Ex Parte Wieth et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 18, 2013

10581102 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte FRANZ WIETH and HORST SONNENDORFER
____________________

Appeal 2011-007499
Application 10/581,102
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: LINDA E. HORNER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
BARRY L. GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-007499
Application 10/581,102
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1
and 4-6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse the decision of the Examiner.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to an anti-theft device for a
“transport car,” such as a shopping cart. Spec., paras. [0003], [0010]. Claim
1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claimed subject matter
and is reproduced below:
1. A transport cart with front and rear rollers, all of which
can be steered, comprising: an anti-theft protection that can be
activated automatically as soon as the transport cart is located
outside of a permissible area, the anti-theft protection includes
at least one of the front rollers (4) and at least one of the rear
rollers (7) being fixable in predetermined steering positions
corresponding to a blocking angle, and upon activation, the
anti-theft protection automatically moves the rollers into the
steering position corresponding to the blocking angle.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Goldstein
Schweninger
Prather
US 4,772,880
US 6,102,414
US 6,271,755 B1
Sep. 20, 1988
Aug. 15, 2000
Aug. 7, 2001

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 4, and 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Goldstein and Prather (Ans. 3); and
Appeal 2011-007499
Application 10/581,102
3
2. Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Goldstein, Prather, and Schweninger. Ans. 4.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that Goldstein discloses a transport cart with an
anti-theft protection system that can be activated automatically as soon as
the transport cart is located outside of a permissible area. Ans. 3.1 The
Examiner also found that Goldstein discloses that the anti-theft system
“automatically moves the rollers into the steering position corresponding to
the blocking angle,” citing column 2, lines 5-9 for support for this finding.
Ans. 3. Additionally, the Examiner found that the pressure exerted on the
wheels by the arms “urges the wheel toward a predetermined blocking
position,” citing column 3, lines 1-15 for support. Id.; see also id. at 5
(“Once lowered, the arms (36 and 38) act on the rollers and urge the rollers
to move toward the steering position corresponding to the blocking angle”)
(emphasis added).
Appellants argue that the arms 36 and 38 in Goldstein do not
automatically move the wheels to the blocking position. App. Br. 6, 7.
An examiner’s factual finding regarding what a reference discloses
must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Caveney, 761
F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“preponderance of the evidence is the
standard that must be met by the PTO in making rejections”).
Claim 1 recites that the anti-theft protection system “automatically
moves the rollers” into their angled position. Goldstein’s disclosure is not
clear as to whether the arms move the roller or wheel into the angled,

1 Goldstein discloses that the system includes arms (reference numerals 36
and 38) that are lowered into a position in which they interfere with the
direct forward and reverse travel of a wheel of the cart. Goldstein, col. 2,
ll. 65-68.
Appeal 2011-007499
Application 10/581,102
4
blocking position, as called for in claim 1, or whether the arms merely fall
into their blocking position once the wheel is already angled by some other
external force.
Goldstein states that a mechanical arrangement is provided to disable
the cart by “causing at least one of its wheels to turn to an angle” such that
the cart must be driven in a circle. Col. 2, ll. 5-9. However, as argued by
Appellants, Goldstein also discloses that the arms when first lowered may
ride upon the wheel until the wheel moves off a directly forward and
backward line, i.e., is turned, at which point the arms are fully lowered to
maintain the wheel in its angled position. App. Br. 6-7 (citing Goldstein,
col. 3, ll. 1-7). This suggests that that the arms do not move the rollers or
wheels as called for in claim 1. Goldstein also describes that the arms
“drop” into position (col. 3, l. 5; col. 4, l. 30; col. 5, l. 12) “in the path of”
the wheel (e.g., col. 4, l. 55-59), which is not a disclosure that Goldstein’s
anti-theft protection “moves the roller into the steering position
corresponding to the blocking angle.” Goldstein further states that the arms
36 and 38 merely move upward or downward into or out of the path of the
wheel (col. 4, l. 66 – col. 5, l. 10).
Based on the portions of Goldstein discussed above, we find
insufficient evidence to support the Examiner’s finding that Goldstein
discloses that pressure exerted on the wheel by the arms “urges the wheel
toward a predetermined blocking position.” Ans. 3. The Examiner points to
no clear disclosure that Goldstein’s anti-theft system moves the wheel into
an angled, blocking position. Thus, the Examiner’s factual finding that
Goldstein’s arms move the wheel into an angled position is not supported by
a preponderance of the evidence.
Appeal 2011-007499
Application 10/581,102
5
The other references cited by the Examiner neither address nor cure
the deficiencies in Goldstein.
Claims 4-6 depend from claim 1 and thus include all its limitations.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1
and 4-6.

DECISION
Upon consideration of the record as a whole in light of Appellants’
contentions and the preponderance of relevant evidence, we reverse the
decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 and 4-6.

REVERSED

mls