Ex Parte Caroen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 29, 2012

10549551 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 29, 2012)

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.
10/549,551 09/19/2005 Adrian Barclay Caroen URQU.P-019 3821
57381 7590 08/29/2012
Larson & Anderson, LLC
P.O. BOX 4928
DILLON, CO 80435
EXAMINER
MANSEN, MICHAEL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2012 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 ADRIAN BARCLAY CAROEN and
MICHAEL JAMES WEBSTER
____________

Appeal 2010-008888
Application 10/549,551
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, STEPHEN C. SIU, and JOSIAH C.
COCKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims to a stairlift chair with a belt to secure an
occupant in the chair. The Examiner has rejected the claims as obvious. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134. We affirm the rejections.

Appeal 2010-008888
Application 10/549,551

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are drawn to a stairlift chair with a containment device
which comprises a retractable belt to secure an occupant in the chair. Spec.
1:3-5. Claims 3-5, 7, 8, 10-13, 19, and 24 are pending and stand rejected by
the Examiner as follows:
1. Claims 5, 10-12, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Tremblay (US 5,373,915) in view of Nicholas (US 3,272,557);
2. Claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Tremblay
in view of Nicholas and further in view of Gray (US 5,549,356);
3. Claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Tremblay
in view of Nicholas and further in view of Compeau (US 4,319,769) or
Takada (US 4,655,477); and
4. Claims 13 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Tremblay in view of Nicholas and further in view of Berton (US 3,236,540).
Appellant appeals all rejections.

1. REJECTION 1
Claim 24 is drawn to a stair lift chair with the following features
(bracketed numerals [1]-[7] added for reference):
(a) a chair having a front, a back and two spaced lateral sides;
(b) means for attaching said chair with a stairlift rail; and
(c) a containment device, said containment device
comprising
[1] a fixing point mounted on or adjacent one of
said spaced sides;
[2] a reel carrier having a housing sized and
shaped to locate comfortably within a users [sic, user’s] hand
and [3] having a fixing component integral with the housing,
which fixing component is engageable with the fixing point;
App
App

the l
i.e.,
repro

chair
Trem

112.

1 The
of Fa
eal 2010-0
lication 10

end to, s
the oppo
spaced s
[7] wher
said spac
engagem
The Exa
imitations
limitations
duced bel
1.1
2. A por
112 in wh
blay, col.
3. One e
Tremblay

numbere
ct, referre
08888
/549,551
[4] a r
[5] a l
aid reel an
site free e
ides, and
ein said re
ed sides t
ent with s
miner foun
of claim 2
[2]-[5] of
ow:
tion of Tr
ich buckl
6, ll. 24-2
nd of a fle
, col. 6, ll

d paragrap
d to herein
eel rotatab
ength of b
d having a
nd is fixed
el carrier i
o position
aid fixing
d that Tre
4, except f
the claim
emblay’s F
e 120 is co
5.
xible strap
. 25-26.

hs that app
as “FF.”
3
ly mounte
elt wound
n opposite
on or adja
s displace
said fixing
point.
mblay des
or “a reel
. The stair
igure 6 is
nnected to
122 is co
ear throug
d in said r
onto, and
free end,
cent to th
able latera
compone
cribed a st
for retract
lift chair o
reproduce
one side
nnected to
hout the D
eel carrier
fixed at on
[6] where
e other of
lly betwee
nt for
airlift cha
ing the sea
f Trembla

d above, s
of the chai
a side of
ecision a
;
e
in
said
n
ir with all
t belt,”
y is
howing
r 112.
the chair
re Findings
App
App

whic
and d
26-2

fixin

conn
limit
other

Answ

17-1

into
Nich

eal 2010-0
lication 10
4. “The
h matingly
escribed a
8.
As indic
g point on
The flex
ected to th
ation [6] “
of said sp
The Exa
er 3. Nic
5. Safet
9.
6. Nicho
which the
olas, col. 2
7. Figur
08888
/549,551
other end
interlock
s connect
ated above
one side o
ible strap,
e other sid
wherein th
aced sides
miner cite
holas teac
y belts for
las teache
seat belt is
, ll. 25-29
es 2 and 3
of the flex
s with the
ed to one s
, the chair
f the chair
having tab
e of the ch
e opposite
” of the ch
d Nicholas
hes:
seats for a
s that the
entirely r
.
of Nichol
4
ible strap
buckle 12
ide of the
has a buc
(FF1 & F
124 whic
air (FF1,
free end
air.
for the cl
utomobile
seat belt ca
etracted in
as are repr
122 termin
0,” the latt
chair 112.
kle 120 wh
F2).
h interlock
FF3, & FF
is fixed on
aimed disp
s. Nichol
n compris
to when th
oduced be
ates in a t
er which i
Tremblay
ich serve
s with bu
4), corres
or adjacen
lacable re
as, col. 1,
e a semi-r
e belt is in
low:
ab 124,
s shown
, col. 6,
s as a [1]
ckle 120, i
ponding to
t to the
el carrier.
ll. 8-9 &
igid cup
storage.

