Franco Robolotti et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 26, 2019

14504306 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/504,306 10/01/2014 Franco Robolotti 2AA-74-002 9070
105999 7590 09/26/2019
Hyster-Yale Group, Inc.
4000 NE Blue Lake Road
Fairview, OR 97024
EXAMINER
KEENAN, JAMES W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2019 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
IPdocketing@schwabe.com
jeff.woller@hyster-yale.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte FRANCO ROBOLOTTI and RICCARDO APPIANI
____________________

Appeal 2017-010910
Application 14/504,306
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before BRADLEY B. BAYAT, FREDERICK C. LANEY, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.

KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2017-010910
Application 14/504,306

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action, rejecting claims
1, 2, 6, and 8–14.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). A hearing
was held on September 12, 2019.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “a reach truck for the movement of goods
on pallets in a factory, warehouse, supermarket and the like.” Spec. 1:6–7.
Claim 1, the only independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below:
1. A reach truck, comprising:
a main body;
at least one load arm that protrudes from the main body;
a mast trolley that is supported at the at least one load arm,
wherein the mast trolley is shift-able along a longitudinal axis of
the reach truck relative to the main body;
a mast that is attached to the mast trolley;
a linear actuator configured to shift the mast trolley along
the longitudinal axis of the reach truck relative to the main body;
wherein the linear actuator is attached at a first end thereof
to the main body and at a second end thereof to the mast trolley;
and

1 In this Decision, we refer to (1) the Examiner’s Final Office Action
dated September 27, 2016 (“Final Act.”) and Answer dated May 30, 2017
(“Ans.”) and (2) Appellant’s Appeal Brief dated April 6, 2017 and Reply
Brief dated July 19, 2017 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hyster-
Yale Group, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
3 Claim 7 is objected to. Appeal Br. 3–4; Final Act. 2. The rejection of
claims 3–5 is withdrawn. Ans. 2.
Appeal 2017-010910
Application 14/504,306

3

the linear actuator is arranged inclined to the longitudinal
axis of the reach truck and defines a first angle between the
extension direction of the linear actuator and the longitudinal
axis of the reach truck, wherein the first angle changes depending
on the position of the mast trolley relative to the main body; and
the reach truck further comprises a sensor communicating
with a control unit, wherein the control unit is configured to
determine the angular position of the linear actuator.

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 8–10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which the applicant regards as the invention.
2. Claims 1, 6, and 8–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Eriksson (US 5,346,356, issued September 13, 1994) and
Yahner (US 9,206,024 B2, issued December 8, 2015).
3. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Eriksson and Yahner, and further in view of Blakeslee
(US 4,182,126, issued January 8, 1980) or Trego (US 6,135,694, issued
October 24, 2000).
4. Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Erickson, Yahner, and further in view of Retzlaff (US
6,945,745 B2, issued September 20, 2005) or Passeri (US 7,599,777 B2,
issued October 6, 2009).
Appellant seeks our review of these rejections.

Appeal 2017-010910
Application 14/504,306

4

DISCUSSION
Rejection 1: Claims 8–10 as Being Indefinite
The Examiner rejects claims 8–10 as being indefinite. Because
Appellant does not address the substance of the rejection, the Examiner’s
rejection is summarily affirmed.

Rejections 2–4: Claims 1, 2, 6, and 8–14
Claim 1
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as being obvious over
Eriksson and Yahner. Final Act. 4–6. Independent claim 1 recites, in part,
“a sensor communicating with a control unit, wherein the control unit is
configured to determine the angular position of the linear actuator.” The
Examiner finds that this limitation is disclosed by Yahner’s truck, which has
(a) linear actuator 55 “for moving the fork carriage along a longitudinal axis
of the truck is inclined to the longitudinal axis such that it defines an angle
between its extension direction and the longitudinal axis which changes
depending on the position of the fork carriage relative to the main body of
the truck,” and (b) sensor 80 for communicating with “control unit 100
which is configured, at least some extent, to determine an angular position of
the linear actuator (i.e., by virtue of the sensor determining whether marker
70 is in arc section C1, C2 or R, the control unit knows roughly the angular
position of the linear actuator.”). Id. at 4–5 (citing Yahner, Fig. 5, 6:38–57).
The Examiner explains that the “sensor, in conjunction with the control unit,
provides for a gradual speeding up or slowing down of the reach carriage as
it approaches its fully extended or fully retracted positions, thereby
Appeal 2017-010910
Application 14/504,306

5

providing greater control of a load supported by the forks.” Id. at 5 (citing
Yahner, 1:34–44, 2:3–19).
The Examiner further explains that Yahner discloses a control unit
configured to determine the angular position of the linear actuator. Ans. 2–
3. According to the Examiner,
as long as there is at least one instance when Yahner’s sensor
knows that the linear actuator is at a particular location (such as
when it transitions from sensing the marker 70 to not sensing
the marker, and vice-versa), then it is capable of determining an
angular position of the actuator at a particular instant in
time, which is all that the claim requires.
Id. at 3. The Examiner states that “Yahner determines a distance rather than
an angle, but in order to determine the distance, the angle at which that
distance occurs would have to be known, even if it was merely
preprogrammed to know this,” and “[d]etermining an angle is not the same
as calculating an angle.” Id.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is erroneous because
Yahner’s control unit is not “configured to determine the angular position of
the linear actuator.” Reply Br. 1. We agree.
Yahner discloses reach truck 20 having a reach carriage 24. Yahner,
4:30–35. Two scissors-like mechanisms form extension arm 25 to adjust the
distance between forked lift assembly 24 and mast 22 of reach truck 20. Id.
at 4:52–55. Yahner discloses sensor apparatus 64 to detect whether
extension arm 25 is near its extension or retraction limits. Id. at 5:41–44,
6:9–37; Fig. 5. Yahner’s sensor apparatus 64 is a mechanism to detect
marker 70 as it passes through an arcuate path in front of sensor 80. Id.
When marker 70 is within the sensor 80’s range R, sensor 80 communicates
Appeal 2017-010910
Application 14/504,306

6

an active signal to control unit 100. Id. at 7:4–5. When marker 70 is outside
of sensor 80’s range R, sensor 80 communicates an inactive signal to the
control unit 100. Id.
Both Appellant and the Examiner agree that the ordinary meaning of
an “angular position” is the angle at a particular instant in time that an object
makes with respect to a fixed reference axis. Appeal Br. 7; Ans. 2. To
determine the position of the arm, however, Yahner is configured to
determine whether marker is in front of sensor 80. Yahner, 5:55–6:37.
Yahner does not recognize the existence of an angular position of any
structural component or disclose actually determining an angular position.
The Examiner’s assertion that determining whether the marker is in front of
the sensor is makes Yahner “capable of determining an angular position” is
merely a theoretical possibility.
For these reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is not sustained.

Claims 2, 6, and 8–14
In rejections 2–4, the Examiner’s reliance on the other cited prior art
(Eriksson, Blakeslee, Trego, Retzlaff, and Passeri) does not remedy the
deficiencies of Yahner. Thus, the rejections of claims 2, 6, and 8–14, which
depend from claim 1, are not sustained.

Appeal 2017-010910
Application 14/504,306

7

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis
(35 U.S.C.)
Affirmed Reversed
8–10 § 112(b) 8–10
1, 6, 8–12 § 103 Eriksson, Yahner 1, 6, 8–12
2 § 103 Eriksson, Yahner,
Blakeslee, Trego
2
13, 14 § 103 Eriksson, Yahner,
Retzlaf, Passeri
13, 14
Overall
Outcome
8–10 1, 2, 6, 11–14

For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 8–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 6, 8–14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART