Ex Parte Carlisle

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

13919420 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/919,420 06/17/2013
8131 7590 08/01/2018
MCKELLAR IP LAW, PLLC
784 SOUTH POSEYVILLE ROAD
MIDLAND, MI 48640
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Colin Ralph Carlisle
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.
MSH-853 8056
EXAMINER
MCNURLEN, SCOTT THOMAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3782
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2018 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 COLIN RALPH CARLISLE
Appeal2017-008732
Application 13/919,420
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Colin Ralph Carlisle (Appellant) 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claim 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The real party in interest is identified as the inventor, Colin Ralph Carlisle.
Br. 2.
Appeal2017-008732
Application 13/919,420
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole claim on appeal.
1. A large game carrier, said large game carrier consisting of:
a single beam having a first end and a second end;
said first end configured to attach to a trailer tongue
receiver;
said second end having attached thereto, a V-shaped
animal support that allows for holding said animal by wedging a
head of said animal into said V shape.
Br. 6 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as anticipated by
Pollack (US 2002/0066839 Al, published June 6, 2002).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as anticipated by
Williams (US 2011/0240700 Al, published Oct. 6, 2011).
ANALYSIS
Anticipation by Pollack
The Examiner finds that Pollack discloses all limitations recited in
claim 1. Final Act. 2. Particularly, the Examiner finds that Pollack discloses
a large game carrier consisting of a single beam ( drawbar 18A) having a first
end (bottom end) configured to attach to a trailer tongue receiver. Id. ( citing
Pollack Fig. 5).
Appellant contends that Pollack does not disclose a beam, but teaches
a mounting flange 12A or 12B or a drawbar 18A or 18B. Br. 3. Appellant
argues that the term "beam" is defined as "any of various relatively long
pieces of metal, wood, stone, etc., manufactured or shaped especially for use
2
Appeal2017-008732
Application 13/919,420
as rigid members or parts of structures or machines" (id. ( citing
Dictionary.com)), whereas a "flange" is an edge that sticks out from
something ( such as a wheel) and is used for strength, guiding, or attachment
to another item (id. (citing Dictionary.com)), and a "drawbar" is a heavy bar,
often made of steel, attached to the rear of a tractor, and used as a hitch for
pulling machinery, as a plow or a mower (id. (citing Dictionary.com)).
Appellant also contends Pollack's drawbar is shown on a vehicle, which is
consistent with the definition of a drawbar, is an optional attachment to a
cargo rack, and is therefore, not a beam. Id. ( citing Pollack Figs. 8, 18B;
,r 85)).
These contentions are unpersuasive. Appellant's argument that flange
12A or 12B of Pollock is not a beam does not address the rejection. The
Examiner instead finds that drawbar 18A, as shown in Figure 5 of Pollack,
corresponds to the claimed beam. See Final Act. 2. Further, the Examiner
explains that the term "relatively long" in Appellant's proposed definition of
a "beam" is a relative term because it does not define what object the beam
is relatively long in comparison to, and that, for example, Pollack's drawbar
18A is relatively long when compared to bracket 10. Ans. 3 ( citing Pollack,
Fig. 5). Appellant does not apprise us of error. 2
Appellant also contends that Pollack's disclosure of screwing a
hitchball through a hole 16 of a flange instead of a drawbar is not the same
as being configured to attach to a trailer tongue receiver. Br. 3--4 ( citing
Pollack ,r,r 82, 85).
2 We note that a Reply Brief was not filed.
3
Appeal2017-008732
Application 13/919,420
This contention is also unpersuasive. As the Examiner explains,
Figure 7 of Pollack shows that an end of drawbar 18A attaches to a trailer
tongue receiver. Ans. 3 ( citing Pollack Fig. 7, ,r 72). Pollack also discloses
that drawbar 18A is inserted into the hitch receiver box of a vehicle. Pollack
,r 72, Figs. 5, 7. Appellant does not apprise us of error.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Pollack.
Anticipation by Williams
The Examiner finds that Williams discloses all limitations recited in
claim 1. Final Act. 2. Particularly, the Examiner finds that Williams
discloses a large game carrier consisting of a single beam (shank 22) having
a second end, in which the second end has attached thereto, a V-shaped
animal support that allows for holding an animal by wedging a head of the
animal into the V shape. Id. (citing Williams Figs. 1-2, ,r,r 48--49).
Appellant contends that Williams does not teach a beam, but instead
teaches a shank 22. Br. 4. Appellant argues that a "shank" is a straight,
usually narrow, shaftlike part of various objects connecting two or more
important or complex parts, as the stem of a pipe (id. ( citing
Dictionary.com)), and is not a relatively long piece of metal used as a rigid
member as part of a structure (id.). Appellant also contends that an ordinary
artisan would not want Williams' shank to be relatively long as that would
be hazardous for carrying bicycles. Id.
These contentions are unpersuasive. Referring to Figure 21 of
Williams, the Examiner responds that Williams' shank ( element 322) is
"relatively long" when compared to its cross-section, bolts, and other parts
of the V-shape portion of the carrier. Ans. 3 (citing Williams Fig. 21; ,r 49).
Williams discloses that the shank has "an elongated length of square tube
4
Appeal2017-008732
Application 13/919,420
that is sized to be inserted into the hitch receiver of the vehicle." Williams
,r 49. This description supports the Examiner's position that the shank is
"relatively long." Thus, Appellant does not apprise us of error.
Appellant also contends that the lightweight bicycle carrier of
Williams is not suitable for supporting the weight of large game and is not a
V-shaped animal support that allows for holding an animal. Br. 4.
This contention is also unpersuasive. As the Examiner explains,
"lightweight" is also a relative term and that Williams' carrier is lightweight
does not mean it is weak. Ans. 3. The Examiner explains that as Williams'
carrier can support a bicycle under various jarring conditions encountered by
the vehicle while driving, the carrier is capable of carrying an animal head,
as functionally claimed. Id. at 3--4. We note claim 1 does not recite that the
animal has at least some particular size or weight. Appellant does not
provide evidence that Williams' carrier is incapable of meeting the claim
limitation of "wedging a head of said animal into said V shape."
"Attorney's argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence." In re
Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Thus, Appellant does not
apprise us of error.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Williams.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claim 1.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended according to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5