Ex Parte Patterson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 19, 2014

11752325 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte FRANKIE PATTERSON
____________________

Appeal 2012-008496
Application 11/752,325
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JAMES P. CALVE, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5–7, 14–20, and 36–44. App. Br. 5. Claims 3, 4, 8–13, and 21–
35 are cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2012-008496
Application 11/752,325

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 36, and 41 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A loading ramp, said loading ramp comprising:
a support structure having a mounting member, said
mounting member being compatible with a truck having a bed
such that said support structure is adapted to be removably
mounted to the truck;
a first gradient member secured to said support structure,
said first gradient member defining a first surface, a proximate
end, and a distal end, the proximate end being opposite the
distal end with respect to the first surface, the proximate end
being proximate the bed of the truck when said support
structure is mounted to the truck, the first surface being
structured to support a small vehicle; and
a second gradient member secured to said first gradient
member at the distal end such that said second gradient member
pivots at the distal end to the extent that said second gradient
member is capable of an up position and a down position, said
second gradient member defining a second surface, the second
surface being structured to support the small vehicle;
said first gradient member and said second gradient
member defining a gradient between a ground surface and the
bed of the truck when said second gradient member is at the
down position and said support structure is mounted to the
truck, the gradient being traversed by the small vehicle,
said loading ramp being carried by the truck when said
second gradient member is at the up position and said support
structure is mounted to the truck, said first gradient member
supporting at least a portion of the small vehicle when said
second gradient member is in the up position and said loading
ramp and the small vehicle are carried by the truck, said loading
ramp not limiting the storage space provided by the truck when
said loading ramp is carried by the truck.

Appeal 2012-008496
Application 11/752,325

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 5–7, 19, 20, and 36–44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Blankenship (US 6,076,215; iss. June 20,
2000) and Moisio (WO 91/10578; pub. July 25, 1991).
Claims 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Blankenship, Moisio, and Huggins (US 2004/0219004
A1; pub. Nov. 4, 2004).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Blankenship, Moisio, and Henderson (US 6,634,848 B2; iss. Oct. 21, 2003).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Blankenship, Moisio, Huggins, and Reed (US 2003/0072641 A1; pub. Apr.
17, 2003).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 5–7, 19, 20, and 36–44 rejected over Blankenship and Moisio
The Examiner found that Blankenship discloses a loading ramp, as
recited in independent claims 1, 36, and 41, except a first gradient member
that supports at least a portion of a small vehicle when the second gradient is
in the up position. Ans. 5. The Examiner found that Moisio discloses a first
gradient member (fixed bed section 7) with a second gradient (loading ramp
2) and determined that it would have been obvious to modify Blankenship,
in view of Moisio, to lock the machinery being transported by the truck bed
as expressly stated in Moisio. Id. The Examiner proposed to exchange the
hinge 304 and ramp 120 of Blankenship for the hinge 6 of Moisio to allow
the ramp of Blankenship to perform the conditional functional limitation of
the first gradient member supporting a portion of the small vehicle when the
second gradient member is in the up position. Id. at 8.
Appeal 2012-008496
Application 11/752,325

4
Figure 3 of Blankenship and Figure 1 of Moisio are reproduced below.

Figure 3 of Blankenship shows the loading ramp in a retracted
position. Figure 1 (Kuvio 1) of Moisio shows a vehicle for transporting
forest machinery in a driving and transport position.
Appellant argues that Blankenship lacks a first gradient that supports
at least a small portion of a small vehicle when the second gradient member
is in the up position, as the Examiner conceded, and instead supports the
weight of a loaded small vehicle on the lowered tailgate 106. App. Br. 17.
Appellant also argues that Moisio lacks a first gradient member because the
feature relied upon by the Examiner is a fixed section 7 of a transporter bed
and does not slope to form a gradient or ramp between the ground level and
bed of the truck. Id. at 17–18. Appellant also contends that it would not
have been obvious to modify Blankenship to arrive at the claim language of
KUVIO 1
Appeal 2012-008496
Application 11/752,325

5
claim 1 because Blankenship aligns both sections of the support surface
vertically and parallel to one other in the retracted position shown in Figure
3 so that they do not support the weight of a small vehicle. Id. at 18.
Appellant further argues that Moisio has a single loading ramp 2 that pivots
on a hinge 6 and ramp 2 acts as the complete gradient.1 Id. at 19.
The Examiner has not established, by evidence or technical reasoning,
a sufficient factual basis to support a conclusion that a skilled artisan would
have had a reason to replace a hinge 304 of Blankenship with a hinge 6 of
Moisio to support a small vehicle when the second gradient member is in an
up position. Ans. 8. Blankenship does not disclose ramp sections 306, 308
supporting a vehicle when ramp sections 306, 308 are “up” or retracted, as
shown in Figure 3. Blankenship, col. 3, ll. 58–66; Fig. 3. A vehicle stored
on the truck bed 104 of Blankenship would appear to be supported, if at all,
by open tailgate 106. Id. at Fig. 3; see also App. Br. 22. Even if
Blankenship were modified as proposed by the Examiner (Ans. 8) by
substituting the hinge 6 of Moisio for the hinge 304 of Blankenship, the
Examiner also found that Blankenship lacks a first gradient that supports
part of a small vehicle. Ans. 5. Substituting a hinge 6 of Moisio for the
hinge 304 of Blankenship does not remedy this deficiency because
Blankenship stores ramps 306, 308 in a vertical position when the second
gradient (ramp 308) is in an “up” position. See Blankenship, Fig. 3.
Moreover, Moisio does not disclose a first gradient member, as recited in
claims 1, 36, and 41. App. Br. 17–18. Instead, Moisio discloses that
element 7 is a fixed section 7 at the rear end of the transporter bed to which a

1 Appellant makes similar arguments for independent claims 36 and 41. See
App. Br. 22–26 and 27–29.
Appeal 2012-008496
Application 11/752,325

6
rotating platform 2 is attached pivotally. Moisio, p. 4, ll. 25–30; p. 5, ll. 13–
22; Figs. 1, 2. Therefore, Moisio does not provide a teaching of a first
gradient that supports a vehicle and also defines a gradient between a ground
surface and a bed of a truck. As such, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5–7, 19, 20, and 36–44.
Claims 14, 15, and 17 rejected over Blankenship, Moisio, and Huggins
The Examiner relied on Huggins to disclose features recited in claims
14, 15, and 17, and not to overcome deficiencies of Blankenship or Moisio
as to claim 1, from which claims 14, 15, and 17 depend. See Ans. 7. We do
not sustain the rejection of claims 14, 15, and 17.
Claim 18 rejected over Blankenship, Moisio, and Henderson
The Examiner relied on Henderson to disclose features recited in
claim 18 and not to overcome deficiencies of Blankenship or Moisio as to
claim 1, from which claim 18 depends. See Ans. 7. As such, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 18.
Claim 16 rejected over Blankenship, Moisio, Huggins, and Reed
The Examiner relied on Reed to disclose features recited in claim 16
and not to overcome deficiencies of Blankenship or Moisio as to claim 1,
from which claim 16 depends. See Ans. 8. As such, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 16.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1, 2, 5–7, 14–20, and 36–44.

REVERSED

Klh