Ex Parte Koch

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 2018

14143861 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/143,861 12/30/2013
27367 7590 08/28/2018
WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KOEHLER, P.A.
SUITE 1400
900 SECOND A VENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rodney Koch
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.
M297.12-0561 1258
EXAMINER
KRAMER, DEAN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@wck.com
tsorbel@wck.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RODNEY KOCH
Appeal2018-000085
Application 14/143,861 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 13 4( a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-1 7, 21, and 22 2. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
According to Appellant, the invention "relates to a lift arm structure
for raising and lowering an implement connected to a power machine."
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Clark Equipment
Company. Br. 3.
2 The Examiner allows pending claims 18 and 20. Non-Final Office
Action 5.
Appeal2018-000085
Application 14/143,861
Spec. ,r 4. Claims 1 and 10 are the independent claims on appeal. Below,
we reproduce claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims.
1. A lift arm assembly for attachment to a power
machine having a frame, a cab mounted on the frame, and a front
end and a rear end, wherein the lift arm assembly includes a lift
arm structure configured to be attached to an implement carrier
and pivotally attached to the frame and movable between a
lowered position and a raised position, the lift arm assembly
compnsmg:
a main lift arm portion having a pair of lift arms each
having a proximal end pivotally attached to the frame proximate
to the rear end of the machine, wherein the main lift arm portion
includes one or more lift cylinders with each of the one or more
lift cylinders attached to the frame on a pivot axis and configured
to control a lift path of the main lift arm portion entirely, wherein
each lift arm of the pair of lift arms has at least one segment, and
wherein each of the segments of the lift arms moves relative to
the frame or another segment of the lift arms responsive solely to
the one or more lift cylinders;
an articulated knee portion having a first end pivotally
coupled to a distal end of each of the pair of lift arms of the main
lift arm portion and a second end spaced from the first end,
wherein the implement carrier is pivotally attached to the
articulated knee portion;
a knee actuator coupled to the main lift arm portion and
the articulated knee portion, and configured to adjust a bend
angle between the main lift arm portion and the articulated knee
portion independently of the one or more lift cylinders; and
wherein a length of the main lift arm portion is configured
to extend from the pivotal attachment proximate to the rear end
of the machine to the front end of the machine, and the articulated
knee portion is configured to extend from the main lift arm
portion at the bend angle proximate to the front end of the
machine.
2
Appeal2018-000085
Application 14/143,861
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, 15-17, 21, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Yamashita
(US 7,128,518 B2, iss. Oct. 31. 2006) and Holt
(US 2005/0169738 Al, pub. Aug. 4, 2005); and
II. Claims 8, 9, and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Yamashita, Holt, and Schoenmaker et al.
(US 2008/0263909 Al, pub. Oct. 30, 2008) (hereinafter
"Schoenmaker").
ANALYSIS
Reiection I
Based on our review of the record, including the Examiner's Non-
Final Office Action and Answer, and Appellant's Appeal Brief, for the
reasons discussed below, Appellant does not persuade us that the Examiner
errs in rejecting claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, 15-17, 21, and 22 as obvious based on
Yamashita and Holt. Thus, we sustain the rejection.
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites
A lift arm assembly for attachment to a power machine
having a frame, a cab mounted on the frame, . . . the lift arm
assembly comprising:
a main lift arm portion having a pair of lift arms each
having a proximal end pivotally attached to the frame proximate
to the rear end of the machine ... ;
an articulated knee portion having a first end pivotally
coupled to a distal end of each of the pair of lift arms of the main
lift arm portion and a second end spaced from the first end,
3
Appeal2018-000085
Application 14/143,861
wherein the implement carrier is pivotally attached to the
articulated knee portion; [ and]
a knee actuator coupled to the main lift arm portion and
the articulated knee portion, and configured to adjust a bend
angle between the main lift arm portion and the articulated knee
portion independently of the one or more lift cylinders.
Br. 23, Claims App. (emphases added). Regarding the rejection of
independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Yamashita discloses most of
the claimed features, but that Yamashita "does not disclose an independently
operable actuator connected between its main lift arms and knee portion"
that is coupled to an implement carrier, as claimed. Answer 2. The
Examiner finds, however, that "[i]t would have been obvious ... to
replace ... link (15) between ... fixed bracket (8) and knee portion (12) of
Yamashita with an independently operable actuator mounted between the
main arm and knee portion, as taught by Holt, in order to create a more
versatile lifting assembly that could assume a variety of bend angle
positions." Id. at 3.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection is in error because Holt
does not disclose (Br. 13-15) "a knee actuator coupled to the main lift arm
portion and the articulated knee portion" that is coupled to an implement
carrier, as recited in claim 1 (id. at Claims App.). We are not persuaded by
this argument, however. It is true that Holt does not disclose (using
claim 1 's nomenclature) a knee actuator coupled between a main lift arm
and an articulated knee portion that is coupled to an implement carrier.
Rather, Holt's hydraulic ram 90 (i.e., "knee actuator") is connected to dipper
boom 20, which does not correspond to the claimed main lift arm because
dipper boom 20 is not attached to convertible skid loader and excavator S's
4
Appeal2018-000085
Application 14/143,861
frame, although hydraulic ram 90 is connected to dipper boom extension 60
that is connected to excavator bucket 80 (i.e., "articulated knee portion").
See, e.g., Holt Fig. 1. Nonetheless, we agree with the Examiner that, based
on Holt's disclosure of hydraulic ram 90 between dipper boom 20 and
dipper boom extension 60, it would have been obvious to eliminate
Yamashita's rod 15 and use a hydraulic ram (i.e., "knee actuator") between
Yamashita's first arm 11 (i.e., "main lift arm") and second arm 12 that is
connected to bucket 10 (i.e., "articulated knee portion"). Answer 2-3. It is
well settled that "[ t ]he combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results." KSR Int 'l Co., v. Teleflex Co., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). In this
case, we are persuaded that the use of a hydraulic ram between Yamashita's
first arm 11 and second arm 12, based on Holt's disclosure of a hydraulic
ram between other arms, does no more than yield a predictable result. See
Answer2-3.
Appellant further argues that the rejection is in error because replacing
Yamashita's link 15 with Holt's hydraulic ram 90 would not result in the
configuration recited in claim 1, as "Yamashita shows that link ( 15) is
coupled between arm (12) and a bracket (8) of body (1), not between the
main lift arm (11) and arm (12)." Br. 15. We are unpersuaded by the
argument, however. As discussed above, the Examiner determines that it
would have been obvious to eliminate Yamashita's rod 15 and to use a
hydraulic ram (i.e., "knee actuator") between Yamashita's first arm 11 (i.e.,
"main lift arm") and second arm 12 that is connected to bucket 10 (i.e.,
"articulated knee portion"), based on Holt's disclosure of hydraulic ram 90
between dipper boom 20 and dipper boom extension 60, regardless of the
5
Appeal2018-000085
Application 14/143,861
fact that Holt's dipper boom 20 does not correspond to the claimed main lift
arm. Answer 2-3.
Still further, we are unpersuaded by Appellant's argument that no
reference discloses a hydraulic ram or actuator between a main lift arm that
is connected to a frame and a knee portion that is connected to an implement
carrier (i.e., between the two specific components recited in claim 1 ).
Br. 15-16. Rather, we agree that it would have been obvious to use a
hydraulic ram or actuator between Yamashita' s arms 11 and 12 based on
Holt's teaching (discussed supra).
We also are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that Yamashita's
arms 11 and 12 are actually part of the same main lift arm, as recited in
claim 1. Br. 16. Yamashita discloses that "pin 30 pivotally connect[ s] first
arm 11 and second arm 12 to each other." Yamashita col. 5, 11. 45--48
( emphases omitted). Appellant does not provide evidence or a line of
reasoning sufficient to persuade us that the Examiner errs in finding that
Yamashita' s arms 11 and 12 disclose the claimed main lift arm and
articulated knee portion, respectively, of the lift arm assembly, as recited in
claim 1.
Thus, based on the foregoing, Appellant does not persuade us that the
Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 as obvious based on Yamashita and Holt.
Therefore, we sustain claim 1 's rejection. We also sustain the rejection of
independent claim 10 that recites similar recitations as claim 1, and which
Appellant argues the Examiner erroneously rejects for similar reasons as
claim 1. Br. 19-21. Further, we sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 3-7, 11, 15-17, 21, and 22, which Appellant argues the Examiner
6
Appeal2018-000085
Application 14/143,861
erroneously rejects because no reference remedies deficiencies in the
independent claims' rejection.
Rei ection II
Appellant argues that the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 8, 9, and 12-14 is in error because Schoenmaker fails to
remedy deficiencies in the rejections of independent claims 1 and 10.
Br. 21. Because Appellant does not persuade us that there is any deficiency
in the rejection of the independent claims (discussed supra), however, we
sustain the rejection of claims 8, 9, and 12-14.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1, 3-
17, 21, and 22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7