Ex Parte Howell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2018

12694543 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/694,543 01/27/2010
63565 7590 07/30/2018
HILL-ROM SERVICES, INC.
Legal Dept., Mail Code K04
1069 State Road 46 East
BATESVILLE, IN 47006
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Charles A. Howell
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
Nl-22326 6220
EXAMINER
KURILLA, ERIC J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3673
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2018 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 ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES A. HOWELL and SCOTT PEER
Appeal 2017-010802
Application 12/694,543
Technology Center 3600
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 3, 11-16, 24--31, and 33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a modular fluidizable occupant support and
compact fluidizable modules. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. An occupant support comprising:
Appeal 2017-010802
Application 12/694,543
at least one non-fluidizable occupant supportive module
having a frrst support dedicated to supportingthe non-fluidizable
module on a ground surface;
at least one fluidizable occupant supportive module having
a second support dedicated to supporting the fluidizable module
on the ground surface, the fluidizable module including a
fluidizable particulate material;
the fluidizable module and the non-fluidizable module
being cooperable with each other to support an occupant.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Soltani
Kramer
US 5,623,736 Apr. 29, 1997
US 2006/0085919 Al Apr. 27, 2006
REJECTIONS 1
Claims 1, 3, 16, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, and 33 are rejected under
35 U.S. C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Soltani.
Claims 11, 13, 15, 22, 23, 26, 28, 31, and 33 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Soltani and Kramer.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Soltani.
OPINION
All the rejections before us hinge on the Examiner's interpretation of
"dedicated to supporting" a particular element to include prior-art structures
that support not only the element to which they are "dedicated to
1 The Advisory Action of Mar. 21, 2017 indicated the amendment cancelling
claim 34 would be entered for purposes of appeal, thereby overcoming the
§ 112 rejection of that claim.
2
Appeal 2017-010802
Application 12/694,543
supporting," but that also support, at least in part, other elements as well.
Ans. 3. Appellants correctly point out that the Specification does not
expressly defme the term and, the only defmitions of record, consistent with
defmitions known to us, require exclusivity when using the term "dedicated"
in the context of referring to a thing. 2 App. Br. 5; Reply. Br. 2-3. If the
Examiner believes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a term
includes something different from the ordinary meaning as evidenced by
dictionary defmitions made of record, it is incumbent upon the Examiner to
provide evidence or reasoning to demonstrate why. See, e.g., MPEP
§ 1204.04 ("37 C.F.R. § 41.30 permits both the applicant and examiner to
submit [ dictionary defmitions] to the Board during the briefmg stage"). As
the weight of evidence presently before us supports only the Appellants'
proposed construction, and not the Examiner's, we cannot sustain the
Examiner's rejections based on the claim interpretation set forth by the
Examiner.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections are reversed.
REVERSED
2 See, e.g., https://www.dictionary.com/browse/dedicated;
https :// en. oxf orddictionaries. com/ defmition/ dedicated
3