SHIBAKAI CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 31, 2020

2020002648 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2020)

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.
15/555,339 09/01/2017 Manabu ARAKI MAEDP0289WOUS 5875
43076 7590 12/31/2020
MARK D. SARALINO (GENERAL)
RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE, NINETEENTH FLOOR
CLEVELAND, OH 44115-2191
EXAMINER
ADAMS, GREGORY W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2020 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):
ipdocket@rennerotto.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MANABU ARAKI and TORU ARAKI
Appeal 2020-002648
Application 15/555,339
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JILL D. HILL, and
CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.

DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Shibakai Co., Ltd. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.

Appeal 2020-002648
Application 15/555,339

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a cargo handling system
configured to be suspended from a gantry crane and to transfer bulk goods,
such as grains and powders, from a cargo ship to a transportation container.
Spec. ¶¶ 1, 11, 16. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, recites:
1. A cargo handling system configured to suck, transport,
and handle bulk cargo, the system comprising:
a frame having an engaging portion engageable with a
spreader of a container crane;
a blower attached to the frame, and configured to suck
air; and
a separator attached to the frame, and configured to
separate bulk cargo sucked along with the air from the air
sucked by the blower.

Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD
EXAMINER REJECTION
Claims 1–3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Heinzen and Petzitillo. Final Act. 4.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the pending claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 5–14.
We deem independent claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Heinzen indisputably discloses all the limitations of
claim 1, except for “an engaging portion engageable with a spreader of a
container crane.” See Appeal Br. 6 (acknowledging that Heinzen’s loading/
Name Reference Date
Petzitillo, Jr. US 7,789,256 B2 Sept. 7, 2010
Heinzen US 8,297,889 B2 Oct. 30, 2012
Appeal 2020-002648
Application 15/555,339

3
unloading device is mounted on the frame of a container). For the missing
limitation, the Examiner points to Petzitillo’s teaching that it is well known
in the industry for “standard containers” to have connectors for attachments
to spreader frames on cranes. Final Act. 4 (citing Petzitillo, 1:20–55); see
also id. at 6 (finding “[w]ithin the art of cargo containers they are well
understood to have corner fittings which enable them to be attached to swap
body platforms [and] quay cranes at ship yards”). Because such connectors
are well known in the industry, the Examiner concludes that a skilled artisan
would have deemed it obvious to modify the “standard container” of
Heinzen, which houses the loading/unloading device, to include engaging
portions for connection to a spreader frame of a container crane as taught by
Petzitillo. Id. at 4–5.
We agree with the Examiner, and Appellant’s arguments do not
persuade us otherwise. Although Appellant presents its arguments in four
parts, the underlying premise of each argument is that, because the container
housing of Heinzen’s loading/unloading device is mounted on a “swap body
platform” that is “non-stackable” and “moved using a standard truck,” it
must not be a standard ISO container capable of being moved by a crane, as
required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 6 (citing Heinzen, 2:23–54, 5:62–65, 6:1);
see also Appeal Br. 7, 8, 10, 12, 13 (repeating essentially same argument).
Based on that premise, Appellant surmises that the transport of Heinzen’s
loading/unloading device by means of a truck negates any need to provide it
with Petzitillo’s corner fittings, which are used for connection to a crane. Id.
at 6; see also id. at 8–9, 12 (essentially same argument). Similarly,
Appellant argues that any modification of Heinzen’s container to include
Appeal 2020-002648
Application 15/555,339

4
such corner fittings would change its intended purpose of being transported
only by a truck. Id. at 6–7, 13.
At the outset, we note that nowhere does Heinzen disclose or
otherwise suggest that the container housing its loading/unloading device is
“non-stackable,” as Appellant asserts. See Appeal Br. 6–7. And, although it
is true that Heinzen discloses that the container is moveable by a standard
truck, nowhere does Heinzen foreclose its container from being transported
by other means. Indeed, as the Examiner correctly finds, Heinzen
specifically discloses that its loading/unloading device is suitable for use in
myriad environments that include trucks, railways, and shipyards. See Final
Act. 6–8.
The record evidence fully supports the Examiner’s finding. For
instance, Heinzen discloses that its loading/unloading device is housed in a
“standard container” mounted on a “standardized” platform. See Heinzen
5:63–6:1. As to what is meant by “standard” and “standardized” in that
context, Heinzen provides clear and unequivocal definition—
For a long time, bulk goods haven been transported in
standardized containers. The aim is to fill bulk goods into
standardized loading aids for the purpose of transport with
trucks, by railway or on board of ships. Containers are
particularly well suited as loading aids. These containers
consist of large volume vessels for the storage and transport of
goods, with robust construction and sufficiently resistant to
allow repeated use by several modes of transport without the
necessity of transferring the contents. They exist in many
different sizes and, as a rule, are standardized.
In addition, they are equipped with facilities to allow
easy transfer from one mode of transport to another. The so-
called ISO containers represent the most well-known and
important type of container. These are in most cases 20 or 40
foot sea containers. These containers are used to process a
Appeal 2020-002648
Application 15/555,339

5
large part of trading goods. They have the advantage that, due
to their standardized shape and dimensions, they can be
transported and quickly transferred by a wide variety of
transport modes, such as ocean going ships, inland navigation
vessels, railways and trucks.

