Ex Parte Munn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2014

12482097 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DAVID A. MUNN and BRIAN T. WALTERS
____________________

Appeal 2012-001433
Application 12/482,097
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JAMES P. CALVE, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1–
20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The claims are directed to an adjustable vehicle support stand. Claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An adjustable vehicle support stand, comprising:
a base;
a lower collar secured to the base;
a rod threadably engaged with the lower collar;
an upper collar threadably engaged with the rod; and
Appeal 2012-001433
Application 12/482,097

2

a plate secured to the upper collar and extending
upwardly from the upper collar, the plate being configured for
attachment to a wheel hub of a vehicle; wherein
the rod comprises a lower portion, an upper portion and a
torquing portion separating the lower portion and the upper
portion, the torquing portion being configured to facilitate
rotation of the rod;
the lower portion of the rod is threadably engaged with
the lower collar and the upper portion of the rod is threadably
engaged with the upper collar:
one of the lower portion of the rod and the upper portion
of the rod comprises a plurality of left-hand external threads,
the other of the lower portion of the rod and the upper portion
of the rod comprising a plurality of right-hand external threads;
and
the plate is vertically movable relative to the base in
response to rotation of the rod.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Chopin
Caloger
Bernard
US 1,384,236
US 2004/0026672 A1
US 6,764,083 B2
July 12, 1921
Feb. 12, 2004
July 20, 2004

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 5–7, 9–15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Bernard and Chopin. Ans. 5.
Claims 3, 4, 8, 16, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bernard, Chopin, and Caloger. Ans. 7.

Appeal 2012-001433
Application 12/482,097

3

OPINION
Appellants argue the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5–7, 9–15, 19, and 20 as
a group, from which we select claim 1 as representative. App. Br. 10–23; 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellants argue the rejection of claims 3, 4, 8,
16, 17, and 18 solely based on dependency. Id. at 23–24.
Appellants raise two issues in this appeal: First, that Chopin and
Bernard are non-analogous art (App. Br. 16–19), and second, that there
would have been no motivation to modify Bernard as proposed by the
Examiner (Id. at 19–22).
Appellants and the Examiner appear to agree that
the purposes of both the invention and the prior art are
important in determining whether the reference is reasonably
pertinent to the problem the invention attempts to solve. If a
reference disclosure has the same purpose as the claimed
invention, the reference relates to the same problem, and that
fact supports use of that reference in an obviousness rejection.
In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). How to define these
purposes is where the Examiner and Appellants disagree. Appellants
contend that “neither Bernard nor Chopin are concerned with [the problem
of] facilitating the measurement of various features of front and/or rear
suspension systems of a vehicle.” App. Br. 16. The Examiner, on the other
hand points out, that both references are ultimately related to supports, and
claim 1 contains no language relating to suspension measurement. Ans. 8–9.
“[T]he claimed invention” is pertinent to the factual question of
analogousness. Clay, 966 F.2d at 658–59. The Examiner’s finding of
analogousness is consistent with the scope of claim 1, which is directed to
“[a]n adjustable vehicle support stand,” and the technical field defined by
Appellants’ Specification: “The invention relates generally to a support
Appeal 2012-001433
Application 12/482,097

4

stand, and more particularly to an adjustable vehicle support stand.” Spec.
para. 1. Appellants acknowledge that their “effort [was] to develop an
adjustable vehicle support stand.” App. Br. 16. There is no evidence before
us that any specific requirements for such a stand would flow from merely
indicating their intent to use the stand that they developed “to facilitate
measurement of various features of front and/or rear suspensions of
vehicles.” Id. Thus, we are not apprised of any reason why the scope and
content of the prior art should be very narrowly restricted to include only
those stands used to make vehicle suspension measurements. One skilled in
the art would recognize that stands can often support more than a specific
item that they were intended to support, and that the purpose of supporting
those items will seldom influence the structure and use of the stand itself.
“In other words, ‘familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their
primary purposes.’” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374,
1380 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc. 550 U.S. 398, 420
(2007)). We agree with the Examiner that both Bernard’s vehicle support
stand and Chopin’s adjustable support would have been relevant to an
inventor concerned with “develop[ing] an adjustable vehicle support stand.”
Appellants’ argument concerning a lack of motivation to modify
Bernard in the manner claimed stems from the allegation that “it would not
appear to enhance the ability to store items such as bicycles, plants, cots,
etc., within the respective utility vehicle.” App. Br. 19. First, we cannot
agree with the assertion that no benefit would be derived from the ability to
vary storage height, because different people, and different items, may
benefit from different storage heights. Second, Appellants’ allegation in this
regard does not address the Examiner’s position, because the Examiner
Appeal 2012-001433
Application 12/482,097

5

proposed adjustability to facilitate access to the vehicles’ components, and
not for facilitating storage. The stated reason to combine the references need
not be same as the expressly stated goals of those references. KSR, 550 U.S.
at 419. As the Examiner points out “one of ordinary skill in the art the art
would recognize the desirability of having a vertically adjustable stand when
doing any work on a vehicle, especially work under the vehicle” (Ans. 9–
10), regardless of whether Bernard expressly suggests putting the vehicle on
the stand before (Figure 9) or after (App. Br. 21) removing its operative
components. “[A] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh