Ex parte Harper et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 12, 1998

08492241 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 12, 1998)

Application for patent filed June 19, 1995. According to1
the appellants, the application is a continuation of Application
No. 07/942,423, filed September 9, 1992, now U.S. Patent No.
5,575,530.
Claims 32 and 33 were amended subsequent to the final2
rejection.
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MARJORIE G. HARPER and PATRICK M. BERTSCH
____________
Appeal No. 97-2562
Application No. 08/492,2411
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before STAAB, NASE, and CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judges.
NASE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 20 to 30, 32 to 35 and 37 to 40. Claim 362
has been objected to as depending from a non allowed claim.
Claims 1 to 19 and 31 have been canceled.
Appeal No. 97-2562
Application No. 08/492,241
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 97-2562 Page 3
Application No. 08/492,241
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to a infant bouncer. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 20, which appears in the appendix to the
appellants' brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Zawadzki 3,019,052 Jan. 30, 1962
Adachi 4,141,095 Feb. 27, 1979
Claims 20 to 22, 25 to 28, 30, 32 and 37 to 40 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Zawadzki.
Claims 20 to 25, 29, 30, 32 to 35 and 37 to 40 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Adachi.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
10, mailed February 3, 1997) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellants'
Appeal No. 97-2562 Page 4
Application No. 08/492,241
brief (Paper No. 9, filed November 7, 1996) for the appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it is
our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner does not
establish anticipation of the subject matter of the claims under
appeal. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Our
reasoning for this determination follows.
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),
it must be shown that each element of the claim is found, either
expressly described or under principles of inherency, in a single
prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Appeal No. 97-2562 Page 5
Application No. 08/492,241
The independent claims under appeal recite either a bouncer
for supporting an infant in bouncing motion (claims 20, 30 and
39) or an apparatus for supporting an infant (claim 40). The
bouncer or apparatus comprises, inter alia, a base member or
portion, an infant support member or portion, and a motor mounted
on the infant support member or portion for movement with the
infant support member or portion relative to the base member or
portion.
Anticipation based on Zawadzki
Zawadzki discloses a rocker chair 11. As shown in Figures
1-3, the rocking chair includes (1) a base member 12 having
upwardly convex supporting surfaces 13 rigidly connected by a
transverse bar member 17; (2) a chair member 14 having downwardly
convex bottom members 15 which engage the supporting surfaces 13
and retained thereon by fastening springs 16; and (3) an electric
motor 18 mounted on bar member 17 coupled by a linkage to
transmit a rocking force to the chair member 14.
We agree with the appellants that Zawadzki does not disclose
each and element of claims 20 to 22, 25 to 28, 30, 32 and 37 to
40. Specifically, Zawadzki does not disclose his motor 18 being
mounted on the infant support member or portion (i.e., chair
Appeal No. 97-2562 Page 6
Application No. 08/492,241
member 14). In fact, Zawadzki discloses that his motor 18 is
mounted on the base member or portion (i.e., the transverse bar
member 17 which is part of the base member 12). Since all the
limitations of claims 20 to 22, 25 to 28, 30, 32 and 37 to 40 are
not disclosed by Zawadzki, the decision of the examiner to reject
those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
Anticipation based on Adachi
Adachi discloses an electronic cradle. As shown in Figures
1-2, the cradle includes (1) a base 1; (2) a cradle body 3; and
(3) a motor 5 mounted in a frame 6 on the base 1 coupled by a
linkage to transmit a rocking force to the body 3.
We agree with the appellants that Adachi does not disclose
each and element of claims 20 to 25, 29, 30, 32 to 35 and 37 to
40. Specifically, Adachi does not disclose his motor 5 being
mounted on the infant support member or portion (i.e., body 3).
In fact, Adachi discloses that his motor 5 is mounted on the base
member or portion (i.e., base 1). Since all the limitations of
claims 20 to 25, 29, 30, 32 to 35 and 37 to 40 are not disclosed
by Adachi, the decision of the examiner to reject those claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
Appeal No. 97-2562 Page 7
Application No. 08/492,241
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject the
claims under appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
REVERSED
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JEFFREY V. NASE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 97-2562 Page 8
Application No. 08/492,241
CHRISTIE PARKER AND HALE
PO BOX 7068
PASADENA, CA 91109-7068
APPEAL NO. 97-2562 - JUDGE NASE
APPLICATION NO. 08/492,241
APJ NASE
APJ CRAWFORD
APJ STAAB
DECISION: REVERSED
Prepared By: Delores A. Lowe
DRAFT TYPED: 03 Jun 98
FINAL TYPED: