BRUNO DESROCHERS

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 15, 2021

2020006474 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 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.
16/198,036 11/21/2018 BRUNO J. DESROCHERS NG(ST)024798 US CON 7390
109501 7590 07/15/2021
Tarolli, Sundheim, Covell & Tummino
LLP and Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation
1300 East Ninth Street
Suite 1700
Cleveland, OH 44114
EXAMINER
GUAN, GUANG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/15/2021 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):
docketing@tarolli.com
rkline@tarolli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BRUNO J. DESROCHERS
____________________

Appeal 2020-006474
Application 16/198,036
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal by Appellant under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from a final rejection of claims 1–17 of Application 16/198036 (“the ’036
application”). 1, 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 In this opinion, we make reference to the Examiner’s Answer mailed May
15, 2020 (“Ans.”), Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed October 22, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”), the Final Rejection mailed August 9, 2019 (“Final Rej.”),
and the Specification filed November 21, 2018 (“Spec.”).
2 Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Northrop Grumman
Systems Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-006474
Application 16/198,036

2
A. Reference Relied on by the Examiner
Societe Anonyme Des FR 745,785 Nov. 14, 1932
Pneumatiques Dunlop
(“Anonyme”)3
Fang et al. (“Fang”) US 9,016,657 B2 Apr. 28, 2015
Wolters (“Wolters”) US 2016/0222609 A1 Aug. 4, 2016
Desrochers US 10,167,989 B2 Jan. 1, 2019
B. Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11–13, 16, and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wolters in view of Fang. Final Rej. 10.
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Wolters in view of Fang and Anonyme.
Id. at 19.4
C. The Subject Matter of the ‘036 Application
The Specification of the ’036 application characterizes the field of the
disclosed invention as follows:

3 Anonyme is written in French, but the record includes a “machine-
generated” English translation of that document. References to content of
Anonyme are to the English translation.
4 The Examiner also rejected claims 1–17 as unpatentable on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting over Derochers in view of Fang. Final
Rej. 23. Appellant requests that the Examiner hold the nonstatutory double
patenting rejection in abeyance until such time that the ’036 application may
be otherwise in condition for allowance, and does not seek review of that
rejection. See Appeal Br. 6; see also Ans. 3–4 (The Examiner acknowledges
that the nonstatutory double patenting rejection has not been presented for
review on appeal). Accordingly, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection
is not before us on appeal, and we do not reach its merits.
Appeal 2020-006474
Application 16/198,036

3
A multidirectionally deflectable engine mounting
apparatus includes a laterally oriented base surface and a
longitudinally extending elongate shaft having a laterally
oriented shaft flange. The shaft flange is longitudinally adjacent
to the base surface. A resilient washer is located directly
longitudinally between the base surface and the shaft flange. A
top plate includes a plate aperture. The shaft extends
longitudinally through the plate aperture. The top plate is
attached directly to the base surface with the resilient washer
and the shaft flange located longitudinally between the base
surface and at least a portion of the top plate.
Spec. Abstract.
Claims 1, 7, and 12 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and is
reproduced below:
1. A multidirectionally deflectable engine mounting
apparatus, comprising:

a laterally oriented base surface;

a longitudinally extending elongate shaft having a laterally
oriented shaft flange, the shaft flange being longitudinally
adjacent to the base surface;

a substantially planar resilient washer located directly
longitudinally between the base surface and the shaft flange; and

a top plate including a plate aperture, the shaft extending
longitudinally through the plate aperture, and the top plate being
attached directly to the base surface with the resilient washer and
the shaft flange located longitudinally between the base surface
and at least a portion of the top plate.
Appeal Br. Claims App’x 20.
Appeal 2020-006474
Application 16/198,036

