Ex parte LOUK et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 23, 1998

08229804 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 23, 1998)

Application for patent filed April 19, 1994.1
1
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not binding precedent of the Board.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. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte JOHN M. LOUK, ALEX BREWER and RONNIE J. FULLER
_____________
Appeal No. 96-1337
Application 08/229,8041
______________
HEARD: June 11, 1998
_______________
Before CALVERT, COHEN and ABRAMS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
COHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1,
2, and 4 through 20. These claims constitute all of the
claims remaining in the application.
Appeal No. 96-1337
Application 08/229,804
2
Appellants’ invention pertains to a convertible tree
stand platform for rifle and bow-hunting. An understanding of
the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim
1, a copy of which appears in “Appendix A” of the brief (Paper
No. 8).
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied the
documents listed below:
Gibson et al. 4,726,447 Feb. 12,
1988
(Gibson)
Jamieson 5,052,516 Oct. 01,
1991
Louk et al. 5,234,076 Aug. 10,
1993
(Louk)
The following rejection is the sole rejection before us
for review.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 through 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Louk in view of either
Jamieson or Gibson.
The full text of the examiner's rejection and response to
Appeal No. 96-1337
Application 08/229,804
A supplement to the brief (Paper No. 14) was filed, pursuant to an2
order for compliance (Paper No. 13), to provide information omitted from the
brief.
We note that while claim 1, line 3 and dependent claims (e.g., claims3
2 and 8) recite a “main frame”, lines 10 and 14 of claim 1 set forth a “main
frame member”. This inconsistency should be remedied during any further
prosecution before the examiner.
In our evaluation of the applied patents, we have considered all of4
the disclosure thereof for what it would have fairly taught one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA
1966). Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into account not only
the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one skilled in the art
would reasonably have been expected to draw from the disclosure. See In re
Preda 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
3
the argument presented by appellants appears in the answer
(Paper
No. 9), while the complete statement of appellants’ argument
can be found in the brief (Paper No. 8).2

OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellants’ specification and claims, the applied3
patents, and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the4
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
Appeal No. 96-1337
Application 08/229,804
4
We reverse the examiner's rejection of appellants’ claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
At the outset, we focus upon the content of independent
claim 1. The claimed tree stand platform is specified as
being “convertible”. As further set forth in the claim, the
rear portion of the main frame is disposed at an angle, with
respect to main frame sides defining a reference plane, so as
to extend in a plane different from the reference plane.
First and second members are “pivotally coupled” to the main
frame so as to be moved through the reference plane. A
flexible connector secured to the main frame and engaged with
the first and second members holds the platform to a tree.
The claimed “convertible” tree stand platform is constructed
and arranged to be mounted in (1) a “bow-hunting position"
wherein the rear end portion is disposed below the reference
plane and the first and second members are disposed above the
reference plane and in (2) "a rifle-hunting position" wherein
the rear end portion and first and second members are disposed
above the reference plane.
Turning now to the prior art applied by the examiner, we
Appeal No. 96-1337
Application 08/229,804
5
find that none of the art addresses a “convertible” tree stand
platform. More particularly, the Louk patent teaches a
hunter’s tree stand characterized by an upper, seating
platform (Figure 1) and a lower, standing platform (Figure 2).
Padding 14 on base 12 (rear end portion) of the upper, seating
platform serves to protect the a user’s knees when moving from
an outward facing position (column 2, lines 46 through 49).
The patent instructs those versed in the art that pivotally
mounted folding side supports move between an in use
perpendicular orientation and a storage or travel folded
position flat against frame 6 (Figure 5; column 3, lines 11
through 23). Jamieson addresses a deer stand including a
chair assembly 22 and a footrest 24 (Figure 1), while Gibson
teaches a tree climbing support comprising a body support 2
and a foot support 23 (Figure 1). The body support of Gibson
includes a back rest 8 which is selectively pivotable (Figure
5) into a non-functional or carrying position (Figure 3) and
an upstanding functional position (Figure 1).
From our perspective, a combined consideration of the
aforementioned prior art teachings, at best, would have been
Appeal No. 96-1337
Application 08/229,804
6
suggestive to one having ordinary skill in the art of altering
the rear portion of the upper, seating platform of Louk to
include a back support. However, this modified tree stand
would not be the “convertible” tree stand now claimed.
Setting aside what appellants have informed us of in the
present application, it is clear to us that the Louk patent
simply offers no motivation or instruction to those of
ordinary skill in the art to pivotally couple the first and
second members to the main frame so that the members can be
moved through the reference plane defined by sides of the main
frame, as now claimed, to effect a tree stand or platform that
is “convertible” and
structurally capable of being held to a tree in alternative
bow-hunting and rifle-hunting positions. Since the evidence
of obviousness before us fails to suggest the claimed
invention, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 must be
reversed.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
Appeal No. 96-1337
Application 08/229,804
7
REVERSED

)
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-1337
Application 08/229,804
8
Cushman, Darby and Cushman
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
Ninth Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3918