STERTIL B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 3, 2020

14902984 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 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.
14/902,984 01/05/2016 Johan LUINGE 0702-1511265 7948
28289 7590 11/03/2020
THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C.
ONE GATEWAY CENTER
420 FT. DUQUESNE BLVD, SUITE 1200
PITTSBURGH, PA 15222
EXAMINER
SADLON, JOSEPH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3635
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/03/2020 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):
patents@webblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHAN LUINGE
Appeal 2020-0011571
Application 14/902,984
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES P. CALVE, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6–16, and 19–25. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE and enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).

1 Appellant presented oral arguments on October 22, 2020.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Stertil B.V. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-001157
Application 14/902,984

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a lifting system and method for lifting a
vehicle such as a bus or truck. Spec. 3–6
Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis and paragraph numbering
added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A lifting system for lifting a vehicle, the lifting system
comprising:
(i) at least two lifting devices operable to raise and
lower the vehicle;
(ii) a group controller arranged to operate the lifting
devices;
(iii) a user interface unit comprising a transmitter and/or
receiver configured for communication with the group
controller, a processor, a display device, and input means
configuring the user interface unit to receive user input, wherein
the user interface unit being adapted to communicate command
signals to the group controller on basis of the user input and
adapted to receive and display information obtained from the
group controller; and
(iv) a network interface unit comprising a network
transmitter and/or network receiver configured for
communication to an external network, and a connection
configured for communication with the group controller,
(v) wherein the group controller comprises a
communication optimizer for determining
an appropriate communication route in the lifting system, and
(vi) wherein the communication optimizer is adapted to
select a first communication route to send the command signals
from a first lifting device to a second lifting device, and, upon
receiving an indication that the first communication route is
disturbed, select a second communication route to send the
command signals from the first lifting device to the second lifting
device, wherein the second communication route is different
from the first communication route.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-001157
Application 14/902,984

3
Appellant’s Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter indicates that
claim 1 finds support in, for example, Figure 1 (see Appeal Br. 5), which we
reproduce below.

Appellant’s Figure 1 is a perspective view of vehicle 6 lifted by lifting
columns 4. See Spec. 8:29–30, 9:19–22.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Appeal 2020-001157
Application 14/902,984

4
Name Reference Date
Iwasaki US 6,050,768 Apr. 18, 2000
Chase US 2005/0182522 A1 Aug. 18, 2005
White US 2010/0160750 A1 June 24, 2010
Dong US 8,509,060 B1 Aug. 13, 2013
De Jong US 8,567,761 B2 Oct. 29, 2013

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–4, 6, 12, 13, 16, 19, and 21–25 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chase and Dong.
II. Claims 7, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chase, Dong, and Iwasaki.
III. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Chase, Dong, and White.
IV. Claims 9–11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chase, Dong, and De Jong.
OPINION
Rejection I–Chase and Dong
Finding that Chase discloses many of the elements recited in claim 1,
the Examiner relies on paragraph 50 of Chase to teach at least two lifting
devices operable to raise and lower the vehicle. Final Act. 2–3. The
Examiner finds that Chase does not disclose the limitations recited in
paragraph (vi) of claim 1 and relies on Dong to remedy this deficiency. Id.
at 3–4 (citing Dong 5:45–47, 7:4–6, Fig. 17).
Appellant argues “Dong is not concerned with lifting devices or
control signals, but is instead concerned with communications on a ship and
damage to a node that may occur during, for example, wartime.” Appeal Br.
Appeal 2020-001157
Application 14/902,984

5
11 (citing Dong 9:20–51). In this regard, Appellant states, “[t]hus, Dong
fails to teach a communication optimizer for determining an appropriate
communication route in a lifting system. Indeed, the ad hoc network routing
schemes in Dong would not be particularly relevant to the signal rerouting
performed by the communication optimizer in the subject application.” Id.
(emphasis added).
To the extent Appellant’s argument with respect to Dong’s particular
relevance is an assertion that Dong fails to qualify as analogous art, we
disagree. As pointed out by the Examiner, Dong teaches resorting to an
alternate communication route based on the occurrence of exigent
circumstances. See Final Act. 4; Dong 5:41–53. Dong’s teaching of using
an alternate communication route in the event of a problem with an original
communication route is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the
claimed invention. See Spec. 5:19–22 (“The choice for a specific route can
be made by the group controller and/or can be made automatically
depending on whether the intended receiving lifting device has actually
received the communication. For example, in absence of a receipt
confirmation of the intended receiving lifting device within a specified time
period alternative routes can be used.”).
Appellant’s discussion of the absence of disclosure of any lift system
in Dong amounts to an attack on the references individually inasmuch as the
Examiner finds Chase discloses a lift system. See Final Act. 2–3.
Appellant also argues “it would also not have been obvious to
combine the teachings of Dong with Chase in the manner contemplated in
the Office Action because Chase would not benefit from the type of
rerouting discussed in Dong.” Appeal Br. 11. Specifically, Appellant
Appeal 2020-001157
Application 14/902,984

