Marcus L. Murphy

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 20, 2020

14692218 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2020)

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.
14/692,218 04/21/2015 Marcus L. Murphy 4362-156 2824
20792 7590 02/20/2020
MYERS BIGEL, P.A.
PO BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
EXAMINER
ADEBOYEJO, IFEOLU A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3673
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/20/2020 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 MARCUS L. MURPHY
Appeal 2018-006379
Application 14/692,218
Technology Center 3600
Before JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant0F1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies Ultra-Mek, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-006379
Application 14/692,218

2
Appellant’s invention relates to a bed with liftable mattress and
storage cavity. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A bed, comprising:
a foundation including a head wall, a foot wall opposed to
the head wall, opposed side walls between the head wall and the
foot wall, and a floor, the head wall, the foot wall, the side walls
and the floor forming at least one storage cavity;
a mattress assembly comprising a mattress and an
underlying panel; and
a lifting mechanism comprising a series of interconnected
pivoting links, the lifting mechanism being mounted to the
foundation and the mattress assembly, the lifting mechanism
configured to move the mattress assembly between a lowered
position, in which the mattress assembly is positioned atop the
foundation, and a raised position, in which the mattress
assembly is positioned above and at least partially laterally of
the foundation, such that the storage cavity is accessible.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Dreyer US 5,020,173 June 4, 1991
Koorey US 2008/0289112 A1 Nov. 27, 2008
Burnett US 2010/0223722 A1 Sept. 9, 2010

REJECTIONS
1) Claims 1–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)(2) as being
anticipated by Burnett.
Appeal 2018-006379
Application 14/692,218

3
2) Claims 10–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)(2) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Burnett and routine optimization.
3) Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Burnett and Dreyer.
4) Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Burnett and Koorey.

OPINION
Rejection 1, Anticipation
In rejecting claim 1 as anticipated, the Examiner provides an
annotated version of Burnett’s Figure 1, reproduced below:

Appeal 2018-006379
Application 14/692,218

4
Figure 1, as annotated by the Examiner, depicts a bed 10 with labels
A–E added by the Examiner designating a head wall A, a foot wall B,
opposed side walls C, and a floor D, as well as storage cavity E. Final Act.
2–4.
Appellant argues that, based on Burnett’s disclosure of shafts that
“extend along a lateral direction” and cross-pieces that “extend
longitudinally,” Burnett’s “mattress moves longitudinally relative to the
base.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant asserts that the term “laterally” in claim 1
has a specific meaning consistent with how this term is used in the
Specification. Id. at 6.
The Examiner responds that “lateral movement is a matter of the
orientation of the bed compared to a reference axis/point,” and that the
reference axis depicted in the Final Rejection defines the axis so that Burnett
is anticipatory. Ans. 2. For the following reasons, we do not sustain this
rejection.
Although we appreciate that no axis is recited in claim 1, the claim
recites a “head wall,” a “foot wall,” and “opposed sidewalls.” The
Specification discloses “movement of the mattress assembly 14 laterally
(rather than head to foot).” Spec. ¶ 26. The Specification also discloses two
“longitudinally-extending members 33, 34,” which are depicted in Figure 3
as extending from head wall 21 to foot wall 22. Id. ¶ 16, Fig. 3. We agree
with Appellant that, consistent with the Specification, one of ordinary skill
in the art would understand “laterally” to mean from side to side. In
contrast, movement from the head to the foot of the bed would be in the
longitudinal direction consistent with longitudinally-extending members 33
and 34.
Appeal 2018-006379
Application 14/692,218

5
Burnett discloses “first and second shafts 38, 40, respectively, each
extend along a lateral direction” and “[c]ross pieces 45 extend
longitudinally, from opposed ends of the bed frame.” Burnett ¶¶ 26, 28.
The terms “lateral” and “longitudinally,” as used by Burnett, are consistent
with Appellant’s Specification as these terms relate, respectively to side to
side movement as opposed to head to foot movement. We cannot read
Burnett in a manner contrary to Appellant’s Specification, as suggested by
the Examiner (see Ans. 2; see also Final Act. 4). Consequently, we
determine that the Examiner has not established that Burnett discloses all of
the limitations of claim 1 as arranged in the claim. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v.
VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Any differences
between Burnett and the claimed invention may “invoke the question of
obviousness, not anticipation.” Id. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–9, which depend therefrom as anticipated
by Burnett.

Rejection 2, Anticipation/Optimum Range
Claims 10 and 11 depend from claim 1. We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 10 and 11 as anticipated by Burnett for the same reasons
as claim 1. For the Examiner’s alternate obviousness rejection, the
Examiner does not rely on “optimum range” in any way that would remedy
the deficiency of Burnett discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 11 as
unpatentable over Burnett and optimum range.
Appeal 2018-006379
Application 14/692,218

6
The Examiner relies on the same findings for independent claim 12 as
for claim 1. See Final Act. 5. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 12
and claims 13–20 depending from claim 12 as anticipated by Burnett.
As to the Examiner’s alternative obviousness rejection of claims 12–
20, the Examiner does not provide a reason for modifying the mattress
assembly of Burnett to be positioned above and at least partially laterally of
the foundation, consistent with how one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand the term “laterally,” discussed above. Nor does the Examiner’s
reliance on “optimum range” remedy the deficiency of Burnett discussed
above. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 12–20 as
unpatentable over Burnett and optimum range.

Rejection 3
Claim 8 depends from claim 1. The Examiner does not rely on Dreyer
in any way that would remedy the deficiency of Burnett discussed above
with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 8 as unpatentable over Burnett and Dreyer.

Rejection 4
Claim 3 depends from claim 1. The Examiner does not rely on
Koorey in any way that would remedy the deficiency of Burnett discussed
above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection
of claim 3 as unpatentable over Burnett and Koorey.
Appeal 2018-006379
Application 14/692,218

7
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–9 102 Burnett 1–9
10–20 102/103 Burnett, optimum range 10–20
8 103 Burnett, Dreyer 8
3 103 Burnett, Koorey 3
Overall
Outcome:
1–20
REVERSED