Zerba, Michael et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 19, 2019

14996908 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 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.
14/996,908 01/15/2016 Michael Zerba HOL001 P581A 8561
277 7590 09/19/2019
PRICE HENEVELD LLP
695 KENMOOR SE
P O BOX 2567
GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49501
EXAMINER
BRITTMAN, FELICIA LUCILLE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2019 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):
ptomail@priceheneveld.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL ZERBA and MICHAEL D. APPEL
____________

Appeal 2019-001963
Application 14/996,908
Technology Center 3600
_______________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JILL D. HILL, and LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.

GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–12, and 15. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Applicant
SAF-HOLLAND, INC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-001963
Application 14/996,908

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized for emphasis, is
exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A fifth wheel hitch assembly, comprising:
a mounting bracket adapted to support a fifth wheel hitch
plate and having a laterally outwardly facing substantially
vertical surface;
a vehicle frame rail having a substantially horizontal
portion and a substantially vertical portion; and
a support bracket having a first portion secured to the
substantially vertical portion of the vehicle frame rail and a
second portion secured to the laterally outwardly facing
substantially vertical surface of the mounting bracket, and
having a plurality of mounting positions spaced longitudinally
along the support bracket from one another, wherein the
mounting bracket is releasably secured to less than a total number
of the mounting positions, and wherein the first portion and the
second portion of the support bracket are permanently fixed to
one another.

THE REJECTIONS2
I. Claims 1, 5, 6, and 8–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Keatley ’347 (US 2013/0285347 A1; published
Oct. 31, 2013).

2 The Examiner’s objections to claims 4, 10, and 13 due to informalities are
petitionable, not appealable, matters. See MPEP § 706.01; Final Act. 2. The
Examiner also determines that independent claims 4 and 13, and claim 14
depending from claim 13, contain allowable subject matter. See Final Act.
9.
Appeal 2019-001963
Application 14/996,908

3
II. Claims 2, 3, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Keatley ’347 and Keatley ’197 (US 8,814,197 B2; issued
Aug. 26, 2014).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Keatley ’347
discloses the fifth wheel hitch assembly as claimed, including a support
bracket (i.e., rail 12) having a second portion (i.e., “at apertures 38”) secured
to a laterally outwardly facing substantially vertical surface of a mounting
bracket (i.e., carriage bracket 20). Final Act. 4 (citing Keatley ’347, Fig. 2).
Figure 2 of Keatley ’347 is reproduced below.

Figure 2 is “a top perspective view of one embodiment of the sliding fifth
wheel hitch assembly.” Keatley ’347 ¶ 11.
Appeal 2019-001963
Application 14/996,908

4
The Examiner identifies two alternative laterally outwardly facing
substantially vertical surfaces of Keatley ’347’s carriage bracket 20 (or
claimed mounting bracket): (i) the laterally outwardly facing substantially
vertical surface of lower portion 48 (also identified as the bumper plate); and
(ii) the laterally outwardly facing substantially vertical surface of the base
portion of the carriage bracket 20 (not identified with a reference number or
exposed for view in Figure 2) to which lower portion 48 (or the bumper
plate) is coupled via fasteners. See Keatley ’347 ¶ 29 (describing lower
portion 48 as “extend[ing] down from the base portion [of carriage bracket
20] laterally adjacent to an exterior surface 40 of the side member 14 of the
longitudinal rail 12” and “includ[ing] a bumper plate coupled with the base
portion of the carriage bracket 20 using fasteners”). Ans. 3–5. The
Examiner’s annotated Figure 2 of Keatley ’347 is reproduced below. Id. at
4.

