Ex Parte Prentice et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 2012

11187619 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

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. 11/187,619 07/22/2005 Glenn Prentice 0041.0202 6494 152 7590 11/01/2012 CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP 601 SW Second Avenue Suite 1600 PORTLAND, OR 97204-3157 EXAMINER SNELTING, JONATHAN D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3652 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/01/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte GLENN PRENTICE, PATRICK A. ARMONY, and DAVID PETRONEK ____________________ Appeal 2010-009259 Application 11/187,619 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: LINDA E. HORNER, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and BRADFORD E. KILE, Administrative Patent Judges. KILE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Glenn Prentice et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 13-16, 18-26, 29, 31, and 33-35. Claims 1- 12, 17, 27-28, 30, and 32 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2010-009259 Application 11/187,619 2 THE INVENTION The invention is directed “to load handlers which mount on lift truck carriages.” Spec. 1, para. [0001]. Appellants’ Figure 8 is reproduced below: Figure 8 is a schematic illustration of the hydraulic system of a lift truck including an upright mast 66 that is mounted on the front of the lift truck. The load handler includes a side-shifting piston and cylinder assembly 24 operable to perform a first function of lateral positioning (Spec. 4, para. [0020]) and piston and cylinder assemblies 30, 32 operable to perform a second function of lateral adjustment of parallel forks. Id. at 5, para. [0023]. A hydraulic selector valve 64, mounted on the lift truck, is used to control the flow of hydraulic fluid through a single pair of hydraulic lines 60 and 62 that operably connect to the first and second actuator cylinders through a solenoid controlled, selector valve 76. Id. at 7, para. [0031]. The first 24 and second 30, 32 hydraulic actuators thus operate independently. A first transceiver 78 is mounted on the lift truck and Appeal 2010-009259 Application 11/187,619 3 wirelessly communicates with a second transceiver 80 mounted on the load handler. The transceivers operate in cooperation with a load handler mounted battery 84 to control the solenoid selector valve 76. Id. at 8, para. [0033]. A sensor 81, mounted on the load handler, is used to detect and relay to the lift truck malfunctions of the load handler. With this structural arrangement of components between a lift truck and load handler, a single pair of hydraulic lines extend between the lift truck and load handler without any electrical lines being necessary to extend over the lift truck mast 66. Id. at 7, para. [0031]. In addition several safety provisions are realized in the lift truck operation. Id. at 10, para. [0038]. See App. Br. 4-5. Independent claim 13, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 13. A load handler mountable movably on a mast of an industrial lift truck, said load handler comprising: (a) at least a first hydraulic actuator capable of performing a first function in response to pressurized hydraulic fluid received from said lift truck, and a second hydraulic actuator capable of performing a second function in response to said pressurized hydraulic fluid, said first and second hydraulic actuators being movable independently of each other in response to said pressurized hydraulic fluid; (b) a solenoid-operated hydraulic selector valve assembly mounted on said load handler capable of moving between a first position, causing said pressurized hydraulic fluid to move said first hydraulic actuator, and a second position, causing said pressurized hydraulic fluid to move said second hydraulic actuator; (c) an electrical power source electrically independent of said lift truck mounted on said load handler and capable of supplying electrical power to said solenoid-operated hydraulic selector valve assembly Appeal 2010-009259 Application 11/187,619 4 effective to cause said pressurized hydraulic fluid to move said hydraulic actuators; (d) an electrical receiver mounted on said load handler capable of receiving first wireless signal transmissions and capable of selectively controlling said electrical power supplied from said power source to said solenoid-operated hydraulic selector valve assembly in response to said first wireless signal transmissions; and (e) an electrical transmitter mounted on said load handler powered by a battery of said electrical power source capable of generating second wireless signal transmissions adapted to identify a malfunction of said load handler and to control at least one of said hydraulic actuators in response to said malfunction. THE REJECTIONS Claims 13-15, 19-22, 24, 26, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Loraas (US 5,957,213; iss. Sep. 28, 1999) in view of Domann (US 6,662,881 B2; iss. Dec. 16, 2003) and Seaberg (US 5,417,464; iss. May 23, 1995). Claims 16 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Loraas in view of Domann and Seaberg and further in view of Kabune (US 5,897,596; iss. Apr. 27, 1999). Claims 23 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Loraas in view of Domann and Seaberg and further in view of Chase (US 5,139,385; iss. Aug. 18, 1992). Claims 31, 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Loraas in view of Domann and further in view of Koyama (US 2002/0003221 A1; pub. Jan. 10, 2002). Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Loraas in view of Domann, Koyama, and Seaberg. Appeal 2010-009259 Application 11/187,619 5 OPINION Claims 13-15, 19-22, 24, 26, and 29 Independent claim 13, the only independent claim in the above listed group, stands rejected as being obvious over Loraas in view of Domann and Seaberg. The Loraas patent discloses a skid steer loader which is operable to support a number of work tools such as a tree spade, a bucket, an auger, or other work tool. See Loraas, col. 1, ll. 17-20. Figure 1 of the Loraas patent is reproduced below: Figure 1 depicts a skid steer loader 10 that is connected to a tree spade attachment 12. Lorass, col. 2, ll. 36-49. “A lift arm 28 is coupled to frame 14 at pivot points 30. A pair of hydraulic cylinders 32 (only one of which is shown in FIG. 1) are pivotally coupled to frame 14 at pivot potints 34 and to lift arm 28 a pivot points 36.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 50-53. Three spades 42, 44 and 46 are connected to hydraulic cylinders 48, 50, and 52, respectively. Id. at col. 2, ll. 57-61. The Domann patent discloses another skid steer loader which is operable to attach to a variety of attachments. Domann, col. 1, ll. Appeal 2010-009259 Application 11/187,619 6 21-33. Seaberg discloses a load-clamping system which automatically increases grip in response to sensing slippage between a load and corresponding load engaging surfaces. Seaberg, col. 1, ll. 11-18. The Examiner determined that Loraas discloses a load handler mounted on a lift truck including a first hydraulic actuator (50), a second hydraulic actuator (52), a solenoid-operated hydraulic selector valve assembly (64), an electric power source independent of the lift truck, an electrical receiver (258) and an electrical transmitter (258). Ans. 4-5. The Examiner acknowledges, however, that Loraas does not explicitly disclose a battery as an independent power supply but that Domann discloses this concept. Ans. 5. In addition the Examiner acknowledges that Loraas and Domann do not disclose a malfunction sensor but that load slippage is a malfunction and Seaberg discloses a slippage sensor. Id. Appellants argue that no combination of the references teach all of the limitations of claim 13. App. Br. 13. More specifically Appellants note that claim 13 recites “[a] load handler mounteable movably on a mast of an industrial lift truck . . . .” Id. In paragraphs (a) and (c) of claim 13 “said lift truck” is further recited. A lift truck as described by Appellants in the Specification includes a vertical mast 66 that is used to carry and guide a load handler. The Specification notes that minimizing the number of hydraulic lines between the lift truck and load handler and eliminating all electrical lines between the two components is significant. Spec. 1-2, paras. [0001] – [0004]. We disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Loraas discloses a load handler on a lift truck. First we note that “[a]ll words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.” In Appeal 2010-009259 Application 11/187,619 7 re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). A lift truck, with a load handler, as recited in claim 13, is a type of work vehicle that includes generally vertical masts where the load handler travels up and down on the lift truck masts. That is the nature of a lift truck in structure and operation as described and defined in the application Specification. The prior art cited by the Examiner, however, is directed to a skid steer loader that does not have lift masts in the sense of a lift truck of Appellants’ Specification and claims. A skid steer loader is different in operation, function and purpose as compared with a lift truck, mast, and load handler combination. Reply Br. 7-8 (arguing that the tree spade 12 of Loraas is not “mountable movably” to the lift arm 28). To the extent that the Examiner did not consider the recitation of a lift truck as being significant because it appears in the preamble of claim 13, in Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999), the Federal Circuit addressed a limitation in a claim preamble as follows: Although our initial discussion has focused on the preamble, as opposed to the remainder of the claim language, this does not undercut its significance. “[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it.” . . . If the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, or, if the claim preamble is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim.” (Citations omitted.) In this instance we accord the limitation appearing in the claim 13 preamble of a “load handler mountable movably on a mast of an industrial lift truck” full significance as a defining limitation when read in the full Appeal 2010-009259 Application 11/187,619 8 context of the claim including paragraphs (a) and (c) (which, as noted above, recite the “lift truck”) where the preamble gives life and meaning to the claim as a whole. Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the prior art cited by the Examiner does not disclose all of the elements of claim 13. The rejection of claim 13 is reversed. The remaining claims subject to this ground of rejection (viz., 14-15, 19-22, 24, 26 and 29) all directly or ultimately depend from independent claim 13, which we find is not unpatentable over the prior art cited by the Examiner. Since dependent claim(s) by definition shall “contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed” (35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 4) if an independent claim is not unpatentable on the basis of obviousness a dependent claim cannot be unpatentable either. Accordingly the rejection of claims 14-15, 19-22, 24, 26, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is also reversed. Claims 16, 18, 23, and 25 Claims 16 and 18 stand rejected as being unpatentable over Loraas in view of Domann, Seaberg and Kabune. Claims 23 and 25 stand rejected as being obvious over Loraas in view of Domann, Seaberg, and Chase. Claims 16, 18, 23, and 25 directly or ultimately depend from claim 13, which we found to be not unpatentable over Loraas, Domann, and Seaberg. The Examiner does not rely on Kabune or Chase to cure the deficiencies in the combination of Loraas, Domann, and Seaberg as it applies to claim 13. Therefore, we likewise reverse the rejections of claims 16, 18, 23, and 25 for the reasons stated supra. Appeal 2010-009259 Application 11/187,619 9 Claims 31, 34, and 35 Claims 31, 34 and 35 stand rejected as being obvious over Loraas in view of Domann and Koyama. Claim 31 is independent and claims 34 and 35 depend from claim 31. Appellants assert that claim 31 overcomes the rejection for the reasons stated with respect to claim 13. Reply Br. 10. We agree with Appellants. The rejection of claim 31 and dependent claims 34 and 35 is reversed for the reasons stated supra. Claim 33 Claim 33 stands rejected as being obvious and thus unpatentable over Loraas in view of Domann, Koyama, and Seaberg. Claim 33 depends from claim 31 which we have found to be not unpatentable over Loraas, Domann, and Koyama. The Examiner does not rely on Seaberg to cure the deficiencies in the combination of Loraas, Domann, and Koyama as it applies to claim 31. Therefore, we likewise reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 33 for the reasons stated supra. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 13-16, 18-26, 29, 31 and 33-35 is REVERSED. REVERSED hh