6
asserts the term “lift” refers to an apparatus for lifting a vehicle, and the term
“lifting device” refers to a discrete lifting column. Id. According to
Appellant, “since Chase is discussing multiple lifts rather than multiple
lifting columns that together form a single lifting system, there is no reason
to optimize the communication route between the multiple lifts in Chase as
the communication route in Chase is to the central processor, not between
lifts.” Id. at 11–12 (emphasis added). In other words, Appellant argues that
there is a benefit of having the claimed optimizer in Appellant’s arrangement
because it ensures the lifting columns work together in unison, but, there is
no corresponding benefit of optimizing a communication between the lifts in
Chase because lifts such as those disclosed by Chase work independently of
one another.
Appellant’s argument on this point is persuasive because the
Examiner’s finding that Chase discloses “at least two lifting devices
(‘networked to multiple lifts’ [0050] ln. 14) operable to raise and lower the
vehicle” (Final Act. 2) is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Instead, Chase appears to be directed to controlling lifts, as a whole, and
paragraph 50 discusses allowing such lifts to be connected to a central
processor through a network. Thus, rather than disclosing at least two lifting
devices, Chase discloses at least two lifts (multiple lifts). See Chase ¶ 50.
As the Examiner’s stated rationale for modifying Chase is based on this
unsupported finding of fact, the Examiner’s reasoning for modifying Chase
is not supported by rational underpinnings.
Finally, Appellant argues
In order for Chase to “benefit from an interconnected
system by receiving feedback on the multiple lifts which are
disclosed as capable of being at different locations,” Dong must
Appeal 2020-001157
Application 14/902,984

7
teach a feedback system wherein all nodes are capable of sending
and receiving data. See Office Action, pg. 14. In other words,
intermediary nodes cannot merely reroute communication
between the source node and the destination node. Therefore,
Dong’s teachings would, at most, benefit Chase only in that they
could be applied in Chase to establish communication between
two lifts. If there are more than two lifts, the remaining lifts
would function as intermediary lifts that merely reroute
communication between the source lift and the destination lift.
Appeal Br. 13.
Although we need not address this argument because Appellant’s
argument regarding Chase’s disclosure (see Appeal Br. 11–12) is
dispositive, we note the following. The limitations of paragraph (vi) of
claim 1 are broadly recited. Appellant does not dispute that Dong discloses
the general principle of re-routing a communication based on exigent
circumstances. Rather, Appellant’s arguments above appear to require the
importation of details from Dong’s communication network not relied upon
by the Examiner. Thus, Appellant’s argument amounts to an unpersuasive
assertion based on the bodily incorporation of Dong’s teachings.
As at least one of Appellant’s arguments regarding Rejection I is
persuasive, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2–4, 6, 12,
13, 16, 19, and 21–25, each of which depends from claim 1 or incorporates
all the elements of claim 1 by reference,3 as unpatentable over Chase and
Dong.
Rejections II–IV
The Examiner relies on the same findings of fact regarding Chase in
each of Rejections II–IV. See Final Act. 10–13. Accordingly, for the same

3 Claim 12 is a method claim reciting the step of “providing a lifting system
according to claim 1.” Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-001157
Application 14/902,984

8
reasons discussed with respect to Rejection I, we do not sustain Rejections
II–IV.

NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we reject
claim 1 as unpatentable over Chase, De Jong, and Dong. The Examiner
relied on De Jong in the rejection of claims 9–11 and 14 (see Final Act. 11),
and Appellant’s argument regarding De Jong is merely to state that De Jong
fails to remedy the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1 (see Appeal
Br. 14; Reply Br. 4). However, we disagree. We reproduce Figure 1 of De
Jong below.

