JOHN GILBERT

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 22, 2021

2021003366 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2021)

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.
15/433,328 02/15/2017 JOHN S. GILBERT 309567-00008 2734
3705 7590 12/22/2021
ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT LLC
U.S. Steel Tower
600 Grant Street, 44th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
EXAMINER
MCGOWAN, JAMIE LOUISE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3671
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/22/2021 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):
ipmail@eckertseamans.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOHN S. GILBERT
____________

Appeal 2021-003366
Application 15/433,328
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1–20, and 22.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
2 The rejections of claim 23 have been obviated by Appellant cancelling the
claim. 37 C.F.R. § 116(b)(1); Amendment dated Aug. 26, 2020.
Appeal 2021-003366
Application 15/433,328
2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to snow removal vehicles. Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A snow carrier device, adapted to be mounted on a
transport vehicle chassis, for compacting and transporting
snow, said carrier device comprising, in combination:
(a) a uniform, unitary rectangular box-shaped structure
having a central longitudinal axis, said box-shaped structure
having an opening at the top for receiving snow and having a
floor panel, two opposite sidewall panels, a front panel and a
rear panel, wherein the rear panel comprises a rear gate which,
when the rear gate is open, is structured to permit the snow
contents of the structure to be extruded through the rear gate,
and when the rear gate is closed, is further structured to permit
the snow contents of the structure to be compressed against the
rear gate,
(b) a compactor plate, disposed substantially vertically in
the box-shaped structure, for pushing snow inside the box-
shaped structure toward the rear panel; and
(c) means for moving the compactor plate, while
maintaining its substantially vertical orientation, from a point
adjacent the front panel of the box-shaped structure toward the
rear panel thereof and back again, said moving means
including:
(1) at least one elongate screw rod adapted for
installation in the box-shaped structure, extending parallel
to said central longitudinal axis and transverse to the
compactor plate, said screw rod having an external screw
thread that mates with the internal screw thread in the rod
bearing on the compactor plate; and
(2) at least one drive mechanism, mechanically
connected to selectively rotate said at least one screw rod
either clockwise or counter-clockwise and thereby cause
said compactor plate to move back and forth within the box-
shaped structure in the direction of the central longitudinal
axis;
Appeal 2021-003366
Application 15/433,328
3
thereby to repeatedly compact snow that enters through an
open top of the box-shaped structure until the structure is
sufficiently loaded with snow and thereafter, after opening the
rear gate, to extrude the compacted snow out the rear of the
box-shaped structure.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
NAME REFERENCE DATE
Richardson US 3,796,147 Mar. 12, 1974
Huggins US 4,078,677 Mar. 14, 1978
Ghibaudo US 4,552,500 Nov. 12, 1985
Ghibaudo ’291 US 6,007,291 Dec. 28, 1999
Johnson US 7,063,495 Bl June 20, 2006
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 10, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
unpatentable over Johnson and Ghibaudo.
2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Johnson, Ghibaudo, and Huggins.
3. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Johnson, Ghibaudo, and Ghibaudo ’291.
4. Claims 11, 12, 14–17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Johnson, Ghibaudo, and Richardson.
5. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Johnson, Ghibaudo, Richardson, and Huggins.
6. Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Johnson, Ghibaudo, Richardson, and Ghibaudo ’291.

Appeal 2021-003366
Application 15/433,328
4
OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 10, and 22
over Johnson and Ghibaudo
Appellant argues claim 1, but does not separately argue for the
patentability of claims 2, 4–7, 9, 10, and 22 that depend therefrom. Appeal
Br. 6–10. Claims 2, 4–7, 9, 10, and 22 will fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Johnson discloses the invention substantially
as claimed except for using a screw rod mechanism to drive the compactor
plate, for which the Examiner relies on Ghibaudo. Final Act. 3–4. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute Johnson’s
hydraulic ram mechanism for Ghibaudo’s screw mechanism to drive the
compactor plate. Id. at 4. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have done this as a simple substitution of one known
element for another to obtain a predictable result. Id.
Appellant argues that Johnson and Ghibaudo are not analogous art to
the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant argues that neither reference
teaches, suggests, or motivates one of ordinary skill to collect, compact, and
extrude snow. Id.
A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination
when it is analogous to the claimed invention. Innovention Toys, LLC. v.
MGA Entertainment, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Two
separate tests define the scope of analogous art: (1) whether the art is from
the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if
the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the
Appeal 2021-003366
Application 15/433,328
5
reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The “field of endeavor” test asks if the structure and function of the prior art
is “such that it would be considered by a person of ordinary skill in the art
because of similarity to the structure and function of the claimed invention
as disclosed in the application.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325–26. A reference is
“reasonably pertinent” if it is one which, because of the matter with which it
deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in
considering his problem.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
“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.” Id.
Appellant never articulates what it considers to be the applicable
“field of endeavor.” See generally Appeal Br. However, we can deduce
from the arguments made by Appellant that it considers technology related
to snow removal equipment is from a different field of endeavor from that of
waste removal equipment. Appellant never really explains why it believes
this to be the case other than perhaps because snow has a higher water
content than other forms of waste. Id. Moreover, Appellant never
articulates what it considers to be the particular problem to be solved by the
invention. Id. Appellant provides no evidence, analysis, or discussion as to
how or why the waste removal equipment, such as disclosed in Johnson and
Ghibaudo, are not “reasonably pertinent” under prong two of the Bigio test.
Id.
In our opinion, the applicable field of endeavor of Appellant’s
invention is waste removal equipment. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 1–5. In that
Appeal 2021-003366
Application 15/433,328
6
regard, we view snow that is deposited in an undesirable location such as a
narrow, city street as a form of waste or refuse that must be collected,
transported, and deposited at a location that is remote from the point of
collection. With that in mind, we consider Johnson and Ghibaudo as from
the same field of endeavor as Appellant’s invention. Bigio, supra.
Furthermore, we view the problem to be solved as collecting,
compacting, transporting, and redepositing material that, for some reason,
needs to be removed from its point of collection. Johnson is directed to a
refuse collection vehicle with an allegedly novel spill shield assembly.
Johnson, col. 4, ll. 24–57. Ghibaudo is directed to refuse removal vehicle
that has a body with an octagon cross-section. Ghibaudo, Abstract, Fig. 3.
Johnson and Ghibaudo collect, compact, transport, and redeposit waste
material. Apart from the fact that Johnson and Ghibaudo handle a broader
variety of compactible materials than just snow, their teachings are
reasonably pertinent to the problems associated with collecting, compacting,
transporting, and redepositing snow. Stated differently, faced with the task
of developing a system for collecting, compacting, transporting, and
redepositing snow, we are of the opinion that references such Johnson and
Ghibaudo would have commended themselves to an inventor’s attention.
In the instant case, Appellant never mentions, much less discusses or
analyzes, what may or may not be reasonably pertinent to an inventor of the
claimed subject matter. Appellant’s argument not sufficiently developed or
articulated to apprise us of error with respect to non-analogous art.
Next, Appellant argues that the cited art fails to address potential
hazards of using a garbage truck to collect, compact, and extrude snow.
Appeal Br. 6. Appellant considers such hazards to include potential
Appeal 2021-003366
Application 15/433,328
7
malfunctions caused by ice entering the mechanical components of the
garbage truck, or water and ice seeping through spaces in between the
various chambers of the garbage trucks. Id.
In response, the Examiner reminds Appellant that garbage trucks not
only collect solid waste, but also liquids that are present in commercial and
residential waste. Ans. 4. According to the Examiner, garbage trucks are
designed to account for liquids mixed with the solids placed in the garbage
truck’s storage container. Id. Moreover, it goes without saying that large
areas of the United States have weather that drops below freezing
temperatures during certain times of the year. Thus, not only do garbage
trucks handle a certain amount of liquid waste, they also handle it at below
freezing temperatures.
In reply, Appellant argues that the Examiner fails to cite any language
in Johnson or Ghibaudo that states that garbage trucks are designed to
collect and transport liquid “in such a volume as snow and ice.” Reply
Br. 4. Appellant’s claim, however, has no limitation directed to any
particular internal volume. Claims App. Appellant presents no evidence
that its invention is distinguishable from the prior art garbage trucks in terms
of internal volume. To the extent that Appellant may be referring to the
possibility that snow and ice may be more dense than certain types of solid
waste handled by garbage trucks, and that density would result in the greater
weight of a load per unit volume, Appellant’s claim has no limitation
directed to volume, density, or weight carrying capacity of the invention.
Thus, Appellant’s rather vague and nebulous “volume” argument fails to
apprise us of Examiner error.
Appeal 2021-003366
Application 15/433,328
8
Johnson is directed to a refuse collection vehicle. Johnson, col. 5,
ll. 53–56. Johnson’s vehicle features cab 12, refuse collection
compartment 14, and storage compartment 16. Id. The collection
compartment has a retractable cover. Id. col. 5, ll. 56–58. Collection
compartment 14 and storage compartment 16 are defined by side walls 18
and 20. Id. col. 5, ll. 58–67. Johnson’s vehicle includes a conventional
packer ram including face plate 22 and multi-stage hydraulic cylinders 24.
