Ex Parte Reinke et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2018

13917809 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/917,809 06/14/2013
63565 7590 12/12/2018
HILL-ROM SERVICES, INC.
Legal Dept., Mail Code K04
1069 State Road 46 East
BATESVILLE, IN 47006
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christian H. Reinke
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
Nl-37031 7724
EXAMINER
CUOMO, PETER M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3673
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/12/2018 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 CHRISTIAN H. REINKE,
LINDSEYM. GAULT, andJONATHAND. TURNER1
Appeal2018-004262
Application 13/917,809
Technology Center 3600
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, JAMES P. CALVE, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Office Action
finally rejecting claims 3-11. Appeal Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Hill-Rom Services, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal2018-004262
Application 13/917,809
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 3, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below.
3. An occupant support comprising:
a frame;
a deck comprising at least one deck section pivotably
connected to the frame;
a lift system for changing an angular orientation of the at
least one deck section in response to a mechanical user input,
the lift system comprising a first bellcrank and a second
bellcrank, the first bellcrank being pivotably attached to the
frame, the first bellcrank having A) an input arm for receiving
the user input and B) an output arm, the second bellcrank being
pivotably attached to the frame and having an input leg and an
output leg; and
a transfer link having a first end connected to the output
arm of the first bellcrank and a second end connected to the
input leg of the second bellcrank.
Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.).
REJECTION
Claims 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Portis (US 2,917,753, iss. Dec. 22, 1959).
ANALYSIS
Claims 3 and 4
The Examiner finds that Portis discloses an occupant support recited
in independent claim 3 as a frame (side pieces 14) with pivotal deck sections
and a first bellcrank ( combination of elements 42, 40, 36) and a second
bellcrank ( combination of elements 56, 52, 48) with a transfer link (force-
transfer bar 30) connected between an output arm of the first bellcrank and
an input leg of the second bellcrank as claimed. Final Act. 3--4.
2
Appeal2018-004262
Application 13/917,809
We agree with Appellants that lever 3 6 and crank arm 40 form a first
bellcrank, and lever 48 and crank arm 52 form a second bellcrank. Appeal
Br. 5; Ans. 5. Portis discloses these elements as integrally formed or rigidly
joined to horizontal shafts 38, 50 that rotate in frame 14, 15. Portis, 3:24--
47. First bellcrank lever 36 and crank arm 40, and second bellcrank lever 48
and crank arm 52, therefore are pivotably mount to the frame as claimed.
Additional link elements 42, 56 correspond to compression elements that
pivotally connect an arm of each bell crank to a deck section. Id.; Spec. ,r 9
(compression link 120). They can be considered extensions of the first and
second bellcranks as the Examiner finds.
We agree with the Examiner that Portis's transfer bar 30 functions as
the claimed transfer link by connecting an output arm of a first bellcrank to
an input leg of a second bellcrank as claimed. Final Act. 4; Ans. 5. As the
Examiner points out (Final Act. 4; Ans. 5), Figure 3 of Portis illustrates the
first bellcrank with an input arm ( crank arm 40) for receiving a user input
via link 42 and an output arm (lever 36) connected to a first end of transfer
bar 30 as claimed. Figure 3 also illustrates the other end of transfer bar 30
connected to an input leg (lever 48) of the second bellcrank as claimed.
Portis discloses Figure 3 as a "contour" position that allows a user to
relax with knees partially bent and lumbar flexed during movement of bed
sections R, S, T, U, so that the user "may 'feel' his way between positions."
Portis, 5:30-40. Once the user maneuvers the sections (lower leg section U,
thigh section T, seat section S) to desired positions, the user releases brake
lever handle 91 to lock the sections against further movement. Id. at 5:30-
33. The user inputs force via back, feet, and legs to bed sections R, S, T, U
to move the bed to a desired contour position. Id. at 5:22-37.