Heinzen, 1:11–30 (emphases added).
Those passages in Heinzen fully support the Examiner’s finding that
Heinzen’s description of the “standard container” for housing its
loading/unloading device is referencing the types of containers defined
earlier in the background section—namely, so-called “ISO containers” that
are “well-suited as loading aids,” “as a rule, are standardized,” and “due to
their standardized shape and dimensions, they can be transported and
quickly transferred by a wide variety of transport modes, such as ocean
going ships, inland navigation vessels, railways, and trucks.” See Final Act.
7–8; see also Ans. 6–8. In other words, Heinzen’s use of the term “standard
container” means the type of standardized intermodal container typically
found in shipyards and railyards. Indeed, Heinzen expressly contemplates
its loading/unloading device as being well-suited for use in shipyards. See
Heinzen, 2:55–59 (describing the loading/unloading device as being used to
transfer bulk goods from “truck to a ship, and vice versa”); see also id. at
2:59–64 (describing the benefit of using the loading/unloading device “at the
railway freight yard or at the sea port”).
Given Heinzen’s disclosure as a whole, we reject the notion advanced
by Appellant that the container housing Heinzen’s loading/unloading device
is only capable of being moved by truck. Rather, we agree with the
Examiner that a skilled artisan clearly would have understood from Heinzen
that the “standard container” housing the loading/unloading device is
Appeal 2020-002648
Application 15/555,339

6
capable of being moved by a variety of means, including cranes at shipyards
and seaports. See Final Act. 7–8; see also Ans. 6–8. The fact that Heinzen
may recognize other means of transport for the container, such as a truck,
does not diminish the fact that Heinzen clearly discloses, first, that the
“standard container” housing the loading/unloading device is a type of ISO
container used in shipyards and railyards, and, second, that the
loading/unloading device is ideally suited for transferring bulk goods
arriving and departing from seaports and railyards.
As for the combination of Heinzen with Petzitillo, we note that
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding of what Petzitillo
teaches—“that standard containers are well known in the art to have
connectors which can be attached to spreader frames on cranes.” Final
Act. 4 (citing Petzitillo, 1:20–55). Nor does Appellant dispute the
Examiner’s finding that outfitting standard containers with crane-type
connectors is “well known in the industry.” Id. at 4–5. Instead, according to
Appellant, there is “no motivation to combine” Heinzen and Petzitillo
because “Heinzen does not mean any literal standard container which holds
and ships various materials as disclosed in Petzitillo.” Appeal Br. 13.
Although Appellant concedes that Petzitillo teaches the advantage of using
crane connectors on a standard container, Appellant argues that Heinzen is
not a standard container because it is limited to transport “by truck” rather
than being “intermodal” as taught by Petzitillo. Id.
We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive. As discussed above,
Heinzen states expressly that standard containers “are equipped with
facilities to allow easy transfer from one mode of transport to another” and
that such containers “are in most cases 20 or 40 foot sea containers.”
Appeal 2020-002648
Application 15/555,339

7
Heinzen, 1:21–25. That description clearly supports that the term “standard
container” as used in Heinzen is synonymous with being intermodal.
Indeed, Petzitillo’s description of a standard container is similar to that of
Heinzen—“Intermodal containers are used in various standard sizes. A
typical standard container is a substantially rectilinear box and may measure
twenty or forty feet in length.” Petzitillo, 11:43–45. Because both Heinzen
and Petzitillo use the term “standard container” in the same fashion, i.e., as
synonymous with being intermodal, we agree with the Examiner that a
skilled artisan would have understood that the “standard container” housing
the loading/unloading device of Heinzen is necessarily intermodal and
includes connector fittings (i.e., engaging portions) for facilitating transport
by a crane, as taught by Petzitillo and well-known in the industry.
In sum, we find no error in the Examiner’s reason for combining the
teachings of Heinzen and Petzitillo. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–3.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3 103(a) Heinzen, Petzitillo 1–3

AFFIRMED