s

Appeal 2010-008888
Application 10/549,551

5
8. Figure 2 shows receptacle 20 for the seat belt adjacent to chair 12.
A safety belt retractor 40 is shown within the receptacle 20 in Figure 3,
which is secured to anchor bolt 26 by depending ear 41. Nicholas, col. 2, ll.
58-60.
9. “The retractor may be one which travels with the belt, or it may be
one which is permanently secured to the ear 41 and thereby remains
stationary within the receptacle.” Nicholas, col. 2, ll. 70-72. “If [the
retractor] travels with the safety belt, it will not be directly connected to the
ear 41 since a length of belt will be located between the retractor and the
ear.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 1-3.
10. The retractor is described by Nicholas as “a spring loaded,
automatic retention mechanism, operative upon release of the end of the
belt.” Nicholas, col. 3, ll. 3-5. Nicholas states that a “number of these are
available on the market and the particular construction of the retractor itself
is not a part of this invention.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 5-8.
The retractor with its spring loaded mechanism (FF9 & FF10) is said
by the Examiner as meeting the limitations of the claimed reel carrier with
rotatable reel and length of belt fixed adjacent to a spaced side. Answer 3;
claim limitations [2], [4], [5], & [6]. The Examiner found that the anchor
bolt 26 (FF8) serves as [1] fixing point and the depending ear 41 as the [3]
fixing component integral with the housing 40. Answer 3; FF8 & FF9. The
Examiner concluded it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art “to modify the seat belt of Tremblay by providing it with a retracting
reel, as to have the belt retractable for adjustability and for non-use storage,
as taught by Nicholas.” Answer 3.

Appeal 2010-008888
Application 10/549,551

6
Discussion
Appellant contends that Nicholas and the additionally cited secondary
references are non-analogous art to Tremblay because the former involve car
seat belts and “belts for stairlift chairs [as described in Tremblay] have very
different functional requirements and concerns than car seat belts.” App. Br.
4-5.
We have considered this argument, but do not find it persuasive.
Tremblay, Nicholas, and the other cited prior art publications are each
concerned with securing occupants into seats for safety reasons. This is the
same problem with which the inventor was concerned. While there may be
different considerations when a safety belt is used in a car seat rather than on
a stairlift chair, Appellant did not establish that such differences would have
deterred one of ordinary skill in the art from viewing the car seat safety belt
of Nicholas and the other cited reference as pertinent to a safety belt utilized
on a stairlift chair. Even when prior art is not in the same endeavor as the
claimed invention, it is still analogous prior art if it is “reasonably pertinent
to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio,
381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “A reference is reasonably pertinent
if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor's
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 at 659,660 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In fact, Tremblay’s disclosure is not restricted to stairlift chairs, but
also describes passenger lifts used to transport passenger in vans and buses
(Tremblay, col. 1, ll. 22-25 & col. 2, ll. 28-33), providing evidence the field
of invention is not narrowly restricted to stairlift chairs. As the Examiner
Appeal 2010-008888
Application 10/549,551

7
provided a logical reason for combining the cited publications, we conclude
that the Examiner properly combined the publications to have reached the
claimed invention.
Appellant also identifies various deficiencies in the Nicholas patent
with respect to the claimed invention. We agree with the Examiner’s
responses to Appellant’s arguments (Answer 6-8), and provide the following
additional comments.
First, Appellant contends that the Examiner did not offer evidence as
to what kind of retractor was known at the time of the Nicholas patent. App.
Br. 8. However, the issue is whether Nicholas’s disclosure meets the
limitations of the claimed containment device. As discussed above, the
Examiner cited specific structures in Nicholas that were said to meet the
corresponding structures recited in the claim.
Second, Appellant contends that the “Examiner has failed to offer any
reasoning as to why a person skilled in the art would assume or understand
from Nicholas that the limitations of the claims, in which the fixing
component is part of the housing.” App. Br. 9. Figure 3 was said by the
Examiner to show the depending ear 41 as part of the housing 40, meeting
the corresponding limitation of “a fixing component integral [41] with the
housing [40].” Answer 3; Figure 3; FF8. Appellant appears to believe that
the claim requires ear 41 be formed of the same piece as the housing 40, but
has not provided sufficient evidence that the claim language “a fixing
component integral with the housing” would be reasonably interpreted to
mean a single-piece construction. Moreover, even if that narrow
interpretation was correct, the construction of the ear and housing from one
piece would have been obvious since the structures are shown as connected
Appeal 2010-008888
Application 10/549,551

