Ex Parte 6043741 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 15, 2013

90009658 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
90/009,658 05/17/2010 6043741 5580-101557 7531
28289 7590 03/15/2013
THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C.
ONE GATEWAY CENTER
420 FT. DUQUESNE BLVD, SUITE 1200
PITTSBURGH, PA 15222
EXAMINER
LEE, CHRISTOPHER E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2013 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 RICON CORPORATION
______________

Appeal 2013-001389
Reexamination Control No. 90/009,658
Patent 6,043,7411
Technology Center 3900
______________

Before JOHN C. MARTIN, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP,
and KEVIN F. TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal by Ricon Corporation (hereinafter “Appellant”)
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(b) from the Examiner’s rejection of original claims 1,
7-9, 11-19 of Patent 6,043,741 (hereinafter “'741 patent”) and proposed new
claims 35 and 36. Final Office Action (“Final Action”), mailed

1 Granted March 28, 2000, based on Application 09/079,648, filed May 15,
1998, naming Sean J. Whitmarsh as the inventor.
Appeal 2013-001389
Reexamination Control 90/009,658
Patent 6,043,741

2
November 21, 2011, at 2.2 Ricon Corp., the assignee of the record, is a
subsidiary of Wabtec Corporation. Br. 3 2.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 306.
We AFFIRM.

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. Related Litigation
Appellant identifies the following litigation as related to this appeal:
Ricon Corp. v. The Braun Corp., cv05-4063 (CWx) (closed pursuant to a
Stipulated Dismissal). Br. 3. The following declarations, filed in that
litigation, are relied on in this appeal:
(1) “Declaration of Richard Nelson in Support of the Braun
Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity” (“Nelson
Declaration”);
(2) “Declaration of Sarah R. Lewis in Support of the Braun
Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity” (“Lewis
Declaration”)
(3) “Declaration of Jerome K. Sirjord in Support of the Braun
Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity” (“Sirjord
Declaration”); and

2 Original claims 2-6, 10, and 24-34 are not subject to reexamination. Final
Action 2.
3 Brief filed February 21, 2012.
Appeal 2013-001389
Reexamination Control 90/009,658
Patent 6,043,741

3
(4) “Declaration of Barry E. Wolff in Support of the Braun
Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity” (“Wolff
Declaration”).

B. This Reexamination Proceeding
This reexamination proceeding was instituted in response to a
“Corrected Original Request for Ex Parte Reexamination Under 37 C.F.R.
§1.510” (hereinafter “Request”), filed by Third Party Requester Kenneth N.
Nigon on February 16, 2010. The Request sought reexamination of only
claims 1, 7-9, and 11-19.

C. The Claimed Invention
The invention described and claimed in the '741 patent relates to the
field of audible and/or visual warning systems for use in vehicular lifts.
The '741 patent explains in the “Background of the Invention” (at
1:34-36) that the threshold warning system described therein fully complies
with SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) standard No. J20934
(hereinafter “SAE J2093”), which is one the references relied on in the
rejections before us. SAE J2093 reads in relevant part as follows:
6.8 Threshold Warning – Each lift shall include a
threshold warning system to give an audible and/or visual

4 SAE Int’l, Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, SAE J2093
(May 1995).
Appeal 2013-001389
Reexamination Control 90/009,658
Patent 6,043,741

4
warning to a wheelchair passenger approaching the lift
from the vehicle floor level that the lift platform is more
than 1 in below floor level.
SAE J2093 at 7.
Figure 1 of the ‘741 patent is reproduced below.

Figure 1 is an isometric view of a conventional lift 2, such as a wheelchair
lift, having a threshold warning system 10 installed therein. ‘741 patent
specification 2:34-37. The wheelchair lift 2 is installed within a vehicle (not
shown) having an opening, such as a side or rear door opening, and a floor.
Id. at 2:38-40. The wheelchair lift 2 basically includes a mounting
Appeal 2013-001389
Reexamination Control 90/009,658
Patent 6,043,741

5
assembly 3, an actuating system such as a hydraulic actuating system 4, a
platform assembly 5, a linking assembly 6, and a threshold warning
system 10. Id. at 2:40-44.
Threshold warning system 10 shown in Figure 1 includes a sensor
means 12 and a reflector 14 that use a beam of infrared light to determine if
an object is entering into the threshold zone, which is an area within a depth
“D” of a pre-defined distance, such as eighteen inches, from the threshold
22. Id. at 3:23-25, 36-40.
Figure 2 of the ‘741 patent is reproduced below.

