Ex Parte Yokoyama et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2012

10588843 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SHOZO YOKOYAMA, TOMOHIKO MURATA,
KENJI ONUKI, HIROHITO SATO, KUNIO WAKAMATSU,
SHINJI GOTO, YUTAKA KOBAYASHI, and EIJI MIYA
____________

Appeal 2010-006648
Application 10/588,843
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and
GAY ANN SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Shozo Yokoyama et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 20-27. Appellants
cancelled claims 1-19. Appellants presented arguments at oral hearing on
October 16, 2012. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2010-006648
Application 10/588,843

2
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 20 (the sole independent claim), reproduced below, with
emphasis added, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
20. A family of cranes having a plurality of
classes of cranes, each class having a different
lifting capability as compared to all of the other
classes, each class further including a plurality of
models, each model within a given class having a
different lifting capability as compared to all of the
other models in the given class,
wherein all of the cranes in the family of
cranes comprise a lower traveling body and an
upper rotating body rotatably mounted on the
lower traveling body, the upper rotating body
including a rotating frame and lifting equipment
mounted on the rotating frame, the lifting
equipment including a boom and a plurality of
types of winches,
wherein all of the models included in each
respective class share a common rotating frame,
the common rotating frame of each respective
class having specifications based on the model of
that class having the largest lifting capacity, and
the rotating frame for each respective class is
different from the rotating frames of all of the
other classes.

The Rejections
The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review.
(1). Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yokoyama (US 6,474,485 B1, issued Nov. 5, 2002) and
Brown (US 3,184,076, issued May 18, 1965).
Appeal 2010-006648
Application 10/588,843

3
(2). Claims 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yokoyama, Brown, and Harrison (US 5,598,935, issued
Feb. 4, 1997).

OPINION
Rejection (1) – Obviousness based on Yokoyama and Brown
The Examiner finds that Yokoyama substantially discloses the subject
matter of independent claim 20. Ans. 2-3. In particular, the Examiner finds
that Yokoyama discloses one class of cranes having two different models,
namely, a 65 ton model and an 80 ton model, with each model having a
different lifting capability, i.e., 65 tons and 80 tons, respectively. Id. The
Examiner also finds that Yokoyama discloses:
the common rotating frame of each respective
class having specifications based on the model of
that class having the largest lifting capacity (see
column 4, lines 15-37 which state[s] that the
winding ability is set to ”one size up”, the 80 ton
capacity, and the body is sized to the 65 ton
capacity while having an 80 ton capacity).
Ans. 3. However, the Examiner admits that Yokoyama fails to disclose two
or more classes of cranes with each class having two or more models. Ans.
2-3. To cure the deficiency of Yokoyama, the Examiner turns to Brown for
its teaching of “crane-type vehicles . . . constructed of different sizes and
styles,” including light-weight cranes with maximum lifting capacity of
approximately five tons and much larger self-propelled cranes with lifting
capacities in excess of 15 tons. Ans. 3 (quoting from Brown, col. 3, ll. 13-
21). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art “to modify the line of cranes taught by Yokoyama by
Appeal 2010-006648
Application 10/588,843

4
making one or more additional ‘classes’ of cranes . . . with each of the
‘classes’ having different vehicle sizes and styles, as to meet the needs of
various customers and to maximize sales, as taught by Brown.” Id.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s obviousness rejection based on
Yokoyama and Brown fails, because Yokoyama does not teach the claimed
feature of “the common rotating frame of each respective class having
specifications based on the model of the class having the largest lifting
capacity.” App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 3. Appellants assert that Yokoyama
teaches the opposite of what is claimed, namely, “to adapt a rotating frame
designed with specifications for a smaller (65 ton) lifting capacity to
accommodate a larger (80 ton) lifting capacity.” App. Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 3.
The Examiner responds that Yokoyama’s rotating frame “has
specifications of [the] higher of the two capacities for which it will be used”
and “[t]his only makes sense as one would not design the rotating frame for
use to lift only 65 tons when the plan is to also lift 80 tons.” Ans. 5. The
Examiner also responds that the contested claim limitation “fails to recite
an[y] specific structural features,” and “[i]t only states that the crane is built
to specifications for the heavier loading, i.e., it is designed with the idea of
not failing when lifting the heavier of the two loads which it will be lifting.”
Id. The Examiner reasons that “[c]learly the crane of Yokoyama which is
intended to lift 65 tons or 80 tons is being designed to lift 80 tons without
failing” and “[t]herefore[,] it has specifications based on lifting the heavier
of its two intended load capacities.” Id.
We cannot agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of Yokoyama.
The Examiner does not cite any specific passages of Yokoyama to support
the finding that the rotating frame therein is based on the specifications of
Appeal 2010-006648
Application 10/588,843

