10908093 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 25, 2012)

Ex Parte Mayhew

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 25, 2012

10908093 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte ALLAN J. MAYHEW ____________________ Appeal 2010-000387 Application 10/908,093 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEVEN D.A. MCCARTHY, and WILLIAM V. SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-000387 Application 10/908,093 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Allan J. Mayhew (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8 and 16-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to a pillow for placement on a wheel lift of a tow vehicle and to a method of towing a vehicle using such a pillow. Spec. paras. 5, 6. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A pillow for towing a vehicle in combination with a wheel lift, comprising: a wheel lift of a tow vehicle, the wheel lift having a boom extending from the tow vehicle and a cross-bar extending laterally from the boom and forming a T junction with the boom; a bladder having a top, a bottom, and sides; a valve attached to the bladder for inflating and deflating the bladder; and the bottom of the bladder having a wheel lift conforming attachment configured to fit on and secure the bladder to the wheel lift, the bladder being detachably secured on top of the cross-bar of the wheel lift at the T junction by the wheel lift conforming attachment. THE PRIOR ART Hobbs DeMichele Massey US 3,762,585 US 5,013,209 US 5,802,651 Oct. 2, 1973 May 7, 1991 Sep. 8, 1998 Appeal 2010-000387 Application 10/908,093 3 Staczek Fletcher US 5,934,414 US 6,834,404 B2 Aug. 10, 1999 Dec. 28, 2004 Abrahamson Main US 2004/0217338 A1 US 2006/0027276 A1 Nov. 4, 2004 Feb. 9, 2006 THE REJECTIONS The following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are before us for review: (1) Claims 1, 2, and 19 stand rejected as unpatentable over DeMichele, Hobbs, and Abrahamson. (2) Claims 16-18 stand rejected as unpatentable over DeMichele and Hobbs. (3) Claim 3 stands rejected as unpatentable over DeMichele, Hobbs, Abrahamson, and Staczek. (4) Claim 4 stands rejected as unpatentable over DeMichele, Hobbs, Abrahamson, and Fletcher. (5) Claims 5-7 stand rejected as unpatentable over DeMichele, Hobbs, Abrahamson, and Main. (6) Claim 8 is rejected as unpatentable over DeMichele, Hobbs, Abrahamson, and Massey. OPINION Each of Appellant’s independent claims 1 and 16 requires the bladder (resilient pillow) to be secured on top of the cross-bar at the T junction formed by the wheel lift boom extending from the tow vehicle and the cross- bar extending laterally from the boom. Appellant argues that the references relied upon by the Examiner would not render obvious, either alone or in Appeal 2010-000387 Application 10/908,093 4 combination, such placement of the resilient pillow or bladder. App. Br. 12, 18, 19, 20, 21. DeMichele discloses placement of a pair of inflatable bags 79 on arms 74 extending rearward from the crossbar 76 of a towing dolly at positions spaced laterally outward from the T junction formed with the wheel lift boom (carriage 36 and rail 30) so as to lie beneath the towed vehicle axle near the towed vehicle wheels to raise the towed vehicle upon selective inflation of the bags to adjust the vehicle position relative to the wheel engaging arms 83, 84. DeMichele, col. 5, ll. 48-56; fig. 10. This feature is particularly helpful, for example, when the vehicle to be towed has two flat tires, thereby potentially making it difficult “to close the arms 83, 84 to a position where the vehicle may be safely lifted and towed solely by support of the tires.” DeMichele, col. 5, ll. 56-60. Hobbs uses a different technique for towing a vehicle than that of DeMichele. Specifically, Hobbs provides two movable posts 48, 60 topped with rubberoid pads 54 on a trackway 38 of a crossbar (beam 36) so that the posts and pads can be properly positioned to engage opposite frame members 31 of the vehicle to be towed. Hobbs, col. 2, ll. 54-61; col. 3, ll. 1- 3, 13-20. Hobbs, like DeMichele, does not position the posts (or the rubberoid pads atop thereof) at the T junction, because that would not correspond to a desired load-bearing location. Hobbs, col. 1, ll. 26-41. We agree with Appellant that a person of ordinary skill in the art considering the teachings of DeMichele and Hobbs would not have been prompted to position a pillow or cushion on the cross-bar at the T junction formed by the boom and the cross-bar as called for in claims 1 and 16, because neither the load-bearing members (portions of axle adjacent to the Appeal 2010-000387 Application 10/908,093 5 wheels) targeted by DeMichele nor the load-bearing members (opposite frame members) targeted by Hobbs are located at the T junction. See App. Br. 12, ll. 16-22; 14, l. 11 to 15, l. 5; 17, ll. 8-21. Abrahamson is directed to a device for leveling a recreational vehicle comprising selectively inflatable pressure enclosures, each including an air valve for supplying air to and releasing air from the enclosure, for positioning under tires of the recreational vehicle to facilitate raising and lowering the tire of the recreational vehicle. Paras. 11, 22. The Examiner relies on Abrahamson only for its teaching of a valve on an air bladder for selectively raising or lowering the vehicle, and not for any teaching directed to the placement of a bladder or resilient pillow on a wheel lift of a vehicle towing apparatus. Ans. 4. Accordingly, Abrahamson does not remedy the deficiency in the combination of DeMichele and Hobbs. The Examiner does not rely on Staczek, Fletcher, Main, or Massey for any teaching that would cure the deficiency in the combination of DeMichele, Hobbs, and Abrahamson. See Ans. 6-8. In summary, we agree with Appellant that the references relied upon by the Examiner would not render obvious, either alone or in combination, the placement of the resilient pillow or bladder called for in claims 1 and 16. Thus, we reverse all of the rejections of the Examiner. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED Appeal 2010-000387 Application 10/908,093 6 hh