Spartan Precision Equipment Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 20, 2020

2019001876 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 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.
14/419,258 02/03/2015 David Bryant 18707/003001 1850
22511 7590 10/20/2020
Osha Bergman Watanabe & Burton LLP
TWO HOUSTON CENTER
909 FANNIN, SUITE 3500
HOUSTON, TX 77010
EXAMINER
SPINKS, ANTOINETTE T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2698
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/20/2020 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):
docketing@oshaliang.com
escobedo@oshaliang.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte DAVID BRYANT, ROBERT GEARING, and SIMON JEFFS
________________

Appeal 2019-001876
Application 14/419,258
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 15, 18, 21, 25, 28, 29, 33, 35,
42, 45, 48, 62, 66, 71, and 72. Claims 3–5, 7, 9–14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22–24,

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the inventors.
Appeal Br. 2. After the Notice of Appeal and the Examiner’s Answer an
assignment of rights to Spartan Precision Equipment Ltd. was recorded
(Patent Assignment Database Reel 047808, Frame 0798) and Appellant
provided notice of the applicant change (Req. to Correct or Update the Name
of the Applicant (Mar. 25, 2019)).
Appeal 2019-001876
Application 14/419,258

2

26, 27, 30–32, 34, 36–41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49–61, 62, and 66–70 are canceled.
Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Summary of the Disclosure
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to the use of a magnetic
element to couple an object with a rest stand, wherein the couplings have
circular or near-circular sections, or part-spherical surfaces, to allow for
smooth rotation of the object about the rest stand. Spec. Abstract, 8, 10.
Representative Claims (Disputed Limitations Emphasized and
Bracketing Added)
1. A rest for supporting an object, the rest comprising:
a rest fixture which is in use attached to an object, wherein the
rest fixture comprises a stand coupling which includes a
magnetic element for removable attachment of a rest stand; and
a rest stand for resting on a surface, wherein the rest stand
comprises a support body, at least one leg which is supported
by the support body and a fixture coupling which includes a
magnetic element for removable attachment to the stand
coupling on the object;
[1] wherein the fixture coupling and the stand coupling each
comprise circular or near-circular sections, which provide for
smooth rotation of the fixture coupling in relation to the stand
coupling around a vertical axis and allow for rotation of the
object about a horizontal axis.
Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.).
6. The rest of claim 1, [2] wherein the rest stand is a bi-pod rest
stand comprising two legs.
Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-001876
Application 14/419,258

3

15. A rest for supporting an object, the rest comprising:
a rest fixture which is in use attached to an object, wherein the
rest fixture comprises a stand coupling which includes a
magnetic element for removable attachment of a rest stand; and
a rest stand for resting on a surface, wherein the rest stand
comprises a support body, at least one leg which is supported
by the support body and a fixture coupling which includes a
magnetic element for removable attachment to the stand
coupling on the object;
wherein the legs are each pivotably coupled to the support body
about a respective pivot between a first, expanded or in use
configuration and a collapsed configuration, each of the legs
includes a pivot connector at one, upper end thereof which is
pivotably coupled to the support body, the [3] support body
includes first and second magnetic elements, each adjacent and
to a respective outer side of one the pivots, and the pivot
connectors each include a magnetic element, whereby the
magnetic element of the respective leg is attracted to the
respective magnetic element of the support body, thereby
maintaining the legs in the expanded, in use configuration
during use; and
wherein the fixture coupling and the stand coupling each
comprise circular or near-circular sections, which provide for
smooth rotation of the fixture coupling in relation to the stand
coupling around a vertical axis and allow for rotation of the
object about a horizontal axis.
Appeal Br. 23–24 (Claims App.).
25. The rest of claim 1, [4] wherein the fixture coupling on the
rest stand comprises one of a male projection or coupling or a
female recess or coupling and the stand coupling on the rest
fixture comprises the other of a female recess or coupling or a
male projection or coupling, optionally the male projection or
coupling or the female recess or coupling presents a part-
spherical surface, optionally the male projection or coupling
Appeal 2019-001876
Application 14/419,258

4

and the female recess or coupling present part-spherical
surfaces.
Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.).
66. A bi-pod rifle rest, comprising:
[5] a rifle fixture which is in use attached to a rifle, wherein the
rifle fixture comprises a stand coupling which includes a
magnetic element for removable attachment of a rest stand; and
a rest stand for resting on a surface, wherein the rest stand
comprises a support body, first and second legs which are
supported by the support body and a rifle coupling which
includes a magnetic element for removable attachment to the
stand coupling on the rifle;
wherein the stand coupling and the rifle coupling each comprise
circular or near-circular sections, which provide for smooth
rotation of the rifle coupling in relation to the stand coupling
around a vertical axis and allow for rotation of the rifle about a
horizontal axis.
Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.).
The Examiner’s Rejections and Cited References
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 8, 18, 21, 25, 28, 29, 33, 35, 45, 48,
62, and 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Barker (US 2008/
0011344 A1; published Jan. 17, 2008). Final Act. 3–5.
The Examiner rejects claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Barker in light of the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice (the
Examiner cites to Hinds (US 2013/0174463 A1; published July 11, 2013) for
supporting evidence). Final Act. 6.
The Examiner rejects claims 15, 42, 71, and 72 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Barker and Hunts (US 2006/0139134 A1;
published June 29, 2006). Final Act. 6–7.
Appeal 2019-001876
Application 14/419,258

5

ADOPTION OF EXAMINER’S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of fact
as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was
taken, and we concur with the Examiner’s conclusions. We have considered
Appellant’s arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We provide
the following explanation for emphasis.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 8, 18, 21, 28, 29, 33, 35, 45, and 62
In rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Barker, the Examiner finds that
Barker’s disk 71 and plate 67 disclose the recited fixture and stand couplings
of recitation [1]. Final Act. 3 (citing ¶¶ 46, 49, 50, Figs. 1–3, 11–12).
Barker’s disk 71 and plate 67 are illustrated in Barker’s Figures 11 and 12,
which are reproduced below.

Appeal 2019-001876
Application 14/419,258

6

Barker’s Figures 11 and 12 illustrate perspective views “of a plate and
a disk of [a] movable mount.” Barker ¶ 22. The embodiment of Barker’s
Figures 11 and 12 illustrate a ring pattern that “has a sinusoidal shape,”
although Barker discloses “that any suitable complementary pattern that
permits indexing is suitable.” Id. ¶ 48.
Appellant contends the Examiner errs because recitation [1] specifies
that the fixture and stand couplings “specify ‘smooth rotation.’” Appeal Br.
11. Appellant argues that “Barker’s plate 67 and magnetically active disk 71
of Barker’s mount 60 have an indexed arrangement that is contrary to that of
smooth rotation.” Id. That is, Appellant argues “[t]he disclosure of Barker
regarding 30-degree intervals is directed to the angular spacing at which
Barker’s plate 67 and disk 71 can be indexed and held in position by an
attraction magnet 68” shows that Barker’s “plate 67 and the disk 71 have
multiple distinct fixed angular positions, with no possibility of ‘smooth
rotation’ therebetween.” Id. at 12. Thus, Appellant argues an object attached
to the fixture coupling (e.g., a gun) would “undulate during such rotation.’”
Id.
In response, the Examiner finds Barker’s indexed arrangement, which
repeats every 30 degrees, provides for “rotation about the axis for 30 degrees
[that] is actually smooth.” Ans. 8. The Examiner finds this describes
“smooth rotation” within the scope of claim 1 because, even though “Barker
does not teach or disclose a continuous ‘smooth rotation’ about the entire
horizontal axis, [claim 1] does not require such specificity.” Id. That is, the
Examiner finds that Barker’s sinusoidal pattern enables smooth rotation
within a 30 degree arc.
Appeal 2019-001876
Application 14/419,258

7

Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error. We agree
with the Examiner that the claim does not limit “smooth rotation” to a
continuous smooth rotation. Further, the Specification fails to specifically
define the claim limitation “smooth rotation.” Instead, the Specification
merely discloses, for example, that “rifle coupling 17 comprises . . . a
circular or near-circular section, which allows for rotation of the rifle fixture
5, and hence the rifle 7, thereabout, allowing for smooth rotation of the rifle
7 about the stand 3 when planted on a surface.” Spec. 8 (emphasis added).
Nothing in this disclosure provides a limiting definition of the claimed
“smooth rotation” that excludes the smooth rotation within a 30 degree arc
enabled by Barker’s disk and plate couplings.
Appellant contends that Barker’s use of complementary sinusoidal
index patterns on plate 67 and disk 71 provide “resistance” that can, for
example, “hold a heavy camera and lens or spotting scope in a fixed
position.” Appeal Br. 13 (citing Barker ¶ 49). Appellant contends that the
“attraction between magnet 68 and disk 71 causes disk 71 to be seated into
the complementary pattern of plate 67. The camera is held securely and,
when tilted, in a manner that significantly impedes rotation of the camera.”
Id. (citing Barker ¶ 52).
The Examiner finds that the device of Barker allows for smooth
rotation at 30 degree increments. Ans. 8 (citing Barker ¶ 50). Barker
discloses index patterns that “permit[] a user to move a mounted camera (or
other device) in fixed intervals . . . every 30 degrees.” Barker ¶ 50.
Appellant’s contention that Barker discloses seating the disk in the
complementary pattern of the plate to impede rotation does not persuasively
rebut the Examiner’s finding that the rotation within a 30 degree arc between
Appeal 2019-001876
Application 14/419,258

8

fixed interval positions is smooth. Ans. 8. We agree with the Examiner that
Barker’s complementary sinusoidal patterns enable smooth rotation within a
30 degree arc. Id.
Cumulative to the Examiner’s findings, we find that Barker’s
complementary sinusoidal pattern, in fact, enables smooth rotation in
complete 360 degree rotation. This is evident in Barker’s characterization of
the complementary patterns as “sinusoidal”—i.e., that the patterns follow the
path of a sine wave. A sine wave, having a continuous derivative at all
points, is mathematically smooth. Thus, the complementary patterns also are
smooth. The smoothness of these complementary patterns is further evident
in Barker’s Figures 11 and 12, which illustrates that the complementary
patterns lack jagged features which would detract from smooth rotation.
Appellant further contends that a gun attached to disk 71 would be
unable to smoothly rotate along a horizon, because the gun would
“undulate” during rotation. Appeal Br. 12. Such undulation would be a
consequence of Barker’s sinusoidal patterns creating a gap between the
center parts of the couplings of varying size throughout rotation. That is, the
center parts of the couplings would be closer to each other when the
sinusoidal patterns are aligned such that disk 71 is seated into the
complementary pattern of plate 67 than when they are not so aligned. Barker
¶ 52. Thus, the gun would move up and down with disk 71 (i.e., “undulate”)
during rotation, and would not “smoothly rotate to aim at a target(s) along a
horizon.” Appeal Br. 12. Such undulating movement is not precluded by
claim 1 because the undulating shown in Barker is smooth. Thus,
Appellant’s contention is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
That is, there are no recitations that require “smooth,” non-undulating
Appeal 2019-001876
Application 14/419,258

9

rotation along a horizon. Rotational movement in Barker movement, even
including undulating up-and-down motion, would still be smooth because
the patterns of Barker are sinusoidal.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Barker discloses recitation
[1], given the recitation’s broadest reasonable interpretation. Final Act. 3;
Ans. 8. Accordingly we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claim 1, as well as of claims 2, 8, 18, 21, 28, 29, 33, 35, 45, and 62, which
Appellant does not argue separately. Appeal Br. 10–14.
Anticipation Rejection of Claims 25 and 48
In rejecting claim 25, the Examiner finds that the fixture coupling and
rest stand teachings of Barker disclose the male projection and female recess
limitations of recitation [4]. Final Act. 5 (citing Barker, Figs. 1–3).
Appellant contends the Examiner errs by failing to point “to which features
of Barker’s plate 67 or magnetically active disk 71 the Examiner considers
to correspond to the male projection or coupling of claim 25 or the female
recess or coupling of claim 25.” Appeal Br. 16.
Appellant arguments are unpersuasive because the Examiner correctly
finds that “plate 67 corresponds to the male coupling and disk 71
corresponds to the female coupling.” Ans. 9 (citing Barker Figs. 11–12).
Therefore, the Examiner’s findings show that Barker discloses the disputed
limitations of recitation [4].
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claim 25, as well as of claim 48, which Appellant does not argue separately.
Appeal Br. 17.
Appeal 2019-001876
Application 14/419,258