Figure 2 is another an isometric view of the lift and warning system depicted
in Figure 1. Id. at 2:34-37. A cam assembly 18, including a cam 26 and a
limit switch 24, is used to determine the position of the platform assembly 5.
Appeal 2013-001389
Reexamination Control 90/009,658
Patent 6,043,741

6
Id. at 3:54-56. The higher-perimeter region of cam 26 activates limit switch
24 when the platform assembly 5 is at an unsafe level for exiting from the
vehicle. Id. at 3:60-67.
Figure 5 of the ‘741 patent is reproduced below.

Figure 5 shows a block diagram of threshold warning system 10. Id. at 4:26-
27. As shown in this figure, a control circuit means 20 receives a first output
signal from limit switch 24 and a second output signal generated by a
detector circuit 36 in response to sensor means 12. Control circuit means 20
generates an “unsafe” output signal to a signal receiving circuit 38, which in
turn triggers the warning means 16 to alert the user that the platform
Appeal 2013-001389
Reexamination Control 90/009,658
Patent 6,043,741

7
assembly 5 is in an unsafe level for exiting from or boarding into the vehicle.
Id. at 4:36-41.

B. The Claims on Appeal
Claim 1, which is representative of the claims on appeal, reads as
follows:
1. A warning system for a lift which is used in
conjunction with a vehicle having an opening and a floor, the
lift including a platform, the warning comprising:
a. means for sensing a threshold zone adjacent to said
vehicle opening and transmitting a threshold output sinnal [sic]
when an object moves into the threshold zone;
b. means for dertermining [sic] the position of said
platform and transmitting a position output signal; and
c. means for generating a warning signal based on the
conditions of said threshold output signal and said position
output signal;
d. whereby said warning system provides warning when
an object moves into said threshold zone while said platform is
at an unsafe level.
Claims App. (Br. 20).

Appeal 2013-001389
Reexamination Control 90/009,658
Patent 6,043,741

8
C. The Rejections
Claims 1, 7-9, 11-19, 35, and 36 stand rejected (Final Action 3) under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness based on the following three references:

(a) Crow River Industries, Inc., Vangater™ II Dealer Manual
(“Dealer Manual”);
(b) Crow River Industries, Inc., Installation Instructions --
Vangater™ II Stepwell Sensor/Buzzer (“Installation Instructions”); and
(c) SAE J2093.
Claims 7, 8, and 35 stand rejected under § 103(a) for obviousness over
Dealer Manual in view of Installation Instructions, SAE J2093, and Cohn.
Id. at 9-10.

II. DISCUSSION
The sole issue before us is whether the Examiner is correct to
conclude (Final Action 2-3) that the Dealer Manual and the Installation
Instructions, copies of which were distributed by Crow River Industries, Inc.
(“Crow River”), to its dealers more than one year prior to the May 15, 1998,
filing date of the '741 patent, are “printed publications” under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b). Br. 11.
The following facts regarding the contents of these documents and
their distribution are not in dispute. The Table of Contents of the Dealer
Appeal 2013-001389
Reexamination Control 90/009,658
Patent 6,043,741

9
Manual indicates that it provides the following information about the
Vangater™ II lift device:
Introduction (pp. 1-5)
Preparation (p. 6)
Installation (pp. 7-13)
Field Replacement Assembly Notes (pp.14-15)
Parts Listings (pp. 16-33)
Switch Locations (pp. 34-35)
Troubleshooting (pp. 36-41)
Features (p. 42)
Specifications (p. 43).
The Installation Instructions, which consist of two pages, explain how to add
the optional Vangater II™ stepwell sensor/buzzer kit to the VangaterTM II
lift device.
Crow River began sales and shipments of the Vangater II™ lift
devices and stepwell sensor/buzzer kits to dealers in June 1996. Lewis Decl.
paras. 2-3. The recipients of these shipments are variously referred to in the
declarations as “customers” (id. at para. 3), “dealers” (Nelson Decl. para. 5),
and “Crow River’s dealer network” (id. at para. 10). The dealers who
received shipments of between June 17, 1996, and March 11, 1997, include,
inter alia: Freewheel Vans, Inc., of Wheat Ridge, Colorado; Crescent Vans,
Inc., of Metarie, Louisiana; Mobile Help, of Rialto, California; and Nor-Cal
Mobility, of Chico, California. Lewis Decl. para. 3 and Exs. A, C-E. Copies
Appeal 2013-001389
Reexamination Control 90/009,658
Patent 6,043,741

10
of the Dealer Manual and Installations Instructions were shipped to the
dealers along with the Vangater II™ lifts and stepwell sensor/buzzer kits.
Nelson Decl. paras. 13-15.
“The statutory phrase ‘printed publication’ has been interpreted to
mean that before the critical date the reference must have been sufficiently
accessible to the public interested in the art; dissemination and public
accessibility are the keys to the legal determination whether a prior art
reference was ‘published.’” In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir.
1989) (quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560,
1568 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).5
Appellant denies that the Dealer Manual and the Installation
Instructions are printed publications for two reasons. The first is
that

5 Addressing this quotation from Cronyn, the court in In re Klopfenstein,
380 F.3d 1345, 1348 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2004) explains:
While the Cronyn court held “dissemination” to be necessary to
finding something to be a “printed publication”, the court there
used the word “disseminate” in its literal sense, i.e. “make
widespread” or “to foster general knowledge of.” Webster's
Third New International Dictionary 656 (1993). The court did
not use the word in the narrower sense the appellants have
employed it, which requires distribution of reproductions or
photocopies.

Appeal 2013-001389
Reexamination Control 90/009,658
Patent 6,043,741

11
there is . . . no evidence or support in the record to establish that
employees of the Crow River dealers meet the level of ordinary
skill adopted by the Requester at page 40 of the Request for Ex
Parte Reexamination, i.e., a bachelor’s degree in engineering
or a related technical field of study and about one to two years
of work experience.
Br. 16 (emphasis added).6 This argument is unpersuasive because is not
necessary to show that the documents in question were received by persons
having ordinary skill in the art of the claimed invention. Instead, as noted by
the Examiner, it is sufficient to show that the documents were accessible to
(e.g., received by) the portion of the public concerned with the subject
matter described in the document. See Final Action 13, para. 8 (“[T]he
employees in dealers, who acquired the references and were installing,
modifying, and servicing the product, are the portion of the public concerned
with the art . . . . In re Bayer, 568 F.2d 1357, 196 USPQ 670 (CCPA
1978).”). The question addressed in Bayer, which involved a rejection for

6 As noted in the Answer (at 16 n.3), the Request cites the Wolff
Declaration as support for this description of the level of ordinary skill.
Specifically, Mr. Wolff testified as follows:
6. In my opinion, in 1998 when the '741 patent
application was filed, a person of ordinary skill in the design,
engineering and development of wheelchair lifts and related
systems and components, such as the threshold warning system
of the '741 patent, would have a bachelor’s degree in
engineering or a related technical field of study and about one
to two years of work experience.
Wolff Decl. para. 6.
Appeal 2013-001389
Reexamination Control 90/009,658
Patent 6,043,741

12
anticipation, was “what degree of public accessibility is required for a
printed document to qualify as a publication under the statute.” Bayer,
568 F.2d at 1360. The court concluded that “a printed document may
qualify as a “publication” under 35 USC 102(b), notwithstanding that
accessibility thereto is restricted to a
‘part of the public,’ so long as accessibility is sufficient ‘to raise a
presumption that the public concerned with the art would know of [the
invention].’” 568 F.2d at 1361 (emphasis added; brackets in original)
(quoting Camp Bros. & Co. v. Portable Wagon Dump & Elevator Co., 251
F. 603, 607 (7th Cir. 1918)). See also Carella v. Starlight Archery, 804 F.2d
135, 139 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (identifying the relevant portion of the public as
“persons concerned with the art to which the document relates and thus most
likely to avail themselves of its contents” (citing In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221,
227 (CCPA 1981)). We therefore agree with the Examiner’s above-quoted
conclusion that “the employees in dealers, who acquired the references and
were installing, modifying, and servicing the product, are the portion of the
public concerned with the art,” i.e., the art described in the Dealer Manual
and the Installation Instructions. Final Action 13; emphasis added.
However, to these authorized Crow River dealers we would add prospective
dealers, i.e., individuals and companies considering going into the business
of installing and/or servicing the VangaterTM II lift devices and stepwell
sensor/buzzer kits. As explained below, the evidence supports the
conclusion that the Dealer Manual and the Installation Instructions were
Appeal 2013-001389
Reexamination Control 90/009,658
Patent 6,043,741

13
accessible to prospective as well as authorized dealers. Furthermore, the
evidence supports the conclusion that these documents were accessible to
persons having ordinary skill in the art relevant to the claimed invention.
Appellant’s second argument is that “[l]imited distribution of the
Dealer Manual and the Installation Instructions to authorized dealers of the
VangaterTM II lift does not constitute a publication of such documents.”
Br. 10. As support for this argument, Appellant cites Cordis Corp. v. Boston
Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009) and relies on a “Declaration
of Dale Carpenter Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.132” (hereinafter “Carpenter
Declaration”), filed during this reexamination proceeding.7 Appellant’s
reliance on Cordis and the Carpenter Declaration is misplaced for the
following reasons. Cordis addressed the question of “whether the
distribution to a limited number of entities without a legal obligation of
confidentiality renders the monographs printed publications under §102(b).”
Cordis, 561 F.3d at 1333. The documents at issue were copies of two
monographs prepared by the inventor, Dr. Palmaz. Id. at 1332. Dr. Palmaz
gave copies to university and hospital colleagues and also, pursuant to
agreements, gave copies to Vascor, Inc., and Shiley, Inc., “while attempting
to commercialize his stent technology” (id. at 1333) and, more particularly,

7 Evidence App. to Br. Although the Evidence Appendix also includes a
“Declaration of Stanton D. Saucier Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.132,” that
declaration is not discussed in the Brief or Reply Brief and therefore will not
be considered.
Appeal 2013-001389
Reexamination Control 90/009,658
Patent 6,043,741

14
“to interest the two companies in development of Dr. Palmaz’s stent
designs.” Id. at 1334.

The Cordis court began its analysis by explaining:
We have held that where a distribution is made to a limited
number of entities, a binding agreement of confidentiality may
defeat a finding of public accessibility. But we have also held
that such a binding legal obligation is not essential.
Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d at 1351. We have noted that “[w]here
professional and behavioral norms entitle a party to a
reasonable expectation” that information will not be copied or
further distributed, “we are more reluctant to find something a
‘printed publication.’” Id. at 1350-51.
Id. at 1333-34 (footnote omitted; brackets in original).
The court concluded that the copies Dr. Palmaz distributed to the
academic and research colleagues were not printed publications because
“professional norms may support expectations of confidentiality” (citing
Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d at 1351) and because “[t]he record here contains
clear evidence that such academic norms gave rise to an expectation that
disclosures will remain confidential.” Id. at 1334.
The court began its separate discussion of the copies Dr. Palmaz gave
to the two commercial entities (i.e., Vascor and Shiley) by stating:
Boston Scientific argues that under the decision of our
predecessor court, the Court of Claims, in Garrett Corp. v.
United States, “[w]hile distribution [of a government report] to
government agencies and personnel alone may not constitute
publication, distribution to commercial companies without
Appeal 2013-001389
Reexamination Control 90/009,658
Patent 6,043,741

15
restriction on use clearly does.” . . . 422 F.2d 874, 878 (Ct. Cl.
1970) (citation omitted).
Id. at 1334.8 The court then continued:
However, the evidence here was sufficient to support a
conclusion that there was an expectation of confidentiality
between Dr. Palmaz and each of the two commercial entities.
While the Shiley legal agreement executed before development
discussions disclaimed a confidentiality requirement,
Dr. Palmaz testified that he requested confidentiality during
subsequent discussions and was “surprise[d]” when he was
shown the language of the Shiley agreement. There is no
suggestion that the request for confidentiality was not, in fact,
honored. Dr. Palmaz confirmed that the entities kept their
copies of the monograph confidential, whether or not they were
legally obligated to do so. The district court noted that “there is
no evidence that [the commercial entities] would have
distributed, or in fact did distribute, the 1980 Monograph
outside of the company.” There was no showing that similar
documents in the past became available to the public as a result
of disclosure by these or similar commercial entities, that these
or similar commercial entities typically would make the
existence of such documents known and would honor requests
for public access, or that these or similar commercial entities
had an incentive to make the document available, etc. The mere
fact that there was no legal obligation of confidentiality—all
that was shown here—is not in and of itself sufficient to show
that Dr. Palmaz’s expectation of confidentiality was not
reasonable.

8 This passage in Garrett is quoted with approval in Northern Telecom, Inc.
v. Datapoint Corp., 908 F.2d 931, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and Massachusetts
Institute of Technology v. AB Fortia, 774 F.2d 1104, 1109 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Appeal 2013-001389
Reexamination Control 90/009,658
Patent 6,043,741

16
Id. (brackets in original; citations to record and district court decision
omitted).
The Examiner found that that Appellant has not provided “any hard
evidence, e.g., non-disclosure policies of Crow River Industries, Inc.,
regarding said confidentiality and access limitation to the references ‘Dealer
Manual’ and ‘Installation Instruction[s].’” Final Action 2. Appellant, citing
Cordis, argues that “[t]here is no requirement for the Dealer Manual and
Installation Instructions to be labeled as confidential or for ‘hard evidence’
of non-disclosure polices to be present, as suggested by the Examiner.” Br.
12. We agree with Appellant that in light of Cordis, “hard evidence” is not
always required to prove confidentiality.9 However, Appellant’s reliance on
Cordis is misplaced because the relationship between Crow River and its
authorized dealers is significantly different from the relationship between
Dr. Palmaz and the two commercial entities in Cordis. Dr. Palmaz gave

9 For this reason, the Examiner is incorrect to rely on M.P.E.P.
§ 2128.01(III) (8th ed., rev. 8, July 2010) for such requirement. Answer 13.
This section reads in relevant part as follows:
III. INTERNAL DOCUMENTS INTENDED TO BE
CONFIDENTIAL ARE NOT “PRINTED
PUBLICATIONS”
Documents and items only distributed internally within
an organization which are intended to remain confidential are
not “printed publications” no matter how many copies are
distributed. There must be an existing policy of confidentiality
or agreement to remain confidential within the organization.
Mere intent to remain confidential is insufficient.
Appeal 2013-001389
Reexamination Control 90/009,658
Patent 6,043,741

17
copies of his monograms to these entities in an attempt to interest them in
development of his stent designs. Furthermore, Dr. Palmaz made an oral
request for confidentiality to one of these entities. Although the purpose of
this request for confidentiality is not described in Cordis, the request strikes
us as a reasonable precaution for an inventor to take while considering
whether to establish a commercial relationship with a company for
developing the invention. In contrast, commercial (i.e., seller/buyer)
relationships between Crow River and its authorized dealers had already
been established prior to the critical date. Therefore, the most important
factor supporting an expectation of confidentiality in Cordis is not present in
the case before us.
Furthermore, Mr. Carpenter’s testimony fails to persuade us that Crow
River had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality regarding access to the
Dealer Manual and Installation Instructions. Mr. Carpenter testified: (i) that
he is currently Operating Partner of Safety Vans, LLC, an upfitter working
with full size GM passenger vans that are sold throughout the eastern and
central United States (Carpenter Decl. para. 1); (ii) that from 1988 to 1998
he was involved in the distribution of automotive wheelchair lifts and the
establishment of wheelchair lift dealers throughout the United States as Vice
President of National Dealer Sales for (Appellant) Ricon Corporation (id.);
and (iii) that he is familiar with the VangaterTM II lift and has reviewed the
Dealer Manual and Installation Instructions. Id. at para. 2. He further
testified:
Appeal 2013-001389
Reexamination Control 90/009,658
Patent 6,043,741

18
1 . . . To my knowledge, no manufacturer of wheelchair
lifts designed for the transport of passengers[] has ever allowed
end users to install, modify or self-service their lifts and all
warrantees are generally predicated on installation,
modification and service by authorized factory trained
personnel (I believe that this policy is universal to this day).
Additionally, most dealer liability insurance policies prohibit
installation, modification or service by the end user and have
strict requirements that these activities be performed only by
authorized and trained service personnel. . . .
2 . . . .
3. Based on my experience and personal dealings with
Crow River Industries, Inc. and their authorized dealers, the
Dealer Manual and Installation Instructions were treated as
confidential and access to such documents was limited to Crow
River Industries, Inc. and their authorized dealers. During my
tenure at Ricon, the end user or customer of the VangaterTM II
lift would not have been designated for receipt of the Dealer
Manual or Installation Instructions by the lift manufacturer.
The end user or customer of the VangaterTM II lift would only
have been intended to receive a copy of the Owner/Operator
Manual, which is generally different than the Dealer Manual.
Persons outside of Crow River and their authorized dealers
would not have had access to the Dealer Manual or Installation
Instructions and access to such documents would have been
denied if access to these documents were requested.
Id. at paras. 1, 3.
Mr. Carpenter’s testimony that “the end user or customer of the
VangaterTM II lift would not have been designated for receipt of the Dealer
Manual or Installation Instructions by the lift manufacturer” (Carpenter
Decl. para 3) is unpersuasive even if correct. The reason is that these end
Appeal 2013-001389
Reexamination Control 90/009,658
Patent 6,043,741

