MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOOL CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 16, 2021

2020003994 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2021)

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.
15/686,990 08/25/2017 Kyle Harvey 066042-8840-US02 2613
60840 7590 06/16/2021
MICHAEL, BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (MT)
790 N WATER ST
SUITE 2500
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
ENDO, JAMES M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/16/2021 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):
MKEIPDOCKET@MICHAELBEST.COM
milwaukeeip@milwaukeetool.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KYLE HARVEY, ROSS MCINTYRE, MICHAEL HALVERSON,
ERIC MACKEY, and JUSTIN DORMAN
Appeal 2020-003994
Application 15/686,990
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, TERRY J. OWENS, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, 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 1–30. See Non-Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

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 Milwaukee Electric
Tool Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003994
Application 15/686,990

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a portable light and a related method.
Claims 1, 21, 24, and 27, reproduced below with the limitation(s) most at
issue emphasized, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A portable light comprising:
an elongate body having a first end, a second end opposite
the first end, and a longitudinal axis extending through the first
and second ends;
a plurality of extension poles slidably received in the
elongate body and being coaxial with the elongate body, the
plurality of extension poles being movable out of the first end of
the elongate body between an extended position and a retracted
position;
a light head pivotably coupled to an end of one of the
plurality of extension poles;
a head assembly housing fixed to the first end of the
elongate body, the head assembly housing including an opening
to receive the light head when the plurality of extension poles is
in the retracted position, the head assembly housing also includes
a stationary handle to facilitate carrying the portable light, the
stationary handle defining a grip axis that is perpendicular to
and offset from the longitudinal axis of the elongate body;
a collar positioned around a portion of the elongate body,
the collar being movable along the elongate body in a direction
parallel to the longitudinal axis between a first position and
a second position;
a movable handle coupled to the collar for movement with
the collar between the first position and the second position, the
movable handle defining a grip axis that is parallel to and offset
from the longitudinal axis of the elongate body; and
a plurality of legs pivotably coupled to the collar, the
plurality of legs being collapsed against the elongate body when
the movable handle and the collar are in the first position
and being expanded apart from the elongate body when the
movable handle and the collar are in the second position.

Appeal 2020-003994
Application 15/686,990

3
21. A portable light comprising:
an elongate body having a first end, a second end opposite
the first end, and a longitudinal axis extending through the first
and second ends;
a plurality of extension poles slidably received in the
elongate body and being coaxial with the elongate body, the
plurality of extension poles being movable out of the first end of
the elongate body between an extended position and a retracted
position;
a light head pivotably coupled to an end of one of the
plurality of extension poles;
a head assembly housing fixed to the first end of the
elongate body, the head assembly housing including an opening
to receive the light head when the plurality of extension poles is
in the retracted position;
a collar positioned around a portion of the elongate body,
the collar being movable along the elongate body in a direction
parallel to the longitudinal axis between a first position and
a second position;
a handle coupled to the collar for movement with the
collar between the first position and the second position; and
a plurality of legs, each leg including a first end hingedly
coupled to the collar and a second end opposite the first end, the
second end of each leg being collapsed against the elongate body
when the handle and the collar are in the first position and being
expanded apart from the elongate body when the handle and the
collar are in the second position,
wherein each leg is pivotally coupled to the second end of
the elongate body by a leg link including a pair of parallel
members, wherein the elongate body defines a pair of
grooves corresponding to each leg link, wherein each pair of
grooves is formed in a same surface of the elongate body, and
wherein each pair of grooves receives a portion of one of the leg
links.

24. A portable light comprising:
an elongate body having a first end, a second end opposite
the first end, and a longitudinal axis extending through the first
and second ends;
Appeal 2020-003994
Application 15/686,990

4
a first extension pole and a second extension pole slidably
received in the elongate body, the first extension pole and the
second extension pole being movable out of the first end of
the elongate body between an extended position and a retracted
position, the second extension pole including a rib that is
slidably received in a groove of the first extension pole to inhibit
the first and second extension poles from rotating relative to
each other;
a clamping assembly coupled to an upper end of the
second extension pole, the clamping assembly being movable
between a clamped position to hold the first extension pole in
either the extended position or the retracted position, and an
unclamped position to allow relative axial movement between
the first and second extension poles;
a light head pivotably coupled to an end of the first
extension pole;
a head assembly housing fixed to the first end of the
elongate body, the head assembly housing including an opening
to receive the light head when the first and second extension
poles are in the retracted position;
a collar positioned around a portion of the elongate body,
the collar being movable along the elongate body in a direction
parallel to the longitudinal axis between a first position and
a second position;
a handle coupled to the collar for movement with the
collar between the first position and the second position; and
a plurality of legs pivotably coupled to the collar, the
plurality of legs being collapsed against the elongate body when
the handle and the collar are in the first position and
being expanded apart from the elongate body when the handle
and the collar are in the second position.

