Ex Parte Petronek

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2018

12543279 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/543,279 08/18/2009 David W. Petronek 0041.0315-0001 7015
152 7590 02/14/2018
CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP
111 SW Columbia Street
Suite 725
PORTLAND, OR 97201
EXAMINER
MANSEN, MICHAEL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/14/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID W. PETRONEK
Appeal 2016-001071
Application 12/543,279
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
David W. Petronek (Appellant)1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the decision rejecting claims 1, 3, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jordan2 and Chase.3 Final Action 2—5 (mailed June
17, 2014); Appeal Brief 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appellant’s counsel presented oral arguments via telephone on
January 10, 2018.
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies “Cascade Corporation” as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief 2 (filed Mar. 17, 2015). Claim 2 is canceled. Id. at 3.
2 Jordan et al., US 6,454,511 Bl, issued Sept. 24, 2002.
3 Chase, US 2006/0073001 Al, published Apr. 6, 2006.
Appeal 2016-001071
Application 12/543,279
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Appellant’s claimed invention “relates generally to hydraulic valve
circuits for use with material handling equipment and, more particularly, to
hydraulic valve circuits adapted for weight-responsive control of clamping
members associated with material handling equipment having free lift
masts.” Spec. 12. Claims 1 and 3 are the only independent claims on
appeal. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal and recites:
1. A hydraulic valve circuit adapted for sensing a weight
magnitude of a load supported by at least one load-engaging
member that moveably translates along an elongate,
longitudinally-extensible mast of a lifting device, said mast
operatively engaged with a fluid power lifting actuator whose
fluid pressure is variably dependent on said weight magnitude
and also variably dependent on different longitudinally-
extensible positions of said mast, said hydraulic valve circuit
comprising at least one fluid valve assembly hydraulically
interconnectable with said fluid power lifting actuator and
capable of hydraulically and automatically sensing said
weight magnitude from said fluid pressure such that the
sensed said weight magnitude is not variably dependent on
said different longitudinally-extensible positions of said mast.
Appeal Brief 14, Claims App. (emphasis added).
ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Jordan and Chase
Independent claim 1 and dependent claim 4
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Brief 6—13;
Reply Brief 5—12 (filed Nov. 2, 2015)) that the Examiner erred in rejecting
2
Appeal 2016-001071
Application 12/543,279
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because neither Jordan nor Chase discloses
a fluid power lifting actuator “capable of hydraulically and automatically
sensing said weight magnitude . . . such that the sensed said weight
magnitude is not variably dependent on said different longitudinally-
extensible positions of said mast,” as required by independent claim 1.
Appeal Brief, Claims App.
Claim 1 “defines two separate and distinct movements of the load
engaging member — one movement that translates along a mast, and a
different movement as the mast itself extends longitudinally, i.e.,
telescopes.” Reply Brief 5. The first movement “defines a fluid actuator as
being variably dependent on a weight magnitude and on different
longitudinally-extensible positions of a mast,” whereas, the second
movement “defines sensing ‘hydraulically and automatically’ from that very
same pressure a weight magnitude that is not dependent on different
longitudinally extensible positions of the mast.” Id. at 6. Appellant
describes “different longitudinally-extensible positions of said mast” as the
mast telescoping to either free lift or main lift. Oral Hearing Transcript 10
(heard Jan. 10, 2018) (“When we’re saying different longitudinally
extensible positions of the mast, we are meaning either free lift or main
lift.”); see also Appeal Brief 7. As such, the second movement of claim 1
requires that the sensed weight magnitude is not variably dependent on the
mast position being in free lift or main lift.
Jordan is directed to “[a] fluid power load-clamping system
including] at least one fluid valve for variably regulating the maximum
fluid pressure causing closure of the clamp.” Jordan, Abstract. Jordan
3
Appeal 2016-001071
Application 12/543,279
discloses an electrical controller 70 connected to a pressure sensor 92 on a
hydraulic line 88 that provides lifting pressure to a roll clamp. Id. at 5:23—
33; see also id. Fig. 3. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner cites column 6,
lines 13—39, and Figure 4B of Jordan as disclosing the disputed limitation
identified above. Final Act. 2—3 (“Jordan et al disclose their fluid valve
assembly including a controller (70) that records set values associated with
unloaded, ‘lower’ freelift and ‘higher’, mainlift operations . . . whereby the
pressure sensed by their sensor (92) is indicative of a weight magnitude and
either a pressure associated with ‘freelift’ or ‘mainlift’”). There, Jordan
discloses that “[t]he accuracy of the load-weight measurement is enhanced
by compensating for variations in extension of the mast 11 which vary the
pressure reading of the sensor 92”; the magnitude of the weight sensed by
the controller 70, through the sensor 92, has “variations [that] result from
multiple causes, such as . . . the fact that telescopic sections of the mast 11
may or may not be supported by the hoist cylinder or cylinders 90,
depending upon whether the mast is in its lower ‘freelift ’ range of extension
or in its higher ‘mainlift’ range of extension.'1'’ Jordan 6:14—23 (emphasis
added). “[T]he controller [of Jordan] senses . . . whether a mechanical
switch 219, responsive to the degree of extension of the mast 11, is closed.