19
users are not part of the “public concerned with the art” described in these
documents, a conclusion that finds support in Mr. Carpenter’s testimony
regarding safety and insurance concerns. We are also unpersuaded by Mr.
Carpenter’s testimony that “[b]ased on my experience and personal dealings
with Crow River Industries, Inc. and their authorized dealers, the Dealer
Manual and Installation Instructions were treated as confidential and access
to such documents was limited to Crow River Industries, Inc. and their
authorized dealers.” Id. Mr. Carpenter did not testify that Crow River
would have denied requests for access to these documents from prospective
dealers, who clearly are part of the “public concerned with the art” described
in these documents, or from persons having ordinary skill in the design,
engineering, and development of wheelchair lifts and related systems and
components.10 In fact, Crow River’s authorized dealers presumably were
initially prospective dealers.
Mr. Carpenter’s testimony is also unpersuasive if we assume that end
users are part of the “public concerned with the art” described in the Dealer
Manual and Installation Instructions. That is, even if we assume that Crow
River had the safety and insurance concerns cited by Mr. Carpenter (id. at
para. 1), we are not persuaded that these concerns would have created an

10 The relevant part of the public had sufficient access even if it is assumed
they were required to purchase the lift devices and step well sensor/buzzer
kits as a condition for receiving the Dealer Manual and Installation
Instructions.
Appeal 2013-001389
Reexamination Control 90/009,658
Patent 6,043,741

20
expectation of confidentiality, especially since these concerns could have
been addressed by limiting sales of the lifts, sensor/buzzer kits, and
replacement parts to authorized dealers. Furthermore, Mr. Nelson, a Crow
River/Braun employee, suggested that there was no expectation of dealer
confidentiality when he testified that “Exhibit 7 indicates that, as of
April 24, 1996, the Dealer Manual (Exhibit 8) had been created and released
to our dealer network for public distribution along with the sale of the
Vangater II lift.” Nelson Decl. para. 13 (emphasis added). Appellant
responded to this testimony by arguing that “[a]lthough the Nelson
Declaration at paragraph 13 asserts that the Dealer Manual was ‘released to
our dealer network for public distribution’, there does not appear to be any
evidence of record that the Dealer Manual was distributed to persons outside
of the dealers in 1996.” This argument is unpersuasive because Mr.
Nelson’s testimony is relied on to establish the lack of an expectation of
confidentiality, not to show actual distribution of the documents in question
to end users.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Dealer Manual and
the Installation Instructions were sufficiently accessible to the relevant part
of the public to be “printed publications,” whether or not the relevant part of
the public includes persons having ordinary skill in the art in the design,
engineering, and development of wheelchair lifts and related systems and
components or the end users of the VangaterTM lift devices and stepwell
sensor/buzzer kits.
Appeal 2013-001389
Reexamination Control 90/009,658
Patent 6,043,741

21
We therefore sustain both rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
III. DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 9, 11-19, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
for obviousness based on Dealer Manual in view of Installation Instructions
and SAE J2093 is sustained.
Furthermore, the § 103(a) rejection of claims 7, 8, and 35 based on
Dealer Manual in view of Installation Instructions, SAE J209, and Cohn is
sustained.
The Examiner’s decision that claims 1, 7-9, 11-19, 35, and 36 are
unpatentable over the prior art is therefore affirmed.
Extensions of time for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED

ak

Appeal 2013-001389
Reexamination Control 90/009,658
Patent 6,043,741

22
For Patent Owner:

THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C.
ONE GATEWAY CENTER
420 FT. DUQUESNE BLVD, SUITE 1200
PITTSBURGH PA 15222

For Third Party Requester:

KENNETH N. NIGON
RATNER PRESTIA
P.O. BOX 980
VALLEY FORGE, PA 19482