3
Appeal2018-004262
Application 13/917,809
Claim 3 recites the first and second bellcranks having input arms for
receiving a user input and output arms. The Specification discloses a user
input as "a mechanical input, i.e., one produced by the user's direct
application of physical force to the lift system, as opposed to, for example, a
user closing a switch to energize an electric motor." Spec. ,r 7.
Portis' s Figure 3 contour embodiment allows a user to input forces to
crank lever 40 of the first bellcrank via the user's feet or lower legs to adjust
the leg sections to a desired contour. Portis, 5: 11--49. This user input force
is a direct application of a physical force to the lift system and to crank arm
40 of the first bell crank. This user input is output to transfer bar 3 0 via the
output arm (lever 36) of the first bellcrank. Force transfer bar 30 transmits
this force to the input arm of the second bellcrank (lever 48) by its
connection between these output and input arms as claimed.
Appellants' arguments that the elements are "like components" of the
bellcranks and therefore cannot be an output arm on a first bellcrank or an
input arm on the second bellcrank is not persuasive because Appellant does
not identify any claimed structure or functional feature of the input or output
arms that distinguishes over Portis' s Figure 3 embodiment. Appeal Br. 9-
10, 12-14. Portis discloses the Figure 3 contour arrangement with first and
second bellcranks rotatably mounted to the frame as Appellants recognize.
See id. at 8. Even if the first bellcrank 36, 40 and second bellcrank 48, 52
are locked to the frame at some point, input crank arm 40 still receives a user
force from a user's feet via link 42 and this user input force is transmitted to
output lever arm 36, which is connected to an input crank arm 52 of the
second bellcrank via force transfer bar 30 as claimed.
4
Appeal2018-004262
Application 13/917,809
Even if we interpret claim 3 to require the first bellcrank to rotate
when subjected to a user input at the input arm, which we do not,2 we also
agree with the Examiner that Portis discloses other arrangements in which
the bellcranks rotate relative to the frame and receive a user input at the first
bellcrank, which transfers that force to the second bellcrank via transfer rod
30. See Ans. 6-7 (Portis discloses a single mechanism that can operate in
different ways); Final Act. 4. In this regard, Portis also discloses that force
transfer bar 30 and the bellcranks form a parallelogram mechanism. Portis,
4:69-75. As a user input changes the angle of back rest R, the other sections
move downwardly while being maintained in horizontal alignment by the
bellcranks and transfer bar. Id. at 4:45-50. Thus, a skilled artisan would
understand that foot section U is maintained in a horizontal alignment by the
bellcranks transmitting user input force from foot section U to input arm 40
of the first bellcrank. The first bell crank outputs that force via lever 36 to
force transfer bar 30, which is connected at its other end to input lever arm
48 of the second bellcrank. Crank arm 52 of the second bellcrank outputs
this force to another end of foot section U to make angular changes and thus
maintain a horizontal orientation. See id. at 4:36-5:3. Thus, we sustain the
rejection of claim 3 and dependent claim 4, which is not argued separately.
2 Claim 6 depends from claim 3 and recites "the first bellcrank has a vertical
axis of rotation thereby being adapted to receive a user input in a horizontal
plane at the input arm thereof, and in which the lift system produces a rotary
motion of the second bell crank about an axis nonparallel to the axis of
rotation of the first bellcrank." Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.) (emphasis
added). Claim 3 imposes no similar requirement that a user input to an input
arm of the first bellcrank produces a rotary motion of the first or second
bellcranks, or that user input causes the transfer link to move. Id. at 26; see
Ans. 6 ( even if the elements are fixed temporarily in one configuration of
Portis, they still are bell cranks).