27. A method of operating a portable light, the portable light
including an elongate body, a plurality of extension poles
slidably received in the elongate body and being
movable between an extended position and a retracted position,
a light head coupled to an end of one of the plurality of extension
poles, a stationary handle fixed to the elongate body, a collar
movable along the elongate body, a movable handle coupled to
Appeal 2020-003994
Application 15/686,990

5
the collar for movement with the collar, and a plurality of legs
pivotably coupled to the collar, the method comprising:
grasping the stationary handle with a first hand of a user;
grasping the movable handle with a second hand of the
user;
depressing an actuator on the movable handle with a
thumb of the second hand to unlock the collar from the elongate
body; and
sliding the movable handle and the collar along the
elongate body away from the stationary handle to move the
plurality of legs from a first position, in which the plurality of
legs is collapsed against the elongate body, to a second position,
in which the plurality of legs is expanded apart from the elongate
body.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Starck US 2,409,075 Oct. 8, 1946
Petrick US 3,182,714 May 11, 1965
Chen US 5,630,660 May 20, 1997
Bosnakovic US 5,934,628 Aug. 10, 1999
Takegawa US 2009/0152413 A1 June 18, 2009
Karty US 8,047,498 B1 Nov. 1, 2011
Deighton US 8,201,979 B2 June 19, 2012
Cugini US 2013/0128565 A1 May 23, 2013
Sato US 9,631,656 B2 Apr. 25, 2017
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 15, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Deighton and Takegawa.
2. Claims 3–5 and 27–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Deighton, Takegawa, and Petrick.
3. Claims 7–9 and 24–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Deighton, Takegawa, and Starck.
Appeal 2020-003994
Application 15/686,990

6
4. Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Deighton, Takegawa, Starck, and Sato.
5. Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Deighton, Takegawa, and Chen.
6. Claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Deighton, Takegawa, and Cugini.
7. Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Deighton, Takegawa, and Karty.
8. Claims 18, 19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Deighton, Takegawa, and Bosnakovic.
9. Claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Deighton, Takegawa, Bosnakovic, and Karty.
OPINION
Rejection 1
Appellant presents argument for claim 1 and does not separately argue
the dependent claims. Appeal Br. 9. We therefore focus our discussion on
claim 1; dependent claims stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Deighton discloses a portable light
comprising an elongate body, a plurality of extension poles, a light head, and
a head assembly housing of claim 1. Non-Final Act. 3–5 (citing Deighton
Figs. 1, 3, 6, 9, 12). The Examiner further finds that Deighton discloses a
“head assembly housing” (top portion of collar 109 and top cap 605) fixed to
the first end of an elongate body (main housing 301). Id. at 4 (citing
Deighton Fig. 6). The Examiner finds that the head assembly housing
includes hand grip 320, which is a stationary handle to facilitate carrying the
Appeal 2020-003994
Application 15/686,990

7
portable light. Id. at 4 (citing Deighton Figs. 3, 10). The Examiner finds
that hand grip 320 of Deighton is offset from the longitudinal axis of main
body 301; and how one grips the stationary handle defines its grip axis. Id.
at 6–7 (citing Deighton Fig. 10). The Examiner acknowledges that Deighton
does not disclose a collar being movable along the elongate body, a movable
handle coupled to the collar, and a plurality of legs, as recited in claim 1. Id.
at 5.
The Examiner finds that Takegawa teaches a collar (holding member
30) movable along an elongate body (11) in a direction parallel to a first and
second position; and a movable handle (wingnut 32) coupled to the collar for
movement in the collar between the first and second positions, the handle
having a grip axis parallel to and offset from the longitudinal axis of the
elongate body. Id. at 5 (citing Takegawa Figs. 1, 2). The Examiner finds
that a plurality of legs collapse against the elongate body when the movable
handle and collar are in a first position and expands when the movable
handle and collar are in a second position. Id. at 5–6. The Examiner finds
that Takegawa teaches stationary collar 307 and struts 310 that control the
outward extension of pivoting legs 309. Id. at 6. The Examiner finds that a
movable collar that slides up and down an elongate body to expand and
collapse legs is a known alternative for providing tripod-like pivot legs. Id.
Head Assembly Housing
Appellant argues that Takegawa does not cure the deficiencies of
Deighton because it does not disclose “a head assembly housing fixed to a
first end of the elongate body,” nor does it disclose a stationary handle.
Appeal Br. 9. Appellant argues that Deighton does not teach a head
assembly housing fixed to a first end of the elongate body because collar 109
Appeal 2020-003994
Application 15/686,990

8
is moveable relative to the elongate body (main housing 301) and to power
switch 605 mounted on the elongate body. Id. at 6–8.
Appellant’s argument, which turns on construction of the term
“fixed,” is unpersuasive. In determining an issue of claim construction, “the
PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with
the specification. . . . Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it
provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad
interpretation.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary
and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim
term must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity,
deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
1994).
In determining the broadest reasonable interpretation of “fixed,” we
note that the Specification does not provide a definition for “fixed” in
relation to the head assembly housing. See Spec. ¶ 34. We therefore apply a
broad interpretation of “fixed” and determine that the Examiner’s
interpretation, i.e. “a connection between two elements secured to each other
in some way” (see Answer 3–4 (citing Merriam-Webster as defining “‘fixed’
as ‘securely placed or fastened’”)) is the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applying that interpretation to Deighton’s disclosure, we find that even if
collar 109 of Deighton is movable relative to main housing 301, collar 109 is
nonetheless secured to main housing 301. See Deighton 3:44–47, Fig. 5
(describing collar 109 as having one or more guides 501 on its surface that
Appeal 2020-003994
Application 15/686,990

9
engage slots 317 with main body 301 as collar 109 moves). Accordingly,
Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that
Deighton teaches a head assembly housing as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 4
(citing Deighton Fig. 3).
Stationary Handle and Movable Handle
Appellant argues that hand grips 320 of Deighton are not a stationary
handle because they are part of collar 109 and so are movable relative to
main body 301 (e.g., the elongate body). Appeal Br. 8. Appellant further
argues that modifying Deighton with Takegawa would not result in both a
stationary handle and a movable handle because Deighton’s hand grips 320
and Takegawa’s handle (wingnut 32) would both be on the same structure of
Deighton (collar 109) and, so, would be movable together. Id. at 9; Reply
Br. 2.
The Examiner responds that claim 1 recites “stationary handle”
without further description of the handle structure, how the handle is
connected to the head assembly housing, or “how the handle is stationary.”
Answer 5. The Examiner finds that Deighton’s hand grips 320 are a
“stationary handle” because they are a single piece with the collar and
perform the function of carrying the portable light. Id. (citing Deighton
Figs. 3, 6, 10).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Deighton supports the Examiner’s finding because Deighton’s hand grips are
part of collar, and further define “a grip axis . . . perpendicular to and offset
from the longitudinal axis of the elongate body” as recited in claim 1.
Further, Appellant’s argument as to the combination of Deighton and
Takegawa (see Appeal Br. 9) is not responsive to the rejection, because the
Appeal 2020-003994
Application 15/686,990

10
Examiner relies upon Takegawa to teach the movable collar (holding
member 30) and movable handle (wingnut 32, 42). Non-Final Act. 6
(finding the movable collar to be a known alternative to Deighton’s
mechanism (lower collar portion 307 and struts 311) for expanding and
collapsing pivoting tripod legs). Accordingly, the Examiner’s modification
of Deighton with Takegawa’s movable collar and handle would result in
both a stationary handle and a movable handle being present.
Thus, we affirm Rejection 1.