4
II. ANALYSIS
A. Overview of Wolters
Wolters is entitled “IMPACT-RESISTANT AND ENERGY-
ABSORBING ITEM OF STREET FURNITURE.” Wolters code [54].
Wolters describes an energy absorbing mounting apparatus accommodating
dynamic motion between two fixed elements. Id. ¶ 41. Utilizing a resilient
member, Wolters achieves a restorative force for maintaining the desired
relationship between the elements. Id. ¶¶ 16, 52.
Figure 5 of Wolters is reproduced below and illustrates one resilient
member 47 sandwiched between two structural elements (surface 5 and post
3) by mounting flange 8 movably connected thereto. Id.
.
Figure 5 above depicts an embodiment of an item of street furniture
according to Wolters’s invention. Id. ¶ 61. Wolters describes the interaction
between the elements of its mounting apparatus such that the fit of the
supported structure and flange permit freedom of movement from a
desirable resting position. Id. ¶ 47 Support and energy absorption takes
place by means of a resilient member arranged in the hollow space existing
Appeal 2020-006474
Application 16/198,036

5
between a base element, the flange, and the supported member. Id. ¶ 50.
Furthermore, Wolters describes the following:
[E]nergy-absorbing element (4) can be assembled in different
ways and can have all kinds of shapes. For example, it may be a
homogeneous block manufactured from one rubber or another,
elastomer or any other material with resilient and/or damping
properties . . . . With such an elastic material it is simple to
estimate in advance the relative movement between the post (3)
and the base plate (2). The energy which is absorbed during this
relative movement is released, when the external forces (impact
or wind load) disappear, returning the post (3) and hence the item
of street furniture (1) to its normal position.
Id ¶ 51.
Wolters sets forth the following as to the types of structures that are
contemplated for application of the disclosed energy absorption apparatus:
In the context of the invention the term “item of street
furniture” covers, among other things, the following objects (the
list is not exhaustive), all of which are either mounted on the
ground or secured to a wall, namely:
Poles or supports of traffic signs;
Poles or supports of advertising boardings;
Poles or supports of parking meters; Supports of sign
boards or canopies;
Protective posts which stand or are suspended in front of
an object to be protected;
Supports for conveyor belts;
Supporting posts of guard rail structures or protective
brackets;
Posts for braking falling and/or rolling loads;
Lamp posts;
Poles or supports of traffic lights;
And similar objects.
Wolters ¶¶ 3–14.
Appeal 2020-006474
Application 16/198,036

6
B. Overview of Fang
Fang is entitled “MACHINE AND FIXED CONNECTION OF
OPERATING SPACE FRAME FOR THE SAME”. Fang code [54]. Fang
teaches a mounting system for a space frame onto a machine frame
including a fixed connection absorbing forces which could otherwise cause
damage to the space frame or discomfort. Id. at code [57], 4:6–7.
Figure 2, illustrating Fang’s fixed connection, is reproduced below.

Figure 2 above illustrates an exploded view of the resilient connecting
member 30 as part of a mounting apparatus for attaching a first mounting
plate 21 and a second mounting plate 22 with the inclusion of a resilient
washer 35. Id. at 3:63–65, 4:30–39. Resilient washer 35 serves to ensure a
resilient connection between the attached components to reduce transmission
of vibration and dampen noise associated with machine operation. Id. at
4:2–8.
Appeal 2020-006474
Application 16/198,036

7
C. Overview of Anonyme
Anonyme is described as “relat[ing] to a system for the elastic
mounting of terminals, streetlamps and, in general, of all devices located
along public roads[.]” Anonyme 1. Anonyme discloses a resilient mounting
system for objects located along public roads including terminals and street
lamps. Id. at 1. Reproduced below is the sole figure from the Anonyme
disclosure.

In the figure above, Anonyme illustrates a fixed mounting system allowing
for a flexible connection between the mounted object and the surface to
which it is mounted through the center of which a lumen extends to allow
for passage of wiring or tubing through the mounted object to the mounting
surface. Id. at 1–2.
D. The Rejection Based on Wolters and Fang
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11–13, 16, and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wolters in view of Fang. Appellant
argues various matters pertaining to the claims and the Examiner’s rejections
Appeal 2020-006474
Application 16/198,036

8
that, in Appellant’s view, demonstrate error on the part of the Examiner. We
consider those matters below.
1. Independent Claim 1
a) Effect of Preamble
An initial matter relates to the limiting effect of the preamble of
claim 1. That claim is drawn to a “multidirectionally deflectable engine
mounting apparatus.” In the Final Rejection, the Examiner indicates that
“the recitation [of] ‘engine mounting’ has not been given patentable weight
because the recitation occurs in the preamble.” Final Rej. 11. The Examiner
concludes that the limitations of the body of the claim “are able to stand
alone[.]” Id. Although Appellant “recognizes . . . that the Examiner is not
affording patentable weight to the ‘engine’ of the preamble” (Appeal Br. 9),
Appellant bases numerous arguments reliant upon the effect of incorporating
“engine mounting” into the rejected claims (see, id. at 10–13).
“If the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim,
recites limitations of the claim, or, if the claim preamble is ‘necessary to
give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should
be construed as if in the balance of the claim.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v.
Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165-66
(Fed. Cir. 1999). Instructional here, the Federal Circuit held that “where a
patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses
the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the
preamble is not a claim limitation[.]” Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42
USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Accordingly, a claim body that is
Appeal 2020-006474
Application 16/198,036

9
structurally complete may nullify the limiting effect of an intended use
recitation in a claim’s preamble.
Analyzing the body of claim 1, it is apparent that the limitations
comprising said claim body represent a structurally complete apparatus. In
contrast, the preamble phrase “engine mounting” only defines an intended
use for the claimed subject matter. The Examiner urges that “the body of
claim 1 does not depend on the preamble for completeness, but, instead, the
structural limitations are able to stand alone.” Ans. 6. We agree and
conclude that the preamble does not “give life, meaning, and vitality” to the
claim. Thus, the preamble recitation of “engine mounting” is not regarded
as a claim limitation.
b) Analogous Art
The Examiner finds that “Wolters and Fang are analogous art because
they are at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., mounting
apparatuses.” Final Rej. 12. Appellant has a different view and alleges that
“[Wolters and Fang] are non-analogous art to the claimed invention and to
each other.” Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellant, that is so because “the
skilled artisan in the engine mount art is led too far afield for a rejection
based on [such a combination] to be reasonable.” Id. at 11.
As an initial matter, the term “analogous art” refers to the pertinence
of the teachings of the prior art to the claimed subject matter and not to
structural or operational differences between the disclosures of prior art
references. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 741 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986–87 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (holding that the correct focus of the analogous
Appeal 2020-006474
Application 16/198,036

10
art test is not whether the prior art references are analogous to each other;
rather, the correct focus is whether the reference is analogous art to the
claimed subject matter). Consequently, Appellant’s argument regarding
similarities between Wolters and Fang are not relevant as to whether Wolters
or Fang is analogous art to the claimed subject matter. See Appeal Br. 10.
A reference is analogous art if it is either in the field of the applicant’s
endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor was concerned. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Here, Appellant argues that its claimed subject matter is limited to the
particular area of “engine mount[ing],” which is somehow incompatible with
the area of “mounting apparatuses” in general. Appeal Br. 10. Although
Appellant characterizes “mounting apparatuses” as being an “unreasonably
broad” assessment of the relevant field, Appellant does not provide adequate
or persuasive reasoning in support of that characterization. Id. Indeed,
Appellant’s own disclosure conflicts with Appellant’s characterization as the
disclosure unambiguously sets forth that the disclosed mounting apparatus
“can be used in any desired use environment for mounting of a longitudinal
shaft 104 to a laterally-oriented base surface 102.” Spec. ¶ 32. That explicit
disclosure of the broad applicability of the disclosed apparatus to “any
environment” for which mounting is needed undermines Appellant’s view
that the relevant field is limited strictly to “engine mounting.” Each of
Wolters and Fang is directed to a system that focuses on aspects of mounting
or connecting components to one another in environments in which the
forces applied to those components must be considered. See, e.g., Wolters
¶ 47; Fang 4:40–49. We conclude that those references are viewed readily
as being in the field of endeavor of the ’036 application.
Appeal 2020-006474
Application 16/198,036

