Stertil B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 26, 2020

14324903 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2020)

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.
14/324,903 07/07/2014 Jurjen Jan De Jong 0702-144820 7645
28289 7590 02/26/2020
THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C.
ONE GATEWAY CENTER
420 FT. DUQUESNE BLVD, SUITE 1200
PITTSBURGH, PA 15222
EXAMINER
YOON, SEAHEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2020 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):
patents@webblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JURJEN JAN DE JONG

Appeal 2019-005035
Application 14/324,903
Technology Center 3700

Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 8, and 10–16. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

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
Stertil B.V. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005035
Application 14/324,903

2
According to Appellant, “[t]he invention relates to a lifting column for
lifting a load, such as a vehicle.” Spec. 1, l. 6. Claim 1 is the sole
independent claim on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as
representative of the appealed claims:
1. A lifting system for lifting a vehicle, comprising:
a plurality of individual lifting columns, wherein each of
the individual lifting columns comprises:
a frame with a carrier configured for carrying the vehicle;
a drive for driving the carrier in at least one of an ascent
or descent of the carrier; and
a modular power system configured for providing power
to the drive and adapted to comprise a variable number of
energy storage systems, wherein the variable number of energy
storage systems can be selected based on the lifting
requirements of the lifting column; and
a central controller comprising a central energy storage
management system capable of monitoring energy storage
system status of the energy storage systems of each of the
individual lifting columns.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1–3, 8, and 10–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Finkbeiner et al. (US 2012/0037864 A1, pub.
Feb. 16, 2012) (“Finkbeiner”) and Bordwell et al.
(US 8,083,034 B2, iss. Dec. 27, 2011) (“Bordwell”); and
II. Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Finkbeiner, Bordwell, and De Jong (US 8,251,184 B2, iss.
Aug. 28, 2012) (“De Jong”).
Appeal 2019-005035
Application 14/324,903

3
ANALYSIS
Rejection I—Obviousness rejection of claims 1–3, 8, and 10–16
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “a
central controller comprising a central energy storage management system
capable of monitoring energy storage system status of the energy storage
systems of each of the individual lifting columns.” Appeal Br., Claims App.
(underlining added). However, the Examiner does not rely on either
Finkbeiner or Bordwell to disclose this claim recitation. See generally
Answer.
Instead, the Examiner relies on “Finkbeiner . . . [to] discloses that
each of the individual lifting column[s] . . . comprises . . . [a] controller
comprising [an] energy storage management system” that monitors that
individual lifting column’s energy storage system. Id. at 3 (citations to
Finkbeiner omitted). The Examiner then relies on “Bordwell . . . [to] teach[]
a use of a central controller . . . to control a number of individual lifting
columns.” Id. at 4 (citations to Bordwell omitted). The Examiner
determines that
[i]t would have been obvious . . . to modify Finkbeiner . . .
(which discloses a use of an energy storage management
system) to use one single central controller for a number of
lifting columns instead of using a separate controller for each of
the individual lifting columns, as clearly taught by
Bordwell . . ., for the purpose of controlling all lifting columns
at once.
Id.; see also Final Action 7–8.
As we state above, we do not sustain the rejection. This is because the
record does not indicate that the Examiner relies on either reference to
disclose the argued claim recitation. Further, the Examiner does not
Appeal 2019-005035
Application 14/324,903

4
demonstrate any place in the record supporting that modifying one of
Finkbeiner’s individual lifting columns so that that column’s controller
controls (e.g., movement of) a number of additional lifting columns, would
render obvious using the controller to monitor the additional lifting columns’
energy storage systems. See, e.g., generally Answer; see, e.g., generally
Final Action. We would require further guidance from the Examiner to
demonstrate that it would have been obvious to combine the references to
provide an arrangement in which one controller monitors the energy storage
systems of multiple columns.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 8, and 10–16 that depend from, and the
Examiner rejects with, claim 1.

Rejection II—Obviousness rejection of claim 4
Claim 4 depends from independent claim 1. As discussed above, we
do not sustain claim 1’s obviousness rejection. The Examiner does not rely
on De Jong to disclose anything that would remedy the deficiency in
claim 1’s rejection. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of dependent claim 4.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–4,
8, and 10–16.

Appeal 2019-005035
Application 14/324,903

5
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 8, 10–16 103(a) Finkbeiner, Bordwell 1–3, 8,
10–16
4 103(a) Finkbeiner, Bordwell,
De Jong
4
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 8,
10–16
REVERSED