5
Appeal2018-004262
Application 13/917,809
Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 3 and recites that "the user input is an
angular user input in a horizontal plane." Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.). We
also agree with the Examiner that Portis discloses an angular user input as
claimed. The Specification discloses this feature as a user moving input arm
76 of first bellcrank 70 through an angular arc of about 44Q. Spec. ,r 8. The
angular user input, when interpreted in light of the Specification, means that
a user inputs a mechanical force to an input arm of the first bellcrank so the
input arm rotates through an angular arc. The Examiner correctly finds that
a user shifting their body weight on deck sections provides an angular user
input, which causes the first bellcrank input arm to rotate (move through an
angle) as illustrated in the drawings of Portis. See Ans. 8. This user input
causes input crank arm 40 of the first bell crank to rotate through an angular
displacement in Figures 1 and 2. Appellants do not address these disclosures
of Portis or the Examiner's findings based on such disclosures (Final Act. 4--
5; Ans. 8) and, therefore, do not inform us of error. As illustrated in the
drawings of Portis and the accompanying disclosure, user input causes deck
sections to rotate about pivot points and thereby cause the input arms of the
bellcranks to rotate about their pivotal connections to the frame as discussed
above. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 6 and 7
Dependent claims 6 and 7 recite that "the first bellcrank has a vertical
axis of rotation thereby being adapted to receive a user input in a horizontal
plane at the input arm thereof, and in which the lift system produces a rotary
motion of the second bell crank about an axis nonparallel to the axis of
rotation of the first bellcrank." Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.).
6
Appeal2018-004262
Application 13/917,809
We agree with Appellants that Portis does not disclose a bellcrank
with a vertical axis of rotation. Nor does Portis disclose a second bell crank
with an axis of rotation that is nonparallel to the axis of rotation of the first
bellcrank. The Specification discloses axis of rotation 7 4 of first bellcrank
70 as vertical at pivot joint 72, which is illustrated in Appellants' Figure 3 as
oriented in a vertical direction. Spec. ,r 8. The Specification discloses axis
of rotation 94 of second bell crank 90 as horizontal at pivot joint 92, which is
orthogonal (i.e., nonparallel) to axis of rotation 74 of first bellcrank 70 as
recited in claims 6 and 7.
We agree with Appellants that Portis discloses axes of rotation that
are horizontal, not vertical. Appeal Br. 21. Portis discloses rotary motion of
the second bellcrank about horizontal axes of rotation in Figures 1-3 via
horizontal shafts 38, 50. Portis, 3:24--42. The axes of rotation are parallel to
one another as well. The Examiner is correct that "adapted to" does not
always require a physical configuration. Ans. 9. However, in some cases
"adapted to" means configured to, and it can connote structure or function
when interpreted in the context of the claims and the Specification. Aspex
Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchan Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (noting "adapted to" can mean "configured to" or "designed to" or it
can be used in a broader sense to mean "capable of' or "suitable for" and
deciding it means "designed or configured to accomplish the specified
objective, not simply ... to serve that purpose" in the context of the claims
and specification of that case); In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2014) (same). Here, claims 6 and 7 require the first bellcrank to have a
vertical axis of rotation so it is "adapted to" (i.e., configured to) receive a
user input in a horizontal plane at the input arm.
7
Appeal2018-004262
Application 13/917,809
The claimed lift system also produces a rotary motion of the second
bellcrank about an axis of rotation that is nonparallel to the axis of rotation
of the first bellcrank (Appeal Br. 23), whereas Portis's axes of rotation are
all horizontal. Thus, Portis does not disclose the axes of rotation in claims 6
and 7. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 7.
Claim 8-11
We also agree with the Examiner that Portis discloses user input that
"is spatial displacement of a mechanical element" as recited in claim 11.
Final Act. 7. As the Examiner correctly finds, user input is produced by the
user's direct application of physical force to the lift system (Spec. ,r 7) as the
user applies weight force to deck sections R, S, T, U to cause one or more
deck section to change orientation angularly. Ans. 9-10 (citing Figs. 1-3).
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 3, Portis also discloses spatial
displacement of mechanical elements such as links 42, 56 by user input via
deck section U. Appellants recognize that the deck sections change angular
orientation in response to a shift in a user's weight. Appeal Br. 24. These
changes and forces are transmitted to various deck sections, which move as a
result. Appeal Br. 24. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 11 and claims
8-10, which Appellants do not argue separately.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 3-5 and 8-10, and we reverse the
rejection of claims 6 and 7.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8