Ex Parte Klinke

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 9, 2012

10497691 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 9, 2012)

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.
10/497,691 06/04/2004 Norbert Klinke 66383-030-7 6375
7590 10/10/2012
Dykema Gossett
Suite 300 West
1300 I Street N W
Washington, DC 20005-3306
EXAMINER
RODRIGUEZ, PAMELA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/10/2012 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte NORBERT KLINKE
____________________

Appeal 2010-005546
Application 10/497,691
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
NEIL T. POWELL, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-005546
Application 10/497,691
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 4, 6, 10-13, 18, and 19. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 10, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
10. A lifting column which comprises an outer hollow member
defining an upper end;
an inner hollow member which extends downwardly into
the outer hollow member, the outer and inner hollow members
being telescopically movable relative to one another;
a slide member connected to the upper end of the outer
member and extending downwardly and between the outer
hollow member and the inner hollow member to reduce at least
one of play and friction therebetween, the slide member
including wall portions which press against the inner hollow
member, and the outer hollow member including an inwardly-
extending deformation to press the slide member against the
inner hollow member; and
an electrically driven spindle/nut unit connected to the
lifting column for moving the outer and inner hollow members
relative to one another.

References
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Borgman
Bauer
Lai
US 5,224,429
US 5,570,873
US 5,702,083
Jul. 6, 1993
Nov. 5, 1996
Dec. 30, 1997
Appeal 2010-005546
Application 10/497,691
3

Rejections
The Examiner makes the following obviousness rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a):
I. Claims 10, 11, 18, and 19 over Lai and Borgman.
II. Claim 6 over Lai, Borgman, and Bauer.
III. Claims 4, 12, and 13 over Borgman and Lai.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.

OPINION
Rejection I – Lai and Borgman
The Examiner found that Lai describes a lifting column having an
outer hollow member 10 including deformations 14, an inner hollow
member 40, and a slide member 302 (of inner barrel 30). Ans. 6-7. The
Examiner found that Lai does not describe an electrically driven spindle/nut
unit, but that Borgman does. Ans. 7. The Examiner concluded that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the
pneumatic lifting assembly of Lai for the electric spindle/nut assembly of
Borgman to “allow for better overall adjustment of the hollow members and
more precise control of their locations with respect to each other.” Id.
Appellant argues claims 10, 11, 18, and 19 as a group. App. Br. 5-7.
We select claim 10 as representative. Appellant argues that there is “no
possible basis” for replacing the pneumatic assembly of Lai for the electric
one of Borgman because it would require connection to a power supply and
would “destroy the Lai invention.” App. Br. 7. It is not at all clear to us
Appeal 2010-005546
Application 10/497,691
4
how changing from pneumatic to electric operation would “destroy” the
various components of the pneumatic chair lift in Lai. The chair would still
be a chair, would rise and fall, and the cylinders would still provide support.
While Appellant is correct that the chair would then need a power supply,
Appellant does not explain why this matters. Electrical devices often use a
power cord to supply electricity. We are not apprised of any evidence or
reason why the changeover would be anything but predictable.
Appellant next argues that Lai does not include “deformations to press
the inner barrel against the seat stem 40 (they simply hold the inner barrel in
place).” App. Br. 7. To hold something in place, however, requires
pressing. The Examiner correctly points out that contact between
deformations 14 and the slide member (inner barrel 30) is sufficient to
constitute pressing as claimed. See Ans. 10. In other words, the inner barrel
30 of Lai is arranged in such a manner as to press against the inner hollow
member 40 and the outer hollow member 10 because it is held in place
between the two by deformations 14. The claim does not go so far as to
specify a particular level of pressing.
Appellant has not apprised us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 10. We sustain Rejection I.
Rejection II – Lai, Borgman, and Bauer
Appellant’s argument for Rejection II is substantially similar to the
“pressing” argument found unpersuasive above with respect to Rejection I.
See App. Br. 7-8. Accordingly, we are not apprised of error in Rejection II.
Rejection III – Borgman and Lai
Appellant’s sole argument for Rejection III is that the Examiner “has
failed to identify which elements of the Lai pneumatic cylinder are obvious
to utilize in the lifting column of Borgman et al. and how they would be
Appeal 2010-005546
Application 10/497,691
5
utilized therein.” App. Br. 8. The Examiner, however, explicitly identified
the components of Lai utilized in Rejection III as those used in Rejection I.
Ans. 9 (“Lai is relied upon as set forth in Claim 10 above”); see also Ans.
13. Appellant does not apprise us of error in Rejection III.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision regarding claims 4, 6, 10-13, 18,
and 19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

mls