that the head side outer link segment and foot side outer link segment are reference 32, the wing portion is reference 2, and the inner link is reference 34 (or 341 ). Final Act. 10-11. The Examiner also finds that "wing portion 2 of Wu is longitudinally outboard of the inner link 341 as shown in Figs. 1 and 2." Ans. 14. In response, Appellants correctly argue that "claim 18 recites an inner link, a head side outer link segment, and a foot side outer link segment. Each outer link segment includes an arm portion and a wing portion. In other words the wing portion is a constituent of the outer link, not a constituent of the inner link." Reply Br. 10 (emphasis added). Appellants also correctly argue that Wu teaches wing portion 2 (i.e., gap cover 2) is attached to inner link 34/341 (i.e., locking mechanism 34), not outer link segments 32 (i.e., arm 32), as required by claim 18. Id. (citing Wu i-f 20). Thus, Wu does not anticipate claim 18. We cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 18 and claims 19-23 which depend from claim 18. 7 Appeal2014-007409 Application 13/023,133 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-16 and 18-23 are REVERSED. REVERSED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation