Crown Equipment Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 3, 2020

2020001328 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 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.
14/935,528 11/09/2015 James V. Kraimer CRN 762 PA 2026
29673 7590 11/03/2020
STEVENS & SHOWALTER LLP
7019 CORPORATE WAY
DAYTON, OH 45459-4238
EXAMINER
RIEGELMAN, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/03/2020 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):
PTO@sspatlaw.com
ssllp@speakeasy.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte JAMES V. KRAIMER and CHRISTOPH BABEL
__________

Appeal 2020-001328
Application 14/935,528
Technology Center 3600
__________

Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, 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, 3, 5–9, and 27–30. Claims 2, 4, 18–
26, and 33–38 have been canceled. Claims 10–17, 31, and 32 have been
withdrawn from consideration. 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 Crown
Equipment Corporation. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) 3, filed Mar. 15, 2019.
Appeal 2020-001328
Application 14/935,528

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to materials handling vehicles.
Spec. 1:5–7. The Specification describes order picker vehicle 10, which
includes operator compartment 30. Spec. 5:13–18. As depicted in Figure 4,
operator compartment 30 includes dash 62. Spec. 4:19–20, 10:20–23, Fig. 4.
Horizontal support surface 62B of dash 62 mounts window panels 72A, 72B.
Spec. 4:24, 11:3–5, 12:5–10, Fig. 6A. Window panels 72A, 72B provide
“the operator with a view of a floor surface when the operator compartment
is in an elevated position such that the operator does not need to move his
head outside the perimeter of the vehicle when looking down.” Spec. 1:24–
27, Fig. 4; see also id. at 12:5–10.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of the
claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A materials handling vehicle comprising:
a power unit supported on wheels;
a mast assembly supported on the power unit, the mast
assembly including plural telescoping sections defined by pairs
of laterally spaced rails;
an operator compartment supported on the mast assembly
for vertical movement;
a dash located forward of the operator compartment, in a
forward direction from the operator compartment toward the
mast assembly, and including a substantially horizontal support
surface for packages;
a transparent window defining a portion of the horizontal
support surface and providing an operator with a view of a floor
surface when the operator compartment is in an elevated
position; and
including at least one control device associated with the
dash for operation by the operator when the operator is
positioned standing facing in the forward direction on the
operator compartment;
Appeal 2020-001328
Application 14/935,528

3
wherein the transparent window includes a pair of
transparent panels extending forward from either side of the
control device.

THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 3, 5–9, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Shigetaka (JP 2003-146595A, published May 21, 2003),
Kazuji (JP H11-246192A, published Sept. 14, 1999), and Masahito (JP
2005-082368A, published Mar. 31, 2005).
Claims 29 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Shigetaka, Kazuji, Masahito, and Smiley (US 6,871,721
B2, issued Mar. 29, 2005).

ANALYSIS
Shigetaka, Kazuji, and Masahito
Claims 1, 3, 5–9, 27, and 28
Claim 1 is directed to a materials handling vehicle having “a
transparent window defining a portion of the horizontal support surface” of a
dash, “at least one control device associated with the dash,” and “wherein
the transparent window includes a pair of transparent panels extending
forward from either side of the control device.” Appeal Br. 13, Claims App.
The Examiner finds that a skilled artisan, familiar with the combined
teachings of Shigetaka, Kazuji, and Masahito, would have had reason to
“provide the dual transparent panels described by Masahito to the system
disclosed by Shigetaka in view of Kazuji in order to optimize the placement
of the lift controls for ease of use.” Non-Final Act. 5.2 For the reasons

2 Non-Final Office Action (“Non-Final Act.”), dated Oct. 22, 2018.
Appeal 2020-001328
Application 14/935,528

4
discussed below, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not
provided sufficient evidence or technical reasoning to support a finding that
the combined teachings of Shigetaka, Kazuji, and Masahito disclose a
transparent window including “a pair of transparent panels extending
forward from either side of [a] control device” associated with the dash as
called for in claim 1. Appeal Br. 8–10; see also Reply Br. 3–4.3
Shigetaka describes a pickup lift vehicle having an operation panel 24
mounted on cab 23. Shigetaka ¶ 17, Fig. 5. Plate-like load stand 40
partially encompasses operation panel 24. Id. ¶ 30, Figs. 4, 5. Although
Figures 4 and 5 of Shigetaka indicate that luggage stand 40 includes an
upper horizontal support surface, Shigetaka does not describe the horizontal
support surface as having a window. Indeed, the Examiner acknowledges
that “Shigetaka does not specify a transparent window.” Non-Final Act. 4.
Kazuji does not disclose a dash having a transparent window
including “a pair of transparent panels extending forward from either side of
[a] control device” associated with the dash. Rather, Kazuji describes a
picking truck with a luggage storage unit positioned behind both instrument
panel 25 and driver support surface 7. Kazuji ¶¶ 19–20, Figs. 1, 3. Luggage
storage unit 28 presents a horizontal support surface defined by a single
transparent plate designed to provide an unobstructed view of obstacles
behind the picking truck. Id. ¶¶ 4, 21, Fig. 1. In addition, the Examiner
acknowledges that the combined teachings of Shigetaka and Kazuji “do[]

3 Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed June 28, 2019.