Appeal 2019-001963
Application 14/996,908

5
The Examiner’s annotated Figure 2 of Keatley ‘347, which depicts Keatley
’347’s sliding fifth wheel assembly reproduced supra, specifically identifies
the Examiner’s two laterally outwardly facing substantially vertical surfaces
of carriage assembly 20, and also first and second portions of rail 12,
according to the Examiner’s findings.
The Examiner further finds that Keatley ‘347’s rail 12 (i.e., the
support bracket, as claimed) has a portion at its upper edge (at apertures 38)
wherein lower portion 48 of carriage bracket 20 (i.e. the mounting bracket,
as claimed) is attached to rail 12 via apertures 38. Ans. 5. See Keatley ¶ 28
(disclosing that “[an] engagement pin . . . may further extend through a
select one of the . . . engagement apertures 38 to also engage holes 47
formed in the carriage bracket 20”), Fig. 2.
Thus, the Examiner finds that the portion of rail 12 having apertures
38 is secured to (as required by claim 1), at least indirectly: (i) the laterally
outwardly facing substantially vertical surface of the bumper plate via an
engagement pin; and (ii) the laterally outwardly facing substantially vertical
surface of the base portion of carriage bracket 20 (without the bumper plate)
via an engagement pin and via the bumper plate. Ans. 5 (“[s]ince lower
portion (48 [of the bumper plate]) is part of the mounting bracket including
carriage bracket (20), then support bracket ([rail] 12) . . . [is] secured to the
laterally outwardly facing substantially vertical surfaces of both lower
portion (48 [of the bumper plate]) and carriage bracket (20)” (emphasis
added)).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s findings render the limitation of
claim 1, which requires a second portion of a support bracket to be secured
to a laterally outwardly facing substantially vertical surface of the mounting
Appeal 2019-001963
Application 14/996,908

6
bracket, “superfluous.”3 Reply Br. 2. Appellant also argues that the
Examiner’s interpretation of this claim limitation is “unreasonable.” Id. at
3–5.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As an initial matter,
Appellant has not disputed any of the Examiner’s factual findings relative to
Keatley ’347, as set forth supra. Further, Appellant has not directed us to
any special definitions for the claim term “secured to,” which are required
by the Specification. We agree with the Examiner that the claim term
“secured to” has a broad meaning. During examination of a patent
application, pending claims are given their broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). An ordinary definition of the claim term
“secure,” consistent with the Specification, is “to make fast.” WEBSTER’S
THIRD NEW INT’L DICTIONARY 2053 (1993). Thus, in accordance with the
Examiner’s claim construction, Keatley ’347’s engagement pin secures (or
makes fast), at least indirectly, the (second) portion of rail 12 (at apertures
38) to either of the laterally outwardly facing substantially vertical surfaces
of carriage bracket 20 identified by the Examiner supra, wherein such
structures, when secured together, cannot move independently, but rather,
are held fast relative to one another. The Examiner’s claim construction is
neither unreasonable, nor renders the disputed claim limitation superfluous.

3 Although Appellant argues that the disputed claim limitation “has been
included within the independent claims as submitted with the original
application on January 15, 2016,” we note that references to a laterally
outwardly facing surface were added to the claims for the first time by the
Amendment dated January 4, 2018.
Appeal 2019-001963
Application 14/996,908

7
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellant chose not to present arguments for the patentability of claims 5, 6,
and 8–12 apart from the arguments presented for claim 1 supra.
Accordingly, for essentially the same reasons, we also sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 5, 6, and 8–12. See Appeal Br. 7–8.
Rejection II
Appellant chose not to present arguments for the patentability of
claims 2, 3, and 15 apart from the arguments presented supra. See Appeal
Br. 8. Accordingly, for essentially the same reasons stated supra, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, and 15.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–12, and 15 are
AFFIRMED.
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).

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 6, and 8–12 § 102(a)(2) Keatley
’347
1, 5, 6, and 8–
12

2, 3, and 15 § 103 Keatley ’347
and Keatley ’197
2, 3, and 15
Overall Outcome 1–3, 5, 6, 8–12,
and 15

Appeal 2019-001963
Application 14/996,908

8

AFFIRMED