11
Moreover, we find credible the Examiner’s assessment that Wolters
and Fang are each reasonably pertinent to the problem considered in
connection with the ’036 application. See Ans. 8. In that respect, the
Examiner reasons that “the present invention, Wolters, and Fang each apply
a resilient element (e.g., the resilient element 224 of the present invention,
the resilient element 4 of Wolters, and the resilient element 35 of Fang) to
diminish or negate the effect of an applied force.” Id.
“A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a
different field of endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which
it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in
considering his problem.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We are mindful that Appellant characterizes Wolters and Fang as being
directed to “[a] piece of street furniture and a cab mount” that are “too far
afield” to commend themselves to a person of ordinary skill in the art
seeking to provide multidirectional engine mounting. Appeal Br. 11. Yet,
Appellant provides no persuasive or cogent reasoning as to why structural
considerations of mounting components in connection with “street furniture
and a cab mount” are incompatible with, or inapplicable to, structural
considerations of mounting engine components. We determine that each of
Wolters and Fang, and their disclosures pertaining to mounting
considerations, are reasonably pertinent to problems addressed in the ’036
application.
On the record before us, we conclude that Wolters and Fang are
regarded reasonably as analogous art.
Appeal 2020-006474
Application 16/198,036

12
c) Combining Wolters and Fang
The Examiner finds that Wolters discloses most of the features
required by claim 1. Final Rej. 10–11. Although the Examiner finds that
Wolters discloses a “resilient element” (id. at 10), the Examiner determines
that such element does not constitute the “substantially planar resilient
washer” required by claim 1 (id. at 12). To make-up for that short coming,
the Examiner relies on the teachings of Fang. The Examiner finds that
“Fang teaches a mounting apparatus (see Figure 1) comprising: a
substantially planar resilient washer (35 fig. 2, col. 3, line 64).” Id. The
Examiner reasons that a skilled artisan would have implemented Fang’s
teachings of a substantially planar resilient washer onto Wolters’s apparatus,
which includes a shaft and shaft flange, “to better stabilize the shaft by the
base surface in a normal state with a reduced thickness of the resilient
washer.” Id. at 12–13.
Appellant generally challenges the viability of combining the
teachings of Wolters and Fang and the Examiner’s reasoning for combining
those teachings. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 12–15. The central focus of those
challenges pertains to the recitation in claim 1 of “a substantially planar
resilient washer.” We have considered Appellant’s challenges, but find
them unpersuasive.
Although Wolters discloses that its street furniture includes an energy-
absorbing element, Wolters does not specify a shape for that element.
Wolters does express, however, that the energy-absorbing element “can have
all kinds of shapes.” Wolters ¶ 51. Fang teaches a resilient washer 35
(Fang, 3:63–65), which is illustrated as having a ring type shape in Figure 2
reproduced below:
Appeal 2020-006474
Application 16/198,036

13

Fang’s Figure 2 depicts an exploded view of a fixed connection position of
an operating space frame. Fang 2:49–50. As noted above, the Examiner
finds that the shape of Fang’s washer 35 is substantially planar. Final
Rej. 12. Appellant does not dispute that finding.
Appellant contends that the Examiner used impermissible hindsight
knowledge of the present invention in rejecting the claims thereof. Appeal
Br. 13. That contention is unpersuasive.
Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it
takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was
made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from
applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).
Appeal 2020-006474
Application 16/198,036