5
the higher of the two capacities, i.e., 80 ton. On the contrary, Yokoyama
discloses that the rotating frame is based on the smaller of the two lifting
capacities by stating that:
[t]he size of the body of the crawler crane 1 is set to the
size of a 65-ton class (hanging class) . . . and the winding up
ability of the main winding winch 7 and the boom rising and
falling winch 10 is set to be equal to the winding up ability of
the winding up winch and the boom rising and falling winch
mounted on the crawler crane of a 80-ton class (one class up).
Yokoyama, col. 3, ll. 61-67. Emphasis omitted. We understand this passage
of Yokoyama to mean that the crawler crane 1 has its lower traveling body 2
designed to the specifications of the 65 ton capacity, while its upper rotating
body 5 has a lifting capability designed to the specifications of the 80 ton
capacity. This understanding is confirmed by further passages of Yokoyama
which state that:
the winding up ability of the main winding winch 7 and the
boom rising and falling winch 10 is set to be equal to the
winding up ability of the winding up winch and the boom rising
and falling winch mounted on the crawler crane of a 80-ton
class (one class up). Therefore, the hanging ability is excellent.
That is, the stability of the body and the obstacle avoiding
function are excellent as compared with the crawler crane of
which size is of equal class, and the hanging ability is excellent.
Therefore, despite the fact that the crawler crane 1 is compact,
the working ability which is more excellent than the crawler
crane of which size is equal thereto can be given.
. . . In addition, the size of the body of the crawler 1 is set
to the size of 65-ton class while having a 80-ton class, and
therefore, carrying can be made by a trailer by removing the
end boom and the first counter weight 14 similarly to the case
of the crawler crane of 65-ton hanging class. Because of this,
work such as removal of the crawler, as in the crawler crane of
80-ton class, is unnecessary to contribute to reduction in
carrying costs.
Appeal 2010-006648
Application 10/588,843

6
Even a field is so narrow that the crawler crane of 80-ton
class cannot be set despite a field requiring the crawler crane of
80-ton class, the rear rotating radius of the crawler crane 1
according to the present embodiment is of ordinary 65-ton
class. This can greatly contribute to the enhancement of the
work efficiency in many narrow fields. Further, since as
described above, the body of the crawler crane 1 is more
compact than the body of the crawler crane having the ability
equal thereto, and therefore, there is an economical effect that
the maintenance costs can be reduced.
Yokoyama, col. 4, ll. 15-26, and 31-49. Emphasis omitted.
Since a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
Yokoyama’s above-quoted passages to disclose a crawler crane 1 having a
lower traveling body 2 designed to the specifications of the 65 ton capacity,
not the 80 ton capacity, the Examiner’s finding that “the common rotating
frame of each respective class ha[s] specifications based on the model of that
class having the largest lifting capacity” is not supported by a preponderance
of the evidence.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 20, and claim 21 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yokoyama and Brown.
Obviousness based on Yokoyama, Brown, and Harrison
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 22-27 relies on the same
unsupported finding that Yokoyama discloses claim 20’s limitation of “the
common rotating frame of each respective class having specifications based
on the model of that class having the largest lifting capacity” as discussed
supra. Appellants argue that Harrison does not overcome the deficiency of
Yokoyama and Brown. We agree. Accordingly, for the same reasons as
discussed supra with respect to the obviousness of Yokoyama and Brown,
Appeal 2010-006648
Application 10/588,843

7
we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22-27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yokoyama, Brown, and Harrison.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 20-27.

REVERSED

Klh