Rejection 2
Claims 3–5
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and further requires a locking assembly
including an actuator supported on a movable handle, wherein the actuator is
actuatable to allow movement of the collar and the movable handle from the
first position to the second position. Appeal Br. 9. The Examiner finds that
Deighton and Takegawa do not disclose the locking assembly. Non-Final
Act. 9. The Examiner finds that Petrick teaches an actuator (button 33)
supported on a movable handle (handle 27), and that depressing button 33
retracts locking pin (sliding bolt 34) to allow movement of collar (hollow
member 30) from a first position to a second position. Id. (citing Petrick
Fig. 3).
Appellant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be
motivated to incorporate Petrick’s button 33 onto Takegawa’s upper leg
holding member 30, because Petrick is directed to a different apparatus type
(30 already includes screws 32, 42) and button 33 provides no advantages.
Appeal Br. 10.
Appeal 2020-003994
Application 15/686,990

11
Appellant has not identified reversible error. Claim 3 recites “an
actuator” broadly. Takegawa teaches a movable handle (wingnut 32) and a
movable collar (holding member 30), where wingnut 32 sets the position of
holding member 30 “at any desired position along the main post 11.”
Takegawa ¶ 19. Petrick provides a mechanism for a movable handle and
teaches a variation of a type of movable handle known in the art. See Non-
Final Act. 10. We, therefore, affirm the rejection of claim 3.
Appellant does not present separate arguments for patentability of
dependent claims 4 and 5. Appeal Br. 9. Accordingly, we affirm the
rejections of claims 4 and 5.
Claims 27–30
Claim 27 is directed to a method of operating a portable light, the
portable light including an elongate body, a plurality of extension poles, a
light head coupled to an end of one of the plurality of extension poles, a
stationary handle fixed to the elongate body, a collar movable along the
elongated body, a movable handle coupled to the collar for movement with
the collar, and a plurality of legs pivotably coupled to the collar. Appeal Br.
18. The Examiner finds that Deighton modified by Takegawa and Petrick
discloses all of the structural limitations of the claim. Non-Final Act. 11.
The Examiner finds that claim 27 merely recites a method of operating these
structures in a well-known, intended manner. Answer 20.
Appellant argues that Deighton, Takegawa, and Petrick do not
disclose an actuator positioned on the movable handle or a stationary handle
for the same reasons as for claims 1 and 3. Appeal Br. 18–19. These
arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Appeal 2020-003994
Application 15/686,990

12
Appellant also argues that Deighton and Takegawa do not teach
grasping the stationary handle with a first hand of a user, and grasping the
movable handle with a second hand of a user. Id. This is unpersuasive.
Because Deighton, Takegawa, and Petrick teach the structural limitations of
claim 27, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected to operate the
portable light in a customary manner by grasping each structure as in the
claim. We accordingly affirm the rejection of claim 27.
Appellant does not present separate arguments for patentability of
dependent claims 28–30. Appeal Br. 20. Accordingly, we affirm the
rejections of claims 28–30.
Rejection 3
Appellant presents argument for claims 24 and 25 and does not
separately argue the other dependent claims. Appeal Br. 9, 17. We
therefore focus our discussion on claims 24 and 25.
Claim 24
Claim 24 is directed to a portable light comprising an elongate body, a
first extension pole and a second extension pole slidably received in the
elongate body, a clamping assembly, a light head, a head assembly housing,
a movable collar, a handle coupled to the collar, and a plurality of legs
pivotably coupled to the collar, in which the first and second extension poles
are movable out of the first end of the elongated body between extended and
retracted positions, and the second extension pole includes a rib that is
slidably received in a groove of the first extension pole to inhibit the first
and second extension poles from rotating relative to each other. Appeal Br.
15–16.
Appeal 2020-003994
Application 15/686,990