14
Appellant has not offered evidence, and the record does not support,
that knowledge gleaned only from Appellant’s disclosure was used for such
reconstruction.
Appellant also presents a number of technical arguments alleging “the
Examiner’s stated rationale for combining [Wolters and Fang] would likely
not have been accomplished by the Examiner’s proposed combination
without undue experimentation.” Appeal Br. 13. For instance, Appellant
contends that the replacement of Wolters’s energy-absorbing element with
Fang’s resilient washer would cause the resilient element to quickly
“‘bottom out’ and not be capable of moving . . . as described by [Wolters].”
Id. Appellant further argues that contrary to the Examiner’s rejection, “one
of ordinary skill in the art, with knowledge of [Fang] would instead be
motivated to place a resilient washer around the item of street furniture
above the base plate, and place a disc-shaped resilient hollow tubular
member 33 having a boss in the middle beneath the base plate[.]” Id. at 14–
15. Those arguments are speculative and are not supported by evidence of
record. Such arguments cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the
record. See Estee Lauder Inc. v. L’Oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 595 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Moreover, Appellant does not provide any credible basis for
concluding that “undue experimentation” would be necessary to form
Wolters’s resilient element, which may be “all kinds of shapes” (Wolters
¶ 51), into a known shape for a resilient element, i.e., that of Fang’s resilient
washer 35, or that the positioning of the resilient element would be altered
when formed in that shape. We do not find Appellant’s unsupported
arguments persuasive.
Appeal 2020-006474
Application 16/198,036

15
Additionally, Appellant argues that “the Examiner’s proposed
combination also would likely destroy the structural integrity of one or both
of the devices of [Wolters and Fang] by placing these devices into a totally
unsuitable engine mounting use environment, unless extensive and
unwarranted modifications were to be made to the prior art devices.”
Appeal. Br. 12–13. Here too, Appellant’s view is based simply on
speculation and draws no support from the evidentiary record at hand. To
that end, Appellant does not explain the basis, or provide support, for the
contention that the structural integrity of a device arising from the
combination of Wolters and Fang would be threatened. We find Appellant’s
position unavailing with regard to the proposed unviability of the
combination of Wolters and Fang.
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 based on Wolters and
Fang. Appellant does not provide any separate arguments for claims 2, 5, 6,
12, 13, 16, and 17. We also are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of those claims. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
2, 5, 6, 12, 13, 16, and 17 based on Wolters and Fang.
2. Independent Claim 7 and Dependent claims 8 and 11
Appellant requests that we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 7, alleging that no combination of Wolters and Fang accounts for the
requirement that “the shaft flange and the resilient washer both being located
entirely proximal to the center portion [and lateral to the plate rim.]” Appeal
Br. 16. This “entirely proximal” language is reiterated in Appellant’s
Specification without specifically delineating a definition for such term. See
Spec. ¶¶ 5, 20. A further review of the Appellant’s Specification reveals a
Appeal 2020-006474
Application 16/198,036

16
rotational axis RA, which is substantially coincident with longitudinal axis L
of the apparatus. Id. ¶ 22, Fig. 4A. Those axes appear to correlate with the
central axis of the resilient washer, the shaft flange, and the plate rim in a
resting position. See id. at Fig. 4A.
In the Final Rejection, the Examiner cited Figure 5 of Wolters as
satisfying pertinent features of the shaft flange and resilient washer. Final
Rej. 14. Figure 5 illustrates a central axis (labeled “n” in Wolter’s Figure 1)
corresponding to the midline of the complete apparatus including the shaft
flange and resilient washer. The Examiner regards the center portion of the
plate rim as the cavity created by the collar 8 of Wolters, which shares a
central axis with the shaft and resilient member. Ans. 15–16. The Examiner
finds that the positioning of the components in Wolters accounts for the
positioning of the shaft flange and resilient washer recited in claim 7. Id.
That view is reasonable and supported by the record.
Appellant’s remarks seeking to distinguish claim 7 from Wolters
based on the limitation that “the shaft flange and the resilient washer both
being located entirely proximal to the center portion and lateral to the plate
rim” (Claims App’x 22) are not persuasive and do not adequately address
the Examiner’s above-noted finding. See Appeal Br. 16. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7. Appellant does not separately
argue dependent claims 8 and 11. We are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of those claims based on Wolters and Fang. We also
sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 11.
E. The Rejection Based on Wolters, Fang, and Anonyme
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 14, and 15 based on
Wolters, Fang and Anonyme. The Examiner applies the teachings of
Appeal 2020-006474
Application 16/198,036