Id. col. 5, l. 67 – col. 6, l. 6. The hydraulic cylinders extend the entire length
of the storage compartment and are capable of ejecting the refuse from the
vehicle. Id. col. 6, ll. 4–10.
Appellant’s liquid waste argument is not persuasive. Any layperson
that has ever thrown away a half-empty beverage cup knows that garbage
trucks encounter liquid waste. An artisan must be presumed to know
something about the art apart from what the references disclose. See In re
Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962). The mere absence from the prior
art of a teaching or a limitation recited in the patent at issue is insufficient
for a conclusion of nonobviousness. “[T]he question under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is not merely what the references expressly teach but what they would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made.” Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed.
Cir. 1989) quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976). What a
reference teaches a person of ordinary skill is not limited to what a reference
specifically “talks about” or what is specifically “mentioned” or “written” in
the reference. Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380
(Fed. Cir. 2005). In our opinion, the Examiner is on solid ground in
determining that garbage truck designers and operators are no strangers to
Appeal 2021-003366
Application 15/433,328
9
liquid waste including waste that is received under freezing temperature
conditions.
Appellant makes much of the fact that its invention is directed to
collecting and transporting waste that is “entirely composed of snow.”
Reply Br. 4. In so doing, Appellant merely refers to the intended use of the
invention. What Appellant fails to do, however, is present any evidence or
persuasive technical reasoning as to why the garbage trucks of Johnson and
Ghibaudo are not capable of collecting, compacting, transporting, and
extruding snow. Appellant does not apprise us as to how any of the
recitations involving snow impose any specific structural requirements on
the claimed subject matter. It is well settled that, where all the structural
elements of a claim exist in a prior art product, and that prior art product is
capable of satisfying all functional or intended use limitations, the claimed
invention is nothing more than an unpatentable new use for an old product.
In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appellant next argues that Johnson fails to disclose a structure that is
“uniform,” “unitary,” and “rectangular.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant attempts
to distinguish Johnson as having two compartments: (1) a collection
compartment; and (2) a storage compartment. Id. Appellant concedes that
Johnson’s sidewall panels 18, 20 are continuous along the two
compartments, but notes that only the collection compartment, but not the
storage compartment, has a retractable cover. Id. Appellant touts the
relative simplicity of its design as an advantage over the “complicated
structure” of Johnson. Id. According to Appellant,
[T]he garbage truck taught by Johnson includes more than 20
different individual components and subparts. As such,
building and operating such a structure would involve an
Appeal 2021-003366
Application 15/433,328
10
immense amount of time and cost. These problems are not
present in applicant's claimed invention because applicant's
claimed invention provides an extremely simple system that
requires fewer and simpler components and subparts to build
and operate.
Id. at 8.
In response, the Examiner points out that Appellant’s Specification
and Appeal Brief fail to articulate and clarify what it means for a
rectangular, box-shaped structure to be “uniform.” Ans. 3. From the
Examiner’s perspective, Johnson discloses side walls that are continuous and
such is sufficient to meet Appellant’s “uniform” limitation. Id. The
Examiner further points out that Appellant’s snow carrier has a rear gate on
one end and telescoping roof panels covering a portion of the top side, such
that Appellant’s own device does not meet the strict, dictionary definition of
“uniform” that Appellant seeks to impose on the prior art.
In reply, Appellant argues that, just because Johnson discloses that
sidewalls 18 and 20 of Johnson’s storage compartment are “continuations”
of the sidewalls of its collection compartment, that does not mean that such
sidewalls are continuous. Reply Br. 2. Appellant seeks to bolster this
argument with a dictionary definition of “continuation.” Id. Appellant then
attempts to analogize the continuation of Johnson’s sidewalls to a
continuation patent application being a “continuation” of a parent patent
application. Id. at 2–3.
Appellant’s argument based on its two-compartment theory is not
persuasive. Both Appellant and Johnson disclose a rectangular shaped
enclosure. See Appellant, Fig. 2; Johnson, Fig. 1. In each case, there is an
opening at the top near the proximal end of the enclosure that receives
material to be compacted and transported. Id. In each case, there is a
Appeal 2021-003366
Application 15/433,328
11
retractable roof that is capable of covering such opening. Appellant, Fig. 2,
Johnson col. 5, ll. 56–58. In each case, there is a gate or door at the distal
end of the enclosure that is opened to allow material to be ejected.
Appellant’s Spec. ¶ 26, Johnson, col. 6, ll. 15–28. In each case, there is a
force driven compactor plate that translates back and forth in an axial
direction within the enclosure and operates to compact and eject material.
Appellant, Fig. 2, Johnson, Fig. 1, col. 6, ll. 15–27. The mere fact that
Johnson adopts a labeling convention that subdivides its enclosure into two
“compartments” does not create a patentable distinction between Appellant’s
invention and Johnson. See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed.
Cir. 2009) (explaining that a reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis
test). We also agree with the Examiner that Appellant fails to provide an
operational definition of either “uniform” or “unitary” that patentably
distinguishes its invention from the prior art.
Appellant’s argument based on the alleged complexity of Johnson is
not persuasive. It is well settled that merely omitting an element and its
function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same
functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 311
F.2d 581, 584 (CCPA 1963). Here, Johnson discloses an enclosure with an
axially translating compactor plate that first compacts material and then,
when the rear gate is opened, ejects the material from the distal end of the
vehicle. Appellant presents neither evidence nor persuasive technical
reasoning that these elements would not perform the same functions if other
allegedly “complex” features were removed for the sake of simplicity.
In its Reply Brief, Appellant advances a new argument that Johnson’s
sidewalls are not uniform because the side walls of the collection
Appeal 2021-003366
Application 15/433,328
12
compartment “slope upward.” Reply Br. 3. This argument is untimely and
will not be considered. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (“Any argument raised in
the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief . . . will not be
considered by the Board for purposed of the present appeal”); see also Ex
parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative)(“Any
bases for asserting error, whether factual or legal, that are not raised in the
principal brief are waived”).
The Examiner’s findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence and the Examiner’s legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-
founded. In view thereof, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 10, and 22.
Unpatentability of Claims 11, 12, 14–17, 19, and 20
over Johnson, Ghibaudo, and Richardson
Appellant argues claim 11, but does not separately argue for the
patentability of claims 12, 14–17, 19, and 20 that depend therefrom. Appeal
Br. 8–10. We consider the arguments as to claim 11. Claims 12, 14–17, 19,
and 20 will fall with claim 11. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claim 11 is an independent claim that is substantially similar in scope
to claim 1 except that it recites a truck that has a removable, front-mounted
snow collecting module that collects snow from the ground and transfers it
to the truck body. Claims App. The Examiner relies on Richardson as
disclosing a snow removal device that features a snow blower that directs
snow into a chamber via a blow pipe. Final Act. 8. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to modify Johnson/Ghibaudo with a
snow blower and blow pipe as taught by Richardson. Id. According to the
Appeal 2021-003366
Application 15/433,328
13
Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this as it
merely entails the use of known technique to improve a similar device. Id.
In traversing the rejection, Appellant relies on the same arguments
that we previously considered and found unpersuasive with respect to
claim 1 and find equally unpersuasive here. Appeal Br. 8–9. Appellant also
argues that Richardson teaches an “enormous system” with “several”
subparts. Id. Appellant also argues that Richardson does not “extrude
snow” as claimed. Id.
In response, the Examiner explains that Richardson is relied on to
show that it was known in the art to utilize a snow collection and transport
mechanism to move snow to a storage compartment in the rear of a vehicle.
Ans. 4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use
the truck of Johnson and Ghibaudo in conjunction with a snow blower
mechanism as taught by Richardson. Id. The Examiner rebuts Appellant’s
argument that Richardson fails to extrude snow by directing our attention
Richardson’s Abstract. Id.
In reply, Appellant argues that the Examiner fails to cite any language
in Johnson or Ghibaudo that indicates that they are capable of collecting
snow. Reply Br. 5. This argument is unpersuasive as the Examiner relies on
Richardson, not either Johnson or Ghibaudo, for collecting snow. Non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Appeal 2021-003366
Application 15/433,328
14
Appellant argues that Johnson and Ghibaudo lack a teaching,
suggestion, or motivation to be modified or combined with Richardson.
Appeal Br. 8–9. Appellant further argues that the Examiner fails to explain
how a person of ordinary skill in the art would actually modify Johnson and
Ghibaudo to collect, compact, and then extrude snow. Reply Br. 5.
According to Appellant, “the Examiner's motivation to combine boils down
to the bare assumption that a POSITA would simply accomplish this feat
upon deciding to make the combination. Such a minimal analysis is an
improper basis for a rejection under § 103.” Id. 5–6.
Richardson is directed to an apparatus for removing and compacting
snow. Richardson, Abstract. Richardson discloses a snow blower device
featuring auger 12 and impeller 13 mounted on cab 11 of a vehicle. Id.
col. 2, ll. 18–32, Fig. 2. Such impeller throws snow upwardly through
chute 14, which snow is then directed to chambers mounted on the rear of
the vehicle. Id. Fig. 2. After each chamber is filled, a compression plate
compresses the snow therein. Id., Abstract. After the snow is compressed,
the wall at the distal end of the chamber is elevated out of position so that
further movement of the compression plate ejects the compressed snow from
the chamber. Id.
Appellant’s arguments regarding a lack of teaching, suggestion, or
motivation in the cited references are not persuasive. The Supreme Court
maintains that it is not required for prior references to explicitly provide a
teaching, suggestion, or motivation that they be combined.
The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic
conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation,
or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and
the explicit content of is-sued patents. The diversity of
inventive pursuits and of modern technology counsels against
Appeal 2021-003366
Application 15/433,328
15
limiting the analysis in this way. In many fields it may be that
there is little discussion of obvious techniques or combinations,
and it often may be the case that market demand, rather than
scientific literature, will drive design trends.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), id. at 419.
Furthermore, contrary to Appellant’s position, the Examiner is not
required to provide a detailed explanation as to “how” the teachings of
various prior art references may be combined. The Examiner is deemed to
be competent make informed findings to the meaning of prior art references
to persons of ordinary skill in the art and the motivation those references
would provide to such persons. In re Berg, 320 F.3d 1310, 1315 (Fed.
Cir. 2003). Absent legal error or contrary factual evidence, those findings
can establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Id. Once, as here, the
Examiner sets for a prima facie case obviousness, the onus is on Appellant
to come forward with evidence and/or argument to demonstrate that the
Examiner has committed error. In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2014).
Here, the Examiner provides a cogent rationale for making the
proposed combination, noting that using Richardson’s snow blower on
Johnson’s vehicle amounts to a simple matter of using a known technique to
improve a similar device in the same way. Final Act. 8. Appellant presents
neither evidence nor persuasive technical reasoning that mounting
Richardson’s snow blower device on Johnson’s vehicle in lieu of Johnson’s
container lifting assembly would have required more than more than
ordinary skill or produced unexpected results.
Appellant’s argument that Richardson ejects compacted snow as an
intermediary, rather than a final, step is not persuasive. Reply Br. 6.
Appeal 2021-003366
Application 15/433,328
16
Richardson shows that it was known, in the prior art, to use powered
compression means to eject compacted snow from a container. Richardson,
col. 1, ll. 34–43. Johnson shows that it was known, in the prior art, to use
powered compression means to eject waste material from the distal end of a
vehicle as a final, rather than an intermediary, removal step. Appellant’s
argument amounts to an individual attack on Richardson when the Examiner
proposes the teachings of Johnson and Richardson to be considered in
combination. Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097; Keller, 642 F.2d 425.
Similarly, Appellant’s arguments concerning Richardson’s size and
complexity fail to apprise us of Examiner error. As we understand the
Examiner’s rejection, the configuration of a plurality of snow compression
chambers in the rear of Richardson’s vehicle are not proposed to be bodily
incorporated into Johnson’s vehicle. The obviousness inquiry does not ask
“whether the references could be physically combined but whether the
claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a
whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc).
Having fully considered Appellant’s arguments, we are not apprised
of Examiner error and, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability
rejection of claims 11, 12, 14–17, 19, and 20 over Johnson, Ghibaudo, and
Richardson.
Unpatentability of Claims 3, 8, 13, and 18
over Combinations based on Johnson and Ghibaudo
Appellant does not argue for the separate patentability of these claims
apart from arguments presented with respect to claims 1 and 11 which we
have previously considered. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 3, 8, 13, and 18. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2021-003366
Application 15/433,328
17
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
References Affirmed Rev’d
1, 2, 4-7, 9,
10, 22
103 Johnson, Ghibaudo 1, 2, 4-7, 9,
10, 22

11,12,14-17,
19, 20
102 Johnson, Ghibaudo,
Richardson
11,12,14-17,
19, 20

3 103 Johnson, Ghibaudo,
Huggins
3
8 103 Johnson, Ghibaudo,
Ghibaudo ’291
8
13 103 Johnson, Ghibaudo,
Richardson, Huggins
13
8, 18 103 Johnson, Ghibaudo,
Richardson, Ghibaudo ’291
8, 18
Overall
Outcome
1-20, 22

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