8
in Figure 3 to form a “one-piece” structure, making it obvious to make the
structure as one-piece initially or to later join them together as a single-
piece.
With regard to Appellant’s arguments set forth in numbered
paragraphs (3)-(5) of the Appeal Brief, we find the Examiner’s responses to
be fact-based and complete, and therefore we find no further discussion
necessary.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 24 as
obvious in view of Tremblay and Nicholas. Claims 5 and 10-12 were not
separately argued and therefore fall with claim 24. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(vii).

REJECTIONS 2 & 3
Appellant did not provide additional arguments for Rejections 2 and
3, other than those already presented for Rejection 1. We thus affirm the
rejection of claims 3 and 4 as obvious in view of Tremblay, Nicholas, and
Gray (Rejection 2) and the rejection of claims 7 and 8 as obvious in view of
Tremblay, Nicholas, Compeau, and Takada (Rejection 3) for the reasons set
forth by the Examiner.

REJECTION 4
In addition to the features recited in claim 24, claim 13 (depends on
claim 24) and claim 19 (independent claim) further comprise a second belt
which is a shoulder belt. To meet this limitation, the Examiner relied upon
Berton for its description of a harness belt over the shoulder of a passenger.
Figure 2 of Berton is reproduced below:

App
App

shou

attac
ll. 6-

to be
col.

ordin
mod
bette
Answ

eal 2010-0
lication 10
11.
12. Figu
lder strap
13. The
hes to the
14.
14. The
coupled t
2, ll. 15-17
The Exa
ary skill i
ify the sea
r restraint
er 4.
Appellan
Berton d
Each is c
of the be
08888
/549,551
re 2 of Be
– used to r
shoulder s
floor anch
shoulder s
o each oth
.
miner foun
n the art at
t belt of Tr
and increa
t contend
iscloses a
losed by a
lt. Thus ad
rton show
estrain the
trap 21 pa
ors 13 and
trap is pre
er by a con
d that it “
the time t
emblay by
sed passen
s
shoulder b
separate
ding the s
9
s the diago
seat occu
sses throu
14 behind
ferably in
ventional
would hav
he inventi
providing
ger safety
elt and a l
buckle me
houlder be

nal harne
pant.
gh the slot
the front
two sectio
buckling
e been obv
on was ma
it with a
, as taugh
ap belt com
chanism 1
lt of Berto
ss strap 21
ted fitting
seat. Bert
ns which
device 19.
ious to on
de by app
shoulder b
t by Berton
bination
9 in the m
n to the
– a
23 and
on, col. 2,
are adapte
Berton,
e of
licant to
elt, for
et al.”
.
iddle

d
Appeal 2010-008888
Application 10/549,551

10
combination of Tremblay and Nicholas would not result in the
claimed invention, since there is no teaching in Berton of the
shoulder belt being even attached to a common buckle with the
lap belt. Thus, this combination of references does not teach all
of the elements of claim 19 (and claim 13) for this additional
reason.
App. Br. 12.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. The Examiner
provided two reasons to have used Nicholas’s retractor on Tremblay’s belt:
to confer “adjustability of the belt, and storage of the belt when not in use.”
Answer 11. When a shoulder strap is added to Tremblay’s chairlift with the
belt modified with the retractor at one end, there are only limited number of
locations where the end of the shoulder strap would be placed, e.g., to the
side of the chair (120) in Figure 6 of Tremblay or to the retractor (124 of
Tremblay), either of which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art. Attaching to the end of the shoulder strap to the retractor would
be a logical choice since it would accomplish attachment of the seat belt and
shoulder strap to the chair in one motion. We therefore affirm the
obviousness rejection of claims 13 and 19 over Tremblay, Nicholas, and
Berton.

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).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2010-008888
Application 10/549,551

11

cu