17
Anonyme to account for features added by those claims pertaining to “a
longitudinally oriented shaft lumen” extending through the shaft. See, e.g.,
Appeal Br. Claims App’x 20. The Examiner points to Anonyme’s teachings
as satisfying that feature and reasons that a skilled artisan would have
combined Anonyme’s teachings with Wolters and Fang “to allow
underground installation of wires for various mounted articles such as
illuminated signs.” Final Rej. 21.
In seeking reversal of the rejection of claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 14, and 15,
Appellant discounts a combination of Wolters with Anonyme by suggesting
that Wolters’s teachings are limited to “only” or “exclusively” “a post, a
base plate, and an energy-absorbing element,” and preclude combination
with other components. See Appeal Br. 16. That suggestion, however,
disregards Wolters’s disclosure of a variety of street furniture items having
differing structures, operational requirements, and functionality. See
Wolters ¶¶ 3–14. Although, in some context, Wolters may recognize a
benefit in minimizing the number of components associated with some
aspects of its street furniture, the reference does not prohibit association of
the furniture with other structural or functional components. For instance, it
follows readily that a skilled artisan would recognize the necessity of a
means for connecting the base plate and energy-absorbing member to a
surface. To that end, Wolters explicitly provides for fastening means to
adhere the baseplate to a mounting surface. Id. ¶ 42. Viewing Wolters
teaching’s as being limited to only three particular components is not
representative of the disclosure as it would have been appreciated by one
having ordinary skill in the art.
Appeal 2020-006474
Application 16/198,036

18
Furthermore, Appellant characterizes the Examiner’s reasoning to
combine Anonyme with Wolters and Fang as
not an appropriate and KSR-compliant motivation to combine
the references as proposed, at least because of the previously
discussed ‘exclusive’ language of [Wolters] (thus teaching
directly against the provision of a ‘mounted article[] such as [an]
illuminated sign’ as suggested by the Examiner and the clear
preference of [Wolters] against parts of the item of street
furniture being located below ground level[.]
Appeal Br. 18 (emphasis in original).
Appellant, however, seemingly disregards the Wolters disclosure of
mounting street furniture requiring electricity, such as “lamp posts” and
“traffic lights.” See, e.g., Wolters ¶¶ 12, 13. It follows readily, and would
have been appreciated reasonably by a skilled artisan, that such furniture
needing electricity would have employed structures necessary to facilitate
the availability of electricity, including structures located below a ground
surface as taught in Anonyme.
Appellant also argues that Wolters and Anonyme are non-analogous
art, concluding that those references “relate to the mounting of street fixtures
to pavement, [and] this field is still too far removed from the engine
mounting arts for a rejection based thereupon to be reasonable.” Appeal
Br. 17. For the same reasons discussed above with respect to Wolters and
Fang, Appellant does not present persuasive reasoning as to why the
considerations pertaining to the mounting of street fixtures is “too far
removed” from considerations associated with engine mounting. We are not
persuaded that Wolters or Anonyme are non-analogous art.
Appeal 2020-006474
Application 16/198,036

19
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection based on
Wolters, Fang, and Anonyme. We sustain the rejection of claims 3, 4, 9, 10,
14, and 15.
III. CONCLUSION
We have fully considered the record before us, including Appellant’s
briefing, the Examiner’s Final Rejection, and the Examiner’s Answer. For
the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded on the present record of
any error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–17. The Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–17 is affirmed.
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5–8, 11–
13, 16, 17
103 Wolters, Fang 1, 2, 5–8,
11–13, 16,
17

3, 4, 9, 10,
14, 15
103 Wolters, Fang,
Anonyme
3, 4, 9, 10,
14, 15

Overall
Outcome
1–17

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