Ex Parte Noyer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2012

11785822 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MICHEL NOYER
____________________

Appeal 2010-005545
Application 11/785,822
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, and
WILLIAM V. SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-005545
Application 11/785,822
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 11-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 11, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
11. A truck that comprises:
a chassis having a U-shaped configuration;
three wheels mounted on said chassis, said three wheels
comprising a rear wheel mounted substantially in a middle of a
main body of the chassis, a first front steered wheel carried by a
first branch of the chassis and a second front steered wheel
carried by a second branch of the chassis; and
actuators that respectively actuate an orientation of the
first and second front steered wheels between a frontal travel
mode position and a lateral mode position,
an orientation of the first and second front steered wheels
obtained by said respective actuators is configured so that the
frontal travel mode position, the first and second front stored
wheels are between the first and second branches of the chassis,
and in the lateral mode position, the first and second front
steered wheels are in front of and entirely outside of the first
and second branches of the chassis.

References
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Arnold
Larsen
Hirooka
Brouwer
US 4,520,903
US 4,919,233
US 5,325,935
US 5,788,452
Jun. 4, 1985
Apr. 24, 1990
Jul. 5, 1994
Aug. 4, 1998
Appeal 2010-005545
Application 11/785,822
3

Rejections1
The Examiner has rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
I. Claims 11-14 and 20 as unpatentable over Hirooka and Larsen.
II. Claim 15 as unpatentable over Hirooka, Larsen, and Brouwer.
III. Claims 16-19 as unpatentable over Hirooka, Larsen, and Arnold.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

OPINION
In relevant part, the Examiner found that Hirooka describes a forklift
having two steered front wheels attached to a chassis having a U-shaped
configuration. Fin. Rej. 3 (mailed Mar. 18, 2009). The Examiner found
Hirooka does not describe wheels carried by branches and oriented in the
manner required by the independent claims. Fin. Rej. 3-4. The Examiner
then found that Larsen describes a wheel mounted on a branch 48 of a
chassis. Id. at 3. In view of this, the Examiner concluded it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the front
wheels of Hirooka to include the wheel assemblies of Larsen, to provide
greater support and durability. Id.; see also Ans. 4 (providing a drawing of
the proposed modification).
Independent claims 11 and 12 recite a truck having a chassis with a U-
shaped configuration with first and second wheels configured to be in a
frontal travel mode position (first and second wheels between the branches

1 The indefiniteness rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, has been withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 3.
App
App
of th
front
invo
comb
the d
posit
outsi
bran
requ
appe
mod
mod
repro
The
Exam
chas
eal 2010-0
lication 11
e chassis)
of and ou
lves wheth
ination sa
ifferent tra
ion “read[
de of the …
The Exa
ches, and n
irement of
ars to be th
e” but outs
e.” The E
duced bel
Examiner’
iner’s pro
sis of Hiro
05545
/785,822
and in a la
tside of th
er the Exa
tisfies the
vel mode
s] out of th
branche
miner’s po
otes that t
the claims
at wheels
ide of (i.e
xaminer’s
ow with a
s illustrati
posed com
oka.
teral mode
e branches
miner pro
limitation
positions.
e claim at
s”).
sition is th
he wheels
. Ans. 4-5
2 and 3 ar
., not betw
illustration
dditional n
ons depict
bination,
4
position
of the cha
perly conc
s regarding
See Reply
least the t
at the com
are capab
. In parti
e between
een) the b
s from pa
otations:
an annota
depicting
(first and s
ssis). The
luded that
the posit
Br. 4-5 (
erms … in
ponents 4
le of satisf
cular, the E
the branc
ranches 48
ge 4 of the
ted reprod
the wheels
econd wh
issue in t
the propo
ions of the
the Exami
front of a
8 of Larse
ying the o
xaminer’
hes 48 in t
in the “la
Answer a
uction of t
of Larsen
eels in
his appeal
sed
wheels in
ner’s
nd entirel
n are
rientation
s position
he “front
teral
re
he
on the

y
Appeal 2010-005545
Application 11/785,822
5
Specifically, wheels 2 and 3 are between blocks 48 (first and second
branches) in the frontal mode. In the lateral mode, however, wheels 2 and 3
may be outside of the space between the branches but are not “in front of”
the branch of the chassis. Instead, in the lateral mode, wheels 2 and 4 are in
front and outside of the branches 48, not the previously-identified first and
second wheels (2 and 3). The claim requires “the first and second front …
wheels” [emphasis added], i.e., the same wheels, configured to be in the two
travel modes.
In light of the above, Appellants have apprised us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 11-14 and 20, which we do not sustain. The
Examiner’s separate rejections of claims 15 and 16-19 do not remedy the
deficiency identified above, which we likewise do not sustain.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision regarding claims 11-20.

REVERSED

mls