Appeal 2020-001328
Application 14/935,528

5
not specify that the transparent window includes a pair of transparent panels
extending forward from either side of the control device.” Non-Final Act. 4.
Masahito describes a forklift in which operator M stands in cab 8
facing operation panel or dash 9. Masahito ¶¶ 16–17, Fig. 1. Masahito
explains that one problem with extant forklifts was that the operator of such
a forklift might move away from a safe standing position in the cab and fall
from the cab. Id. ¶ 4. Masahito addresses this problem by providing a pair
of transparent windows 15c through the surface on which the operator
stands. Id. ¶ 17, Fig. 1. When operator M sees floor F on which the forklift
rests through transparent windows 15c and realizes the height of cab 8 above
the floor, the operator’s natural fear of heights will motivate the operator to
remain in the safe standing position within the cab. Id. ¶ 18.
Neither Kazuji nor Masahito describes a transparent window included
in a horizontal support surface of a dash, while, as discussed above,
Shigetaka fails to describe any transparent window at all. Furthermore, the
positions of transparent panels 15c on the operator support surface 7 of
Masahito’s cab 8 appear to have more to do with retaining the operator in a
safe standing position than with the placement of lift controls on the dash.
See Appeal Br. 9; see also Masahito ¶¶ 17, 18. In view of these deficiencies,
the Examiner was obligated to provide greater detail in the Answer as to
why a skilled artisan would have been led to divide a transparent window
defining a portion of the horizontal support surface of a dash into a pair of
transparent panels extending forward from either side of a control device
associated with the dash based on the references’ teachings.
However, the Examiner’s explanations on page 4 of the Answer do
not satisfy this obligation. For example, the Examiner reasons that a skilled
Appeal 2020-001328
Application 14/935,528

6
artisan would have been motivated to divide the window into a pair of
transparent panels “since the visibility in the forward direction [would not
have been] critical due to [drive unit] 27 in Shigetaka obstructing the view.”
Ans. 4.4 This reasoning is not adequate because the Examiner has not
established that the operator’s visibility view of drive unit 27 would be any
less critical in maneuvering the vehicle than the operator’s visibility view to
the sides.
The Examiner also reasons that a skilled artisan would have been
motivated to use a pair of transparent panels “in order to strengthen the dash
so that it can support greater loads” and in order to “reduce costs and
difficulty associated with manufacturing.” Id. Both of these reasons are
speculative, at best, and are not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. See Reply Br. 4 (“Appellant respectfully submits that the
reasoning presented by the Examiner has no basis in the cited prior art.”);
see also id. (“[T]he Examiner has failed to identify any disclosure in the
references, or other teaching or suggestion from the prior art, as evidence
that [a skilled artisan] would be led to combine the references for the stated
reasons, i.e., to obtain the alleged advantages as stated in the Examiner’s
Answer.”); id. (“Nor has the Examiner otherwise established that the alleged
advantages would necessarily be produced by the combination of
references.”). The Examiner has the initial duty of supplying the requisite
factual basis and may not, because of doubts that the invention is patentable,
resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions, or hindsight reconstruction to

4 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), dated May 6, 2019.
Appeal 2020-001328
Application 14/935,528

7
supply deficiencies in the factual basis. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011,
1017 (CCPA 1967).
Moreover, the Examiner has not sufficiently explained through the use
of evidence or technical reasoning how providing dual transparent panels to
the modified system of Shigetaka would ease the use of/optimize the
placement of the lift controls. See Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 4–5; Appeal
Br. 8 (“Nor is it apparent from the proposed combination of references how
providing a pair of panels would optimize placement of the controls.”).
Because the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence or articulated
adequate reasoning to support a finding that the subject matter of claim 1
would have been obvious over the combined teachings of the references, we
do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5–9, 27, and 28 as unpatentable
over Shigetaka, Kazuji, and Masahito.

Shigetaka, Kazuji, Masahito, and Smiley
Claims 29 and 30
Claim 29 depends from claim 1 and claim 30 depends from claim 29.
Appeal Br. 14, Claims App. The Examiner cites Smiley for describing a
recessed area in a horizontal support surface of a dash. Non-Final Act. 7.
This teaching fails to remedy the deficiencies of the combined teachings of
Shigetaka, Kazuji, and Masahito discussed above for claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 29 and 30 as
unpatentable over Shigetaka, Kazuji, Masahito, and Smiley.

Appeal 2020-001328
Application 14/935,528

8
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5–9, 27,
28
103 Shigetaka, Kazuji,
Masahito
1, 3, 5–9,
27, 28
29, 30 103 Shigetaka, Kazuji,
Masahito, Smiley
29, 30
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 5–9,
27–30

REVERSED