11944843 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2014)

Ex Parte Domschot

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 26, 2014

11944843 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/944,843 11/26/2007 Bryan W. Domschot 1788-3003-7 6269 29318 7590 11/26/2014 JAMES D. STEVENS REISING ETHINGTON P.C. P.O. BOX 4390 TROY, MI 48099 EXAMINER JENNISON, BRIAN W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/26/2014 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 BRYAN W. DOMSCHOT ____________ Appeal 2012-007238 Application 11/944,843 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Bryan W. Domschot (Appellant)1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 4–8. See Appeal Br. 2.2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Tec-Option, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. 2 We note that claims 2, 3, 9, and 10 stand objected to by the Examiner, but do not stand rejected, and thus are not before us for review as part of the instant appeal. See Ans. 3, 7; Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2012-007238 Application 11/944,843 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosed invention “relates to welding equipment of the type used in manufacturing plants for production of welded parts.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1 and 6, reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized for emphasis, are the only independent claims and are representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A tooling cart for supporting a welding tooling module having a module latch member, said tooling cart comprising: a frame; a guide mounted to said frame to support the welding tooling module thereon; and a cart latch member supported by said frame and positioned for selective engagement with the module latch member when the welding tooling module is positioned on said guide, wherein the welding tooling module is secured to said tooling cart when said cart latch member and the module latch member are engaged. 6. A tooling cart, comprising: a reusable lower section including a base mounted on a set of wheels, said base having a first plurality of locators thereon; and a removable upper section including a frame having a plurality of frame members, said upper section further including rollers that support tooling being transported by said cart, wherein said upper section aligns with and fits over said locators such that said upper section can be removably attached to said lower section. Appeal 2012-007238 Application 11/944,843 3 EVIDENCE The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Meeker US 5,438,938 Aug. 8, 1995 Domschot US 2002/0011470 A1 Jan. 31, 2002 REJECTION The following rejection is before us for review: Claims 1 and 4–8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Domschot and Meeker. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 4, and 5 Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, a tooling cart for supporting thereon a welding tooling module having a module latch member, where the tooling cart includes “a cart latch member . . . for selective engagement with the module latch member” when the welding tooling module is positioned on the tooling cart, “wherein the welding tooling module is secured to said tooling cart when said cart latch member and the module latch member are engaged.” In other words, claim 1 is “directed to latching a tooling module onto a cart, not a cart to a base operating machine.” Appeal Br. 9. We note that claim 1 does not recite any limitations directed to latching the tooling cart to a base operating machine. Appellant argues that Domschot “does not include a cart latch member of any sort,” (Appeal Br. 8) and that “[a] prima facie case of Appeal 2012-007238 Application 11/944,843 4 obviousness has not been properly established by the Office Action” (Appeal Br. 9). See also Reply Br. 3–4. We agree. More specifically, we agree with Appellant that, although “[t]he reason given in the Office Action for combining the teachings of Meeker into that of Domschot is ‘to lock, and thus prevent uncoupling of the removably secured assembly (e.g. tooling cart) from the main structure (e.g. base operating machine),’” Appellant correctly notes that “this is not what is recited in claim 1,” such that “this asserted motivation does not address the subject matter recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 9 (citing Ans. 7, 9; emphasis added). We note that the Examiner does not identify any disclosure in Domschot or Meeker relating to “a cart latch member . . . for selective engagement with the module latch member,” as claimed, for latching a tooling module onto the cart. See Ans. 6–7. Accordingly, based on the record before us, the Examiner has not met the burden of establishing a proper prima facie case of obviousness. On this basis, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 as being unpatentable over Domschot and Meeker. Because each of claims 4 and 5 depends directly from independent claim 1, we likewise cannot sustain the rejection of dependent claims 4 and 5. Claims 6–8 Independent claim 6 recites, in relevant part, a tooling cart that includes “a reusable lower section including a base mounted on a set of wheels,” with the base having a plurality of locators thereon, and “a removable upper section including a frame having a plurality of frame members,” whereby “said upper section aligns with and fits over said Appeal 2012-007238 Application 11/944,843 5 locators such that said upper section can be removably attached to said lower section.” Similar to the discussion above, we note that claim 6 does not recite any limitations directed to latching the tooling cart to a base operating machine. Appellant argues that Domschot and Meeker “are not properly combinable to arrive at the subject matter of claim 6.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant also relies on “many of the same reasons cited in the arguments regarding the rejection of independent claim 1,” (Appeal Br. 10) discussed above, which we understand to include the argument that “[a] prima facie case of obviousness has not been properly established by the Office Action” (Appeal Br. 9). We agree. More specifically, similar to the discussion above, the factual findings and legal conclusions given in the Office Action appear to be directed to features that are simply not what is recited in claim 6. In particular, we note that the rejection of record does not include relevant factual findings that pertain to the recited limitations of a reusable lower section including a wheeled base with a plurality of locators thereon, or a removable upper section that aligns with and fits over the locators, as claimed. See Ans. 6–7. Accordingly, based on the record before us, the Examiner has not met the burden of establishing a proper prima facie case of obviousness. On this basis, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 6 as being unpatentable over Domschot and Meeker. Because each of claims 7 and 8 depends directly from independent claim 6, we likewise cannot sustain the rejection of dependent claims 7 and 8. Appeal 2012-007238 Application 11/944,843 6 DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 4–8. REVERSED Klh