Ex Parte Potticary et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2018

14337283 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/337,283 07/22/2014
113140 7590 08/01/2018
Bejin Bieneman PLC
Ford Global Technologies, LLC
2000 Town Center
Suite 800
Southfield, MI 48075
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Simon Potticary
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
83444431(65080-1259) 3371
EXAMINER
TIGHE, BRENDAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docket@b2iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SIMON POTTICARY, RICHARD CRAVEN,
JAMES NEUGEBAUER, BRUCE SOUTHEY,
JONATHAN MUNDY, JAMES LLOYD, and
ANDREW JOHN MURRAY
Appeal2017-009535
Application 14/337,283
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant 1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-19. Final Office Action (Sept. 6, 2016)
(hereinafter "Final Act."). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Ford Global Technologies, LLC ("Appellant") is the applicant, as provided
by 37 C.F.R. § 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br.
(Feb. 6, 2017) (hereinafter "Appeal Br."), at 3.
Appeal2017-009535
Application 14/337,283
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 8 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A lift assembly for a vehicle, the lift assembly comprising:
a bracket configured to be fixed to the vehicle;
a lift arm pivotally coupled to the bracket; and
a mating structure supported by the lift arm and configured
to lift a personal mobility device, the mating structure including
an electrical connector for electrically mating to an electrical
connector of the personal mobility device.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Panzarella (US 7,377,740 B2, issued May 27, 2008) and
Robaato (JP 08-308022 A, published Nov. 22, 1996).2
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Panzarella, Robaato, and Hoerdum (EP 217 6117 B 1, published Mar. 16,
2011).
ANALYSIS
Obviousness of claims 1-9 and 11-19
As for claim 1, the Examiner finds that Panzarella discloses a lift
assembly for a vehicle comprising a lift arm ( column 32) and a mating
structure (lifting strap 90 and lifting hook 92) supported by the lift arm and
configured to lift a personal mobility device. Final Act. 3 ( citing Panzarella,
2 The Examiner provides an English-language translation of Robaato.
2
Appeal2017-009535
Application 14/337,283
Fig. 20, col. 9, 11. 53-55); see also Panzarella, Figs. 1-2. The Examiner
acknowledges that Panzarella does not disclose that the mating structure
includes an electrical connector for electrically mating to an electrical
connector of the personal mobility device, as claimed. Id. The Examiner
relies on Robaato to disclose a storage assembly ( charging equipment 20)
comprising a lift arm ( charging arm 24) and a mating structure (grip part 28)
including an electrical connector (anode power supply terminal 29) for
electrically mating to an electrical connector (anode power receiving
terminal 21) of a personal mobility device. Id. at 3--4 ( citing Robaato, Fig.
3); see also Robaato, Figs. 1-2. The Examiner determines that it would
have been obvious to combine the lift assembly of Panzarella with the
storage assembly having means for electrically mating to a personal mobility
device, as taught by Robaato, to provide a personal mobility device lifting
mechanism capable of charging the personal mobility device being lifted.
Id. at 4.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's proposed modification of
Panzarella is premised on impermissible hindsight. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant
contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified
Panzarella in view of Robaato, as proposed by the Examiner. Id. In that
regard, Appellant acknowledges that Panzarella discloses a wheelchair (see
Figure 20), but submits that Panzarella does not mention hardware on the
wheelchair that would allow it to be charged, much less charging when the
wheelchair is engaged by the lifting device. Id. at 9.
3
Appeal2017-009535
Application 14/337,283
The Examiner responds that "Panzarella discloses a motorized
wheelchair[,] which [wheelchairs] are traditionally powered by rechargeable
battery packs and have connections utilized for the supply of electrical
power for charging said battery backs, this charging is typically
accomplished when the chairs are stored and not in use." Ans. 5.
Appellant's position is more persuasive. Panzarella discloses a lifting
device configured to lift a personal transportation vehicle, such as a
motorized wheelchair, and which can be used on a larger vehicle for
transporting the personal transportation vehicle. Panzarella, col. 1, 11. 13-17.
Panzarella does not appear to provide any disclosure regarding battery packs
associated with such motorized wheelchairs, let alone disclose charging such
battery packs. The rejection also fails to consider, or at least explain, how
such charging would be provided. Importantly, the rejection does not
explain where the power to effect recharging of a wheelchair battery would
be obtained in Panzarella. Although the lifting arm is described as being
powered by an electric motor, there is no mention as to where that electric
power is obtained ( e.g., vehicle battery, vehicle electrical system, or
dedicated battery), nor whether such a power source would be suitable for
providing power to recharge wheelchair batteries. That Robaato discloses a
particular form of charging station for a battery-assisted bicycle does not
suggest to the person of ordinary skill in the art that it would have been
obvious to outfit the lifting device of Panzarella with a mating structure
including an electrical connector to electrically connect to a wheelchair or
other device to be lifted. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner's rejection is premised on impermissible hindsight analysis.
4
Appeal2017-009535
Application 14/337,283
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or claims 2-7
depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Panzarella and Robaato. We
likewise do not sustain the rejection of claim 8, or of claims 9 and 11-19
depending therefrom, for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Obviousness of claim 10
The Examiner's reliance on Hoerdum in rejecting dependent claim 10
does not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of parent claim 8. Hence, we
do not sustain the rejection of claim 10 as unpatentable over Panzarella,
Robaato, and Hoerdum.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1-19.
REVERSED
5