Ex Parte Fetisoff

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 24, 2012

11254757 (B.P.A.I. May. 24, 2012)

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.
11/254,757 10/21/2005 Valentine A. Fetisoff 4961
7590 05/24/2012
Clyde I. Coughenour
16607 Sutton Place
Woodbridge, VA 22191
EXAMINER
BROWN, PETER R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3636
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte VALENTINE A. FETISOFF
____________________

Appeal 2011-010223
Application 11/254,757
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before KEN B. BARRETT, CHARLES N. GREENHUT,
and MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Valentine A. Fetisoff (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 1, 4-7, 11-13, 15, 17, 18 and 20. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

Appeal 2011-010223
Application 11/254,757

2
THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A portable pneumatic lift chair comprising:
a base with vertically extending parallel guide posts;
a vertically reciprocal seat attached to said parallel guide
posts;
a bladder positioned between said base and said
vertically reciprocal seat;
an air compressor for inflating said bladder and lifting
said vertically reciprocal seat;
braces extending between said guide posts to rigidify said
base, said parallel guide posts and said vertically reciprocal
seat;
said braces include adjustable braces slidable along said
parallel guide posts and firmly positionable to both rigidify said
base, said parallel guide posts and said vertically reciprocal seat
and to control the extent said seat can be raised.

THE REJECTIONS
The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 4, 5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Attler (US 5,579,544, iss. Dec. 3, 1996) and
Mahone (US 2,679,283, iss. May 25, 1954);
2. Claims 6, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Attler, Mahone, and Harrington (US
4,232,901, iss. Nov. 11, 1980); and
3. Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Attler, Mahone, Harrington, and Kunath (US 1,326,746,
iss. Dec. 30, 1919).
Appeal 2011-010223
Application 11/254,757

3
The rejection of claims 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, has been withdrawn. Ans. 3.

OPINION
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, and 11 as being unpatentable over Attler and
Mahone
Claims 1 and 11
Claim 1 recites:
said braces include adjustable braces slidable along said parallel
guide posts and firmly positionable to both rigidify said base,
said parallel guide posts and said vertically reciprocal seat and
to control the extent said seat can be raised.
Appellant argues that neither Attler nor Mahone discloses every aspect of
this limitation. See App. Br. 18-19. However, Appellant is attacking the
references separately rather than addressing the Examiner’s proposed
combination of the references’ teachings. The Examiner’s rejection is
articulated as a modification of Attler’s device to have adjustable braces as
taught by Mahone. Ans. 5 (including the finding that Mahone’s bars 14 and
15 are adjustable braces, not the bars 11 and 35 addressed by Appellant at
App. Br. 19). Appellant fails to explain why this combination proposed by
the Examiner would lack the claimed structure and function. We have
considered Appellant’s remaining arguments pertaining to the Attler-
Mahone rejection but do not find them persuasive. We sustain the rejection
of claim 1. We cannot discern a separate, persuasive argument for the
patentability of claim 11, which depends directly from claim 1, and therefore
also sustain the rejection of claim 11.
Appeal 2011-010223
Application 11/254,757

4
Claim 4
We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that “the braces of
Mahone utilize a ‘clamp and lock-screw’ securement means 16, 17, as
broadly claimed.” Ans. 5; see App. Br. 21; Mahone, col. 2, ll. 2-8
(describing pin 17 in an aperture in tubular T (tee) 16). We do not sustain
the rejection of claim 4.
Claim 5
Dependent claim 5 calls for a foot rest attached to the seat. We are
not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 5 (App. Br. 21-22),
and sustain the rejection of that claim. In particular, we are not persuaded
by the argument that a foot rest on Attler’s device would interfere with the
operation or function of the device.

The rejection of claims 6, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18 as being unpatentable over
Attler, Mahone, and Harrington
Claim 6
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 6
(App. Br. 22), and sustain the rejection of that claim.
Claim 12
Claim 12 calls for “a skirt shield attached to said vertically reciprocal
seat and extending from said vertically reciprocal seat to said foot rest for
covering said bladder ....” Underlying the conclusion of obviousness is the
Examiner’s claim construction that: “The phrase ‘extending from the seat to
the footrest for covering the bladder’, may be interpreted as extending
lengthwise downwardly from the seat to the level of the footrest.” Ans. 9.
This interpretation is unreasonably broad as it encompasses a skirt that
merely hangs down without actually extending to the structure that
Appeal 2011-010223
Application 11/254,757

5
corresponds to the foot rest in the Examiner’s proposed modification. See
id. at 8-9 (the Examiner apparently proposing a modification involving leg
supports that extend lengthwise from the seat). We cannot sustain the
rejection of claim 12 or of its dependent claims 13, 15, 17 and 18.

The rejection of claims 7 and 20 as being unpatentable over Attler, Mahone,
Harrington, and Kunath
Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 6, and adds that the skirt shield is
attached to the seat by cords extending through eyelets. We are not
persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. In particular, Appellant’s repeated
argument (App. Br. 24) that a skirt would interfere with the operation of
Attler’s device is unpersuasive. We sustain the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 20
Claim 20 depends from claim 12. For the reasons discussed above
regarding claim 12, we also cannot sustain the rejection of claim 20.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 4, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18,
and 20 is reversed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 5-7, and
11 is affirmed.
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Appeal 2011-010223
Application 11/254,757

6
mls