13
The Examiner finds that Deighton fails to disclose the second
extension pole including a rib that is slidably received in a groove of the first
extension pole to inhibit the first and second extension poles from rotating
relative to one another. Non-Final Act. 14. The Examiner determines that it
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use
Starck’s second extension pole (upper telescope tube 609) including a rib
(spline or longitudinal ridge 16) that is slidably received in a groove of a
first extension pole (lower tube 14) to inhibit the first and second poles from
rotating relative to one another. Id. at 16 (citing Starck Fig. 3).
Appellant acknowledges that Starck teaches a second extension pole
and a first extension pole as in claim 24, but argues that Starck does not
disclose “a head assembly housing fixed to the first end of the elongate
body.” Appeal Br. 16–17; Reply Br. 4.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. The
Examiner relies on Deighton as disclosing the head assembly housing.
Further, for the reasons discussed above in Rejection 1, the Examiner’s
finding that Deighton teaches “a head assembly housing fixed to the first end
of the elongate body” is supported by the record. Accordingly, we affirm
the rejection of claim 24.
Claim 25
Claim 25 depends from claim 24 and further requires that the rib
extends radially inward from the second extension pole. Appeal Br. 17.
The Examiner finds that Takegawa as modified by Deighton and
Starck fails to disclose where the rib extends radially inward from the
second extension pole. Non-Final Act. 16. The Examiner further finds that
the rib and groove configuration between the first and second extension
Appeal 2020-003994
Application 15/686,990

14
poles of Starck can be re-arranged or reversed as an alternative solution
without impacting the configuration functionality. Answer 19.
Appellant argues that longitudinal ridge 16 of Starck extends radially
outward from upper telescope tube 13. Appeal Br. 17. Appellant argues
that, if longitudinal ridge 16 were modified to extend radially inward,
longitudinal ridge 16 would no longer engage lower tube 14 and would be
incapable of preventing rotation of the lower tube 14 relative to the upper
telescope tube 13. Id.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. The
Examiner’s determination that a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to
prevent rotation between two telescoping extension poles would have
recognized that the rib and groove configuration between the first and
second poles could be rearranged or reversed without impacting the
functionality of the configuration (see Ans. 19) is reasonable and has not
been shown to be erroneous. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 25.
Rejections 4, 5, and 7
Appellant does not separately argue these rejections. Appeal Br.,
generally. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 10, 11, and 16, which
depend from claim 1, are affirmed for the same reasons we affirmed the
rejection of claim 1.
Rejection 6
Claim 13 depends from claim 1 and further requires a hinge
coupled to the end of one of the plurality of extension poles, the hinge
allowing the light head to pivot more than 180 degrees relative to the
plurality of extension poles. Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner finds that Cugini
Appeal 2020-003994
Application 15/686,990

15
discloses hinge 96 allowing light 40 to pivot more than 180 degrees relative
to extension pole 30. Id. (citing Cugini Figs. 1, 3, 7); Answer 9–10.
Appellant argues that light fixture 40 of Cugini is not capable of
pivoting more than 180 degrees. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant further argues
that Deighton teaches a specific hinge assembly 1201 and teaches away from
alternative configurations. Id.
We are not persuaded that Deighton teaches away from alternative
hinge configurations. Deighton expressly suggests other arrangements of
hinge 1201 are permissible to provide lamp head 107 with a wider range of
motion of greater than 135 degrees relative to telescoping tube 611.
Deighton 5:24–27. Accordingly, we find that Deighton suggests the light
head hinge pivoting more than 180 degrees relative to a plurality of
extension poles. Further, Appellant’s argument concerning Cugini does not
persuade us that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that a person of
ordinary skill would have inferred from Cugini’s Figs. 1 and 3 that its light
head was capable of pivoting at least 180 degrees, and would have had the
skill to select a desired degree of rotation with respect to the extension pole.
See Non-Final Act. 19–20. Thus, we affirm the rejection of claim 13.
Appellant does not present separate argument for patentability of
claim 14. Appeal Br., generally. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of
claim 14 .
Rejection 8
Claims 21 and 22
Claim 21 is directed to a portable light having the same components
as claim 1, except for a stationary handle, and further requires each leg to be
pivotally coupled to the second end of the elongate body by a leg link
Appeal 2020-003994
Application 15/686,990