Appeal 2020-001157
Application 14/902,984

9
Figure 1 of De Jong depicts “[a] lifting system 2 . . . assembled from
four lifting columns 4. Lifting columns 4 can be connected to each other
radiographically or via cables for the exchange of control signals. Lifting
system 2 serves to lift a vehicle 6 and re-place it on the ground 8.” De
Jong 5:33–37 (emphasis omitted).
De Jong states that its “system has at least two lifting columns,
although the system can for instance also have four, six or eight lifting
columns or a multiple thereof.” Id. at 1:57–59, see also id., Fig. 1. Thus,
unlike what is explicitly disclosed by Chase, the lift disclosed by De Jong
includes at least two lifting devices (lifting columns 4).
For multiple reasons, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to implement multiple lifting columns and associated
controls, as taught by De Jong, in the lifting system disclosed by Chase. For
example, lifting via multiple lifting columns allows for balanced support via
the vehicles tires or sides rather than from a central point. See De Jong,
Figs. 1, 2. Additionally, the use of two or more lifts rather than a single lift
would be the use of a known prior art element according to known methods
with the predictable result of lifting a vehicle, as taught by De Jong.
Further, De Jong’s lifting columns communicate with a control unit
that sends commands to one or more of the columns. See id. at 1:61–63,
2:7–12. De Jong’s lifting columns also “exchange control signals” with each
other and De Jong elaborates on this communication, stating, “[a] master
column can be used to select the other columns in its group. These other
columns then function as slave columns. In this way all the advantages can
thus be gained as in a control which distinguishes master columns and slave
columns.” De Jong 4:33–35, see also id. at 5:33–39. De Jong explains what
Appeal 2020-001157
Application 14/902,984

10
information is contained in the communications between columns as
follows:
Lifting columns 4 are equipped with an antenna 30 as
radiographic communication means for mutual contact. The
lifting columns 4 of one sub-group can in any case be in contact
with each other for the purpose of executing a lifting 5 operation
to be performed by this sub-group on an object for lifting and
lowering, in particular a vehicle 6.
De Jong 6:1–6. Thus, the communication between columns in De Jong
relates to executing a lift of a vehicle.
De Jong further teaches that “[i]f a plurality of, and optionally all,
prongs of the selected lifting columns are provided with
transmitters/receivers, it is possible to carry out, on the basis of this
information, corrections for mutual height differences. This further
enhances the accuracy of the system.” Id. at 5:5–9; see also id. at 5:37–39
(describing the desirability of synchronous movement by the lifting
columns). Accordingly, De Jong attempts to correct for differences in the
displaced height of its lifting columns.
De Jong also explains that, different groups or subgroups of lifting
columns may be instructed to move together as a set, and for purposes of
safety, it is useful for each lifting column to be able to send a “delete” signal
to other lifting columns to be able to define new groups comprising a
different set of lifting columns. See id. at 6:10–31 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, De Jong’s teachings of communication between columns
involve safety issues.
“A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Given that De Jong teaches that its lifting columns
Appeal 2020-001157
Application 14/902,984

11
communicate with each other, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious to provide the ability to re-route these
communications in the event of a problem. Specifically, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide an optimizer
as recited in paragraph (vi) of claim 1, that “upon receiving an indication
that [a] first communication route is disturbed, select[s] a second
communication route.” Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). Further, the fact that
De Jong’s communication relates to safety amplifies the motivation for
providing an alternate route to provide redundancy.
To the extent a prior art reference is needed to teach the general
principle of re-routing communications to a second communication route
when a first communication route is disturbed, Dong repeatedly teaches this
principle. Dong 5:41–53 (“FIG. 8 illustrates how a damage-control wireless
network 1000 that implements inventive ad hoc routing principles is able to
reconfigure a communication link that has been terminated due to a damage
event that is rapidly increasing in area.”), see also id. at 1:60–64, 2:12–29,
Abstract. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to provide a mechanism for re-routing to a second communication
route when a first communication route is disturbed in order to continue to
allow communication despite the disturbance. Accordingly, we enter a new
ground of rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Chase, Dong, and De Jong. We have entered the new ground of rejection
only for independent claim 1 and leave it to the Examiner to evaluate the
patentability of the other claims depending upon claim 1.

Appeal 2020-001157
Application 14/902,984

12
CONCLUSION
We reverse Rejections I–IV and enter a new ground of rejection of
claim 1 as unpatentable over Chase, Dong, and De Jong.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New
Ground
1–4, 6,
12, 13,
16, 19,
21–25
103 Chase, Dong 1–4, 6,
12, 13,
16, 19,
21–25

7, 15, 20 103 Chase, Dong,
Iwasaki
7, 15, 20
8 103 Chase, Dong,
White
8
9–11, 14 103 Chase, Dong, De
Jong
9–11, 14
1 Chase, Dong, De
Jong
1
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–
16, 19–25
1

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
Appeal 2020-001157
Application 14/902,984

13
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding
will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. . . .

Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
REVERSED: 37 C.F.R, § 41.50(B)