Rite-Hite Holding Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 26, 2021

2021000934 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 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.
15/614,229 06/05/2017 Kenneth C. Bowman 92/P17-002A 1853
161001 7590 08/26/2021
HANLEY, FLIGHT & ZIMMERMAN, LLC (RITE-HITE)
150 S. WACKER DRIVE
SUITE 2200
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
BURCH, MELODY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/26/2021 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):
jflight@hfzlaw.com
mailroom@hfzlaw.com
sfilice@hfzlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________

Ex parte KENNETH C. BOWMAN and LEONARD KIKSTRA
_______________

Appeal 2021-000934
Application 15/614,229
Technology Center 3600
_______________

Before NATHAN A. ENGELS, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.

DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–4, 6, 7, 11–15, and 30–38. Appellant has withdrawn claims 5 and
8–10 from consideration and has canceled claims 16–29. See Appeal
Br. 28–34. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to
“applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies
RITE-HITE HOLDING CORPORATION as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-000934
Application 15/614,229

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to a
wheel chock alarm system. Spec. ¶ 1. According to the Specification,
wheel chock systems are known, but current approaches may experience
scenarios in which the wheel chock slips out of place, or the wheel chock is
misplaced altogether because it is not attached to the loading dock area.
Spec. ¶ 4. In a disclosed embodiment, Appellant describes a restraint system
in which a wheel chock “is tethered to a retractable cable that wraps around
a spring-loaded reel.” Spec. ¶ 26. In addition, the restraint system includes
a sensor system that detects the position of the wheel chock relative to a
reference point (e.g., the reel or wall of a loading dock). Spec. ¶¶ 26, 31.
The Specification describes that when not in use, the wheel chock is
in a stored position, such as near a loading dock (or the reel). Spec. ¶¶ 33,
36, Fig. 2. When in use to restrain a wheel (or support leg) of a freight
transporter, the wheel chock is moved from the stored position to an
installed position, where the wheel chock engages with a wheel (or support
leg) of the freight transporter. Spec. ¶¶ 33, 36, Fig. 3. Under certain
circumstances, the wheel chock and the wheel (or support leg) of a freight
transporter to which the wheel chock is engaged may shift or move, while
still remaining fully engaged. Spec. ¶ 30. After such shifting or movement,
the wheel chock is in a displaced position. Spec. ¶ 42, Fig. 4. If the shift of
the wheel chock from the engaged position to the displaced position is
greater than a threshold amount, an alarm (e.g., a visual or audible signal)
may be triggered. Spec. ¶¶ 41–42.
Appeal 2021-000934
Application 15/614,229

3
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
1. A restraint system to restrain or monitor a freight
transporter near a platform structure of a loading dock, the
restraint system comprising:
a wheel chock having a tire-engaging surface, the wheel
chock movable between a stored position, a wheel blocking
position at which the wheel chock is to engage the freight
transporter, and a displaced position, the wheel chock being
closer to the platform structure when the wheel chock is in the
stored position than when the wheel chock is in the wheel
blocking position, the wheel chock being closer to the platform
structure when the wheel chock is in the wheel blocking position
than when the wheel chock is in the displaced position;
a sensor system to measure a distance between the
displaced position and the wheel blocking position; and
a controller to determine if the measured distance is
greater than a delta threshold.

The Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 1–3, 11–13, 30, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen et al. (WO 2009/032371 A1;
Mar. 12, 2009) (“Andersen”) and Donini et al. (US 6,354,128 B1; Mar. 12,
2002) (“Donini”). Final Act. 2–3.
2. Claims 4, 6, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Andersen, Donini, and Wilson (US 2005/0226705
A1; Oct. 13, 2005). Final Act. 4.
3. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Andersen, Donini, Wilson, and Schumacher
(US 4,817,768; Apr. 4, 1989). Final Act. 4–5.
Appeal 2021-000934
Application 15/614,229

4
4. Claims 31–33, 35, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Andersen, Donini, and Henry (US 2011/0168501
A1; July 14, 2011). Final Act. 5–6.
5. Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Andersen, Donini, Henry, and Dierickx (US 8,723,344
B1; May 13, 2014). Final Act. 6–7.
6. Claim 36 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Andersen, Donini, Henry, and Perkins (US 2011/0290596
A1; Dec. 1, 2011). Final Act. 7.

ANALYSIS2
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellant asserts that Andersen, in combination with Donini, fails to
teach “a sensor system to measure a distance between a displaced position
and the wheel blocking position of a wheel chock,” as recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 11–17; Reply Br. 2–7. In particular, Appellant argues the
Examiner misunderstands the teachings of Andersen. Appeal Br. 13–16;
Reply Br. 2–7. Specifically, Appellant argues Andersen teaches a restraint
system that prevents a wheel chock from disengaging with a wheel. Appeal
Br. 13–14; Reply Br. 3–4. As such, Appellant asserts there is no “displaced
position” for the wheel chock and, therefore, no measurement of a distance
between a displaced position and the wheel blocking position. Appeal

2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
June 16, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed November 19, 2020
(“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed September 21, 2020 (“Ans.”);
and the Final Office Action, mailed November 15, 2019 (“Final Act.”), from
which this Appeal is taken.
Appeal 2021-000934
Application 15/614,229

