Palfinger AG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 1, 2022

2021004584 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2022)

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. 15/010,352 01/29/2016 Eckhard WIMMER 2016-0072A 8855 513 7590 02/01/2022 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P. 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 EXAMINER CAMPOS, JR, JUAN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3654 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/01/2022 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): eoa@wenderoth.com kmiller@wenderoth.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ECKHARD WIMMER, HANNES STEINDL, JUERGEN WINKLER, CHRISTOPH ROECK, and WALTER HABERL Appeal 2021-004584 Application 15/010,352 Technology Center 3600 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, BRETT C. MARTIN, and JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4 and 13. Claims 6-12 were withdrawn and claims 5 and 14 were canceled during prosecution. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Palfinger AG. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-004584 Application 15/010,352 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “a crane having a crane pillar mounted rotatably about an axis.” Spec. 1, ll. 4-6. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A crane comprising: a crane pillar having a longitudinal center axis, a crane base rotatably supporting the crane pillar to allow the crane pillar to rotate about the longitudinal center axis, the crane base including: a lower radial bearing for rotatably supporting the rotatable crane pillar in the crane base, and an upper radial bearing spaced above the lower radial bearing along the longitudinal center axis for rotatably supporting the crane pillar in the crane base, a chamber to be filled with oil and configured to simultaneously lubricate the upper radial bearing and the lower radial bearing, and a drive unit for driving the crane pillar, the drive unit being located between the upper radial bearing and the lower radial bearing such that oil within the chamber simultaneously lubricates a driven region of the crane pillar engaged with the drive unit while lubricating the upper radial bearing and the lower radial bearing, wherein the chamber is at least partially arranged outside of the crane base and outside of the crane pillar so as to at least partially enclose the crane base and the crane pillar, and the chamber having an exterior opening to allow access to and filling of the chamber from outside of the crane base and outside of the crane pillar. Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-004584 Application 15/010,352 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Brown US 3,270,899 Sept. 6, 1966 Jangaard US 4,002,377 Jan. 11, 1977 REJECTION Claims 1-4 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by Brown or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Brown and Jangaard. Final Act. 5. OPINION Brown According to the Examiner, Brown teaches the claimed base because “the crane base of Brown comprises a bottom plate (120) and bearings (lower radial bearing 123 and upper radial bearing 122).” Ans. 3. The Examiner also asserts that “[t]he broadly claimed crane base does not require 1) only [any] other structure other than the bearings, or 2) the bearings to be connected by other structure.” Ans. 3-4. Appellant asserts that this is incorrect because “[t]he Examiner is identifying elements of the Brown reference as corresponding to claimed structure without regard to whether that collection of elements is capable of performing the function recited in claim 1.” Reply Br. 1. Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s rejection is in error because bottom plate 120, with bearings 122 and 123, “does not support - and is not capable of supporting - the post 121 without the pedestal 116.” Reply Br. 2. The Examiner is correct that the base of claim 1 is recited as including upper and lower radial bearings, without specifying any particular structure Appeal 2021-004584 Application 15/010,352 4 supporting those bearings. Those bearings, however, must each be supported by a structure of the base in order to “rotatably support[] the crane pillar in the crane base” as required by the claim. Accordingly, the “crane base” recited in claim 1 requires the bearings and some structure that supports each of those bearings. Only bearing 123 has support independent of Brown’s pedestal 116. As can be seen in Figure 7 of Brown, bearing 122 is supported by the upper portion of pedestal 116, which also forms the outer wall of the chamber. Without including this support for the bearing, the Examiner is left with a free-floating upper bearing, which would not rotatably support the post as claimed. Accordingly, although claimed functionally, the recited base must include sufficient support for the specifically recited bearings in order to be considered to rotatably support the crane post as claimed. Given that bearing 122 requires the support of pedestal 116, we agree with Appellant that “the ‘chamber’ of the Brown reference is limited by, and located entirely within, the pedestal 116 portion of the ‘crane base.’” Reply Br. 2. Brown’s “chamber,” therefore, is not “at least partially arranged outside of the crane base and outside of the crane pillar” as recited in claim 1. As such, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-4, 13 102(a)(1) Brown 1-4, 13 Appeal 2021-004584 Application 15/010,352 5 1-4, 13 102(a)(2) Brown 1-4, 13 1-4, 13 103 Brown, Jangaard 1-4, 13 Overall Outcome 1-4, 13 REVERSED