Ex Parte Barrett et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 3, 2017

13748437 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2017)

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.
13/748,437 01/23/2013 Richard Terrell Barrett TBAR01232013 1809
71372 7590
JEFFREY H. RODDY
525 ROYAL CREST DRIVE
RICHARDSON, TX 75081
05/03/2017 EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, MAURICE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3611
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2017 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 RICHARD TERRELL BARRETT and MARC GRAY
Appeal 2016-000696
Application 13/748,4371
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
decision finally rejecting claims 1, 4, and 5. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to the Appellants, the real parties in interest are the inventors,
Richard Terrell Barrett and Marc Gray. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-000696
Application 13/748,437
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
The Appellants claimed subject matter “relates generally to a powered
hitching and parking assist for a trailer.” Spec. 11. Claim 1, the sole
independent claim, is representative of the subject matter on appeal and
reproduced below.
1. A stowable powered trailer jack assembly for
steering a boat trailer comprising:
(1) a support tube mounted to a trailer frame,
the tube terminating at one end with a mounting
plate and having a rotatable drive shaft
therethrough,
(2) a swivelable sub-assembly including a
fully enclosed high-torque worm drive transmission
with the worm and driven gear positioned between
wheels possessing an axle track of at least 6 inches
which are mounted to, and driven by a transverse
axle,
(3) an electric motor mounted to an end of the
support tube opposite the mounting plate for driving
the transmission via the drive shaft.
Rejection
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Richards et al. (US 7,494,154 B2, iss. Feb. 24, 2009,
hereinafter “Richards”), Marom (US 4,605,086, iss. Aug. 12, 1986), and
Hawgood (US 3,156,315, iss. Nov. 10, 1964).
ANALYSIS
At the outset, we note that the Appellants include various arguments
in the Appeal Brief. See Br. 7—10. Initially, the Appellants disagree with
2
Appeal 2016-000696
Application 13/748,437
the Examiner that the claimed “mounting plate” reads on the top portion of
Richards’s fork 22. Br. 7; see Richards Fig. 6. The Appellants’
disagreement is based on the view that the claimed “mounting plate” is
distinguishable from fork 22 because fork 22 includes arms that “extend to
the sides of a supported wheel” whereas the Appellants’ mounting plate
lacks arms. See Br. 7. The Appellants’ disagreement is not persuasive of
error. The claims do not recite or otherwise require the claimed “mounting
plate” to not have attached arms. See Ans. 5. And, we find that a skilled
artisan would understand that the top portion of fork 22 corresponds with the
“mounting plate” of claim 1. Richards Fig. 6.
The majority of the Appellants’ arguments are directed towards an
understanding of the “resultant combination” of teachings from Richards,
Marom, and Hawgood (see Br. 7—10) that is based on speculation. The
Appellants’ understanding starts with the observation “that mount (fig. 1,
20) of Richards is mounted atop tongue (T) and is level with transmission
(28) when wheel (241) is fully raised” and that “Marom . . . teaches a lifting
and maneuvering device for motor vehicles to provide the dual wheels for
the combination.” Br. 7—8; see also Richards Figs. 5a, 5b, 6. The
Appellants then offer the view that the “resultant combination” of teachings
from Richards and Marom is such that at least one of the two wheels would
abut and rub against the bottom of Richards’s trailer tongue T. See Br. 8.
We fail to understand why a person having ordinary skill in the art
armed with the teachings of Richards and Marom would have positioned one
of the two wheels such that it would abut and rub against Richards’s trailer
tongue T. See also Ans. 6. The Examiner modifies Richards’s trailer jack in
view of Marom’s teaching of “a motorized, wheeled jack assembly (Fig. 9)
3
Appeal 2016-000696
Application 13/748,437
with a transmission unit (321) disposed between wheels (318, 320) on an
axle[]” and “several different embodiments with a two wheeled base (see
Figs. 2, 3, 7 and 8).” Final Act. 2—3 (emphasis omitted). And, we find it
reasonable that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have added a
wheel at a distance away from Richards’s trailer tongue T to maintain the
operational functionality of the trailer jack, which includes the ability of the
trailer jack’s sub-assembly to be swiveled (i.e., pivoted) and steered. See
also Ans. 5—6.