If the switch is closed, the controller 70 determines . . . that the mast is in its
lower, or freelift, range of extension; otherwise the controller determines
that the mast is in its higher, or mainlift, range of extension.” Id. at 6:67—
7:6; see also id. Fig. 4C (step 218). The controller 70 is also initialized to
calibrate the load-weighting system with respect to such variables by storing
4
Appeal 2016-001071
Application 12/543,279
in tables and reading pressures sensed by the sensor 92 in both the freelift
and mainlift ranges of extension of the mast. Id. at 6:25—52.
As a result, Jordan’s initialized controller 70 in collaboration with the
switch 219 calculates a load weight based upon the pressure in line 88, such
that the weight magnitude sensed from the fluid pressure using the pressure
sensor 92 is dependent on whether the mast is in one longitudinally
extensible position or another (i.e., freelift or mainlift). In other words, to
accurately determine the pressure, controller 70 of Jordan receives an
electrical signal from the switch 219 to determine whether the mast 11 is in a
freelift or mainlift position before referencing the correct table to calculate
the weight of the load. In contrast to the disputed claim language, Jordan is
variably dependent on different longitudinally-extensible positions of the
mast, i.e., dependent on whether the mast is in freelift or mainlift.
Therefore, Jordan fails to disclose “sensing said weight magnitude from said
fluid pressure such that the sensed said weight magnitude is not variably
dependent on said different longitudinally-extensible positions of said mast,”
(Appeal Brief, Claims App. (emphasis added)), because Jordan senses the
weight magnitude based on the pressure in line 88 but Jordan varies the
weight magnitude that is sensed based on line pressure depending on at least
two different longitudinally-extensible positions of the mast.
The Examiner additionally finds that Chase discloses this disputed
limitation of claim 1 (Answer 6—7 (mailed Sept. 1, 2015)), but we agree with
Appellant that Chase also fails to remedy this deficiency. According to
Appellant, Chase “discloses a hydraulic cylinder 5 having a pressure
proportional to the weight of a load grasped after the cylinder lifts the
5
Appeal 2016-001071
Application 12/543,279
secondary carriage a fixed two inches relative to frame weldment 1, which in
turn is connected to a carriage that slides along a mast of a lift truck.”
Appeal Brief 8—9. The Examiner asserts that “[tjhough Appellant’s review
of Chase, again, is generally correct, Chase nonetheless teaches ‘... a
hydraulic cylinder 5 having a pressure proportional to the weight of a load ...
which ... is connected to a carriage that slides along a mast of a lift truck’.”
Answer 6. But “cylinder 5 [in Chase] has a piston rigidly affixed to the
frame weldment 1 and the rod affixed to the sliding ‘front carriage 2’ which
again is not the carriage that slides along a mast in a free lift stage.” Reply
Brief 9 (citing Chase, Figs. 1 and 2). Thus, Chase’s hydraulic cylinder 5 is
not used to raise and lower the carriage of the lift truck along a free lift or
main lift stage, and, thus, Chase fails to disclose a longitudinally extensible
mast of a lifting device that has different longitudinally extensible positions,
as required by claim 1. See Chase, Fig. 2.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1.
For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 4 dependent
thereon.
Independent claim 3
We reach the same conclusion as to independent claim 3 because it
recites a substantially similar limitation as claim 1. For the same reasons
discussed above with respect to claim 1, neither Jordan nor Chase are
“capable of automatically converting said fluid pressure to a pressure that is
variably dependent on said weight magnitude but independent of said
longitudinally-extensible position of said lifting device,” as recited in claim
6
Appeal 2016-001071
Application 12/543,279
3. Appeal Brief, Claims App. (emphasis added). As such, we also do not
sustain the rejection of independent claim 3.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1,3, and 4 is reversed.
REVERSED
7