5
Br. 13–14. Contrary to the Examiner’s findings, Appellant argues that
Andersen does not teach a sensor system that measures various distances of
the restraint system, including a displaced position. Appeal Br. 13; Reply
Br. 5–7. Instead, Appellant asserts that Andersen, as relied on by the
Examiner, describes a switch that can detect whether the wheel is restrained
(i.e., in the blocking position). Reply Br. 5–6.
Andersen generally relates to a wheel restraint system for restraining a
wheel of a vehicle at a loading dock. Andersen ¶ 1. Andersen describes an
embodiment wherein a wheel of a vehicle is restrained by a wheel chock and
a flexible elongate member (e.g., a strap, cable, rope). Andersen ¶¶ 9–15,
22, Fig. 4. Andersen describes the flexible elongate member can retract for
storage, such as with a reel. Andersen ¶¶ 12, 23. In addition, Andersen
describes the wheel restraint system may include a switch to provide a visual
or audible indication that indicates whether the wheel of a vehicle is being
restrained by the system. Andersen ¶ 25. Moreover, Andersen states:
“Switch 50 could be operatively coupled to elongate member 26 or take-up
reel 30 and provide the visual or audible signal in response to switch 50
either sensing tension in member 26 or detecting that member 26 is extended
at least a certain distance from anchor 22.” Andersen ¶ 25.
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner explains that,
similar to Appellant’s disclosed structure, Andersen also describes a wheel
restraint system comprising of a wheel chock connected to a retractable
elongate member and that the wheel chock engages with the wheel of a
vehicle when in a blocking position. Ans. 10.
Appeal 2021-000934
Application 15/614,229

6
The Examiner further finds that:
Given the similar structure, Examiner maintains that the two
restraint systems would respond in a similar way to a vehicle
pulling away from a loading dock after the vehicle wheel has
been engaged with a chock. In both restraint systems the wheel
and chock would remain engaged as the vehicle pulls away from
the loading dock.
Ans. 10. Moreover, the Examiner finds that, given a sufficient amount of
force, any chock (whether the chock in Appellant’s system or that in
Andersen’s system) “would move to a displaced location when the vehicle
accidently pulls away from the loading dock.” Ans. 10–11. Regarding
using a sensor system to measure a distance between a displaced position
and the wheel blocking position, the Examiner finds Andersen’s disclosure
of a switch operatively coupled to the take-up reel to either sense tension in
the elongate member or detect that elongate member is extended at least a
certain distance from the reel “discloses a sensor system that measures
various distances of the restraint system with respect to the anchor 22 which
includes a blocking position distance and a displaced position distance.”
Ans. 11.
We agree with the Examiner that Andersen’s wheel restraint system is
similar in structure to Appellant’s wheel restraint system—that is, both
systems comprise a wheel chock tethered to an anchoring take-up reel via a
flexible elongate member. Moreover, we agree that the Examiner is not
relying on Andersen’s wheel chock disengaging from the wheel, as argued
by Appellant. Rather, similar to Appellant’s disclosed system, Andersen’s
wheel chock can remain engaged with the wheel if the vehicle were to pull
away from the loading dock while the wheel chock was engaged. Compare
Appeal 2021-000934
Application 15/614,229

7
Ans. 9–10, with Spec. ¶ 30 (describing movement of the freight transporter
while the wheel chock is engaged); Fig. 4.
However, although the switch/sensor operatively coupled to the take-
up reel in Andersen may be configured to sense tension in the elongate
member or detect that the elongate member is extended at least a certain
distance, there is no disclosure that such a switch measures a distance
between a blocking position and a displaced position. Andersen does not
describe a displaced position. Further, in the context of paragraph 25 of
Andersen, the description relates to sensing and detecting whether the wheel
is restrained. For us to sustain the Examiner’s rejection, we would need to
resort to impermissible speculation or unfounded assumptions or rationales
to cure the deficiencies in the factual bases of the rejection before us. In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).
For the reasons discussed supra, we are constrained by the record of
evidence and do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1.
For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 14 and 30, which recite limitations of similar scope. In
addition, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–4, 6, 7,
11–13, 15, and 31–38, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom.

Request for Rejoinder
Appellant requests rejoinder of withdrawn claims 5 and 8–10. Appeal
Br. 26.
This issue is not within our jurisdiction to review. Our authority is
defined by statute and is limited to the review of adverse decisions by
examiners that at least indirectly relate to matters involving the rejection of
Appeal 2021-000934
Application 15/614,229

8
claims. In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 1404 (CCPA 1971); see also
35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (defining the PTAB’s duties); 35 U.S.C. § 134 (granting
applicant the right to appeal once any of the claims have been twice
rejected). Rejections of claims involve examination for compliance with the
statutory provisions of Title 35, United States Code, as set forth in §§ 100,
101, 102, 103, and 112. In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721 (CCPA 1980).
Decisions an examiner makes during examination of a discretionary,
procedural, or non-substantive nature not directly connected with the merits
of issues involving rejections are reviewable by petition under 37 CFR
§ 1.181 to the Director, not by appeal. In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984-85
(Fed. Cir. 2002); see also MPEP § 821.04 (describing procedure for claims
eligible for rejoinder).
We, therefore, do not address the substance of Appellant’s request.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–4, 6, 7, 11–15,
and 30–38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 11–13,
30, 37
103 Andersen, Donini 1–3,
11–13,
30, 37
4, 6, 14, 15 103 Andersen, Donini,
Wilson
4, 6, 14,
15
7 103 Andersen, Donini,
Wilson, Schumacher
7
Appeal 2021-000934
Application 15/614,229

9
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
31–33, 35,
38
103 Andersen, Donini,
Henry
31–33,
35, 38
34 103 Andersen, Donini,
Henry, Dierickx
34
36 103 Andersen, Donini,
Henry, Perkins
36
Overall
Outcome
1-4, 6, 7,
11-15, 30-
38

REVERSED