The Appellants contend, based on their view of the “resultant
combination” of teachings of Richards and Marom, that the inclusion of a
second wheel would make it “likely that. . . Richards[’s] jack device would
no longer be reasonably steerable at least with the wheel(s) in the fully or
partially raised position as depicted in (fig.l).” Br. 8 (emphasis omitted).
Additionally, the Appellants contend that the modification to Richards’s
trailer jack is “so radical. . . requiring numerous unpredictable modifications
to the mounting (20) and the crank” rendering the jack inoperable and that
the modification would change the principle of operation of Richards’s
trailer jack. Id. For similar reasons as discussed above, the Appellants’
contentions are not persuasive as they are based on speculation. See also
Ans. 6.
The Appellants contend that there is no reason to combine Marom’s
mounting, which is a permanent installation to a car, with Richards’s
detachable trailer jack because the combination would not yield predictable
results. See Br. 8—9. The Appellants’ contention is not persuasive because it
is directed to teachings from Marom not relied upon in the Examiner’s
rejection. The Examiner relies on Marom for teaching a two wheeled base
4
Appeal 2016-000696
Application 13/748,437
(Final Act. 2—3), whereas the Appellants’ contention is directed to a distinct
teaching from Marom, i.e., that a mount can be permanently installed on a
car. See also Ans. 6—7.
The Appellants also address the Examiner’s reliance on Hawgood to
further modify Richards’s trailer jack. See Br. 9. The Examiner relies on
Hawgood to teach “[a] device for steering a trailer with a high torque[]
worm drive transmission (7, 35) which is fully enclosed (casing 6), including
forward and reverse controls (via 38).” Final Act. 3 (emphasis omitted).
Then, the Examiner further modifies Richards’s trailer jack in view of this
teaching. See id. It is the Appellants’ view that “an enclosed worm gear
transmission between dual wheels was not a[] well known alternative for
powered trailer jacks at the time of the invention.” Br. 9. The Appellants’
view seems to relate to the following rationale in the Examiner’s rejection,
[i]t would have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art... to include a structure to
fully enclose the transmission elements ... as taught
by Hawgood in order to yield the predictable result
of providing an alternative, well-known
transmission means to drive the wheels and shield
it from debris during travel, in addition to providing
a means of accurately positioning the trailer.
Final Act. 3 (emphasis added). However, the Appellants’ view does not
explain error in the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner’s rationale is based
on a finding that Hawgood teaches, among other things, an enclosed worm
drive transmission as an alternative kind of transmission for maneuvering
trailers. See id. The Examiner does not rely on Hawgood to teach an
enclosed worm gear transmission between dual wheels. Rather, the
Examiner relies on a combination of teachings from Richards, Marom, and
5
Appeal 2016-000696
Application 13/748,437
Hawgood to find that the resultant combination corresponds to the claimed
subject matter, i.e., an enclosed worm gear transmission between dual
wheels. See id. at 2—3.
For reasons similar to those discussed above, the Appellants conclude
that modifying Richards’s trailer jack to have two wheels “would frustrate
the purpose; e.g., steerability, of the Richards jack,” “require a total redesign
of Richards[’s] mount (20) as well as the Richards height crank (16),” “not
yield predictable results,” and “is not credible.” Br. 9. For similar reasons
as discussed above, we determine that these conclusions are not persuasive.
The Appellants contend “that one of the ramifications of Applicants’]
axle and transmission being between wheels instead of superior to the wheel
as taught by Richards, is that Applicants’] wheels can pivot, and are
steerable at any height position as determined by the limits of the mounting
configuration shown in Applicants’] disclosure.” Id. The Appellants’
contention is not persuasive of error. First, the claims do not require wheels
that are able to be pivoted and/or steered at every available height position.
Second, as discussed above, we do not agree with the Appellants that the
modification of Richards’s trailer jack fails to maintain its operational
functionality, which includes the ability for its sub-assembly to be swiveled
(i.e., pivoted) and steered. See Ans. 7.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, and 5 as
unpatentable over Richards, Marom, and Hawgood.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4, and 5.
6
Appeal 2016-000696
Application 13/748,437
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7