16
including a pair of parallel members, the elongate body defining a pair of
grooves corresponding to each leg link, each pair of grooves is formed in a
same surface of the elongate body, and each pair of grooves receives a
portion of one of the leg links. Appeal Br. 11–12.
Claim 22 depends from claim 21, and additionally requires that the
pair of parallel members defines a longitudinal axis of each leg link and
includes an offset portion that extends perpendicularly from the longitudinal
axis and connects the pair of parallel members, a corresponding one of the
pair of grooves receives the offset portion of each leg link, and each pair of
grooves provides clearance for the corresponding pair of parallel members
as a plurality of legs pivots relative to the elongate body. Id. at 14.
The Examiner finds that Deighton fails to disclose a plurality of legs
wherein each leg is pivotally coupled to a second end of the elongate body
by a leg link including a pair of parallel members, wherein the elongate body
defines a pair of grooves corresponding to each leg link, each pair of
grooves is formed on the same surface as the elongate body, and each pair of
grooves receives a portion of one of the leg links. Non-Final Act. 24. The
Examiner finds that Bosnakovic discloses a pair of parallel members
(coupling link 8) connected together, an elongate body 12, 22 having a pair
of grooves receiving an offset portion 74 of link 8, and determines it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate
Bosnakovic’s teachings in Deighton’s legs, in order to allow the legs to pivot
with respect to the elongate body. Id. at 26 (citing Bosnakovic Fig. 4).
Appellant argues that there is no support in the cited prior art or
general knowledge of the art supporting providing grooves on the surface of
lower tubular housing 12 and/or feet 22 facing legs 6 depending on the shape
Appeal 2020-003994
Application 15/686,990

17
of the lower tubular housing or number of legs. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant
alternatively argues that repositioning links 8 so that the first end 72 is
coupled to a front face of feet 22 and second end 76 is coupled to a rear face
of legs 6 would prevent coupling links 8 from operating as intended Id. at
13–14. Appellant argues that Bosnakovic does not teach any grooves for
receiving coupling links 8 or a pair of grooves formed on a same surface of
an elongate body. Reply Br. 3.
We agree that Deighton modified by Bosnakovic does not teach or
suggest an elongate body defining a pair of grooves as in claim 21, for the
reasons argued by Appellant. Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of
claims 21 and 22.
Claims 18 and 19
Similar to claims 21 and 22, claim 18 requires that each leg is
pivotally coupled to the second end of the elongated body by a leg link
including a pair of parallel members, each leg link includes a pair of parallel
members connected together by an offset portion, the pair of parallel
members defines a longitudinal axis of the leg link, and the offset portion
extends perpendicularly from the longitudinal axis of the leg link.
Claim 19 depends from claim 18 and further requires that the elongate
body defines a pair of grooves corresponding to each leg link, and wherein
each pair of grooves receives the offset portion of one of the leg links.
The Examiner finds that Bosnakovic discloses a pair of parallel
members (coupling link 8) defining a longitudinal axis of each leg link and
an offset portion (pivot pin 74) that extends perpendicularly from the
longitudinal axis of the leg link. Non-Final Act. 22 (citing Bosnakovic Fig.
4). The Examiner finds that the elongate body (12, 22) defines a pair of
Appeal 2020-003994
Application 15/686,990

18
grooves corresponding to each leg link and each pair of grooves receives the
offset portion of one of the leg links. Id. at 23.
We reverse the rejections of claims 18 and 19 because Bosnakovic
fails to teach an offset portion extending perpendicularly from the
longitudinal axis of the leg link. Namely, pivot pin 74 of Bosnakovic does
not extend perpendicularly from the longitudinal axis of coupling link 8. We
further reverse the rejection of claim 19 because, as discussed above,
Bosnakovic does not teach or suggest that the elongate body defines a pair of
grooves.
Rejection 9
Claim 23 depends from claim 21. We reverse the rejection of claim
23 because Bosnakovic does not teach or suggest that the elongate body
defines a pair of grooves as required by claim 21.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed in part.

Appeal 2020-003994
Application 15/686,990

19
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6, 12,
15, 17, 20
103 Deighton,
Takegawa
1, 2, 6,
12, 15,
17, 20

3–5, 27–30 103 Deighton,
Takegawa, Petrick
3–5, 27–
30

7–9, 24–26 103 Deighton,
Takegawa, Starck
7–9, 24–
26

10 103 Deighton,
Takegawa, Starck,
Sato
10
11 103 Deighton,
Takegawa, Chen
11
13, 14 103 Deighton,
Takegawa, Cugini
13, 14
16 103 Deighton,
Takegawa, Karty
16
18, 19, 21,
22
103 Deighton,
Takegawa,
Bosnakovic
18, 19, 21,
22
23 103 Deighton,
Takegawa,
Bosnakovic, Karty
23
Overall
Outcome
1–17, 20,
24–30
18, 19, 21–
23
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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