10

Anticipation Rejection of Claim 66
In rejecting claim 66, the Examiner finds that Barker’s disclosure of a
walking staff with an adaptable mount to receive a gun rest teaches the rifle
fixture of recitation [5]. Ans. 8 (citing Barker ¶¶ 2, 8, 31). Appellant
contends the Examiner errs because “Barker’s mount 60 is not disclosed as
being in use attached to a rifle.” Appeal Br. 14. But Appellant does not
persuasively distinguish the claimed rifle fixture from Barker’s gun rest.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Barker discloses disputed
recitation [5].
Appellant further argues that the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 66
for reasons similar to those Appellant argues with respect to claim 1 (i.e.,
that Barker fails to disclose recitations in claim 66 similar to recitation [1] of
claim 1). Appeal Br. 14–15. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the
reasons discussed above. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claim 66.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 6
In rejecting claim 6, the Examiner relies on the taking of Official
Notice to show that “the concepts and advantages of a bipod [were] well
known and expected in the art.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner relies on Hinds
as evidence of “the interchangeable use of a monopod and bipod.” Id. (citing
Hinds ¶ 51). Thus, the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to an
artisan of ordinary skill to modify Barker to include recitation [2] of claim 6,
“wherein the rest stand is a bi-pod rest stand comprising two legs.” Id. That
is, the Examiner finds that Barker’s tri-pod “inherently includes a bi-pod,”
and “Hinds teaches the use of a mono-pod which converts to a bi-pod.” Ans.
9.
Appeal 2019-001876
Application 14/419,258

11

Appellant contends the Examiner errs because in citing to “Hinds,
which pertains to firearm stocks that have bi-pods,” the Examiner fails to
provide “a reason to modify Barker’s walking stick that becomes a tripod,
for example to mount a camera,” to instead become a bi-pod. Appeal Br. 18.
Appellant’s contention seems to imply that Barker’s device would only be
used for mounting a camera, and, unlike Hinds, would not be used for
mounting a firearm. Appellant’s contention is inconsistent with Barker’s
teaching that the tripod also can mount a gun rest. Barker ¶¶ 2, 8, 31.
Appellant further argues “the express object of Barker is to provide a
walking staff apparatus which has a tri-pod assembly.” Appeal Br. 18(citing
Barker ¶ 9). The Examiner finds, however, that Barker teaches a rest fixture
coupled to a rest stand (Final Act. 3), Hinds teaches that the rest stand can be
a bipod (id. at 6), and the Examiner concludes that combining a bipod, as
taught by Hinds, with Barker’s teachings achieves Appellant’s claimed
invention (id.). Appellant’s argument against Barker alone does not show
error in the Examiner’s rejection. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA
1981) (“one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of
references”).
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that “when the question is whether
a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious . . . a
court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of
prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Court recognized that “when a
patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the
mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the
Appeal 2019-001876
Application 14/419,258

12

combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” Id. at 416.
Appellant has not shown that the mere substitution of a bipod rest stand, as
taught by Hinds, for the tripod rest stand in Barker’s device does anything
more than yield the predictable result of a rest fixture coupled to a rest stand
“wherein the rest stand is a bi-pod rest stand comprising two legs,” as recited
in claim 6. Appellant’s arguments also fail to rebut the Examiner’s finding
that Barker’s tri-pod inherently includes a bi-pod. Moreover, the open-ended
“comprising” language of recitation [2] supports the Examiner’s
interpretation that claim 6 encompasses a rest stand that has three legs (and,
thus, comprises two legs plus an additional leg). Cf. Gillette Co. v. Energizer
Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (a claimed razor
“comprising . . . a group of first, second, and third blades” encompasses a
razor with four blades or “two ‘second blades’”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 6.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 15, 42, 71, and 72
In rejecting claim 15, the Examiner finds that Hunts, which teaches
the use of magnetic connector bodies to connect edges, suggests modifying
Barker to include recitation [3]:
support body includes first and second magnetic elements, each
adjacent and to a respective outer side of one the pivots, and the
pivot connectors each include a magnetic element, whereby the
magnetic element of the respective leg is attracted to the
respective magnetic element of the support body, thereby
maintaining the legs in the expanded, in use configuration
during use
Final Act. 7 (citing Hunts, Abstract).
Appeal 2019-001876
Application 14/419,258

13

Appellant contends the Examiner errs because Hunts “relates to an
entirely-unrelated field of art to Barker, namely, drapery panels.” Appeal
Br. 20 (citing Hunts ¶¶ 29, 38). Thus, Appellant argues “absent any
knowledge of the present invention, the skilled person would not
conceivably have contemplated modifying Barker’s walking staff with the
teachings of Hunts.” Id. That is, Appellant relies on the contention that
Hunts is non-analogous art to argue that the Examiner relies on
impermissible hindsight reasoning to show that the combined teachings of
Barker and Hunts suggests recitation [3] of claim 15.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive, however, because Appellant
fails to rebut the Examiner’s finding that the magnetic connector apparatus
of Hunts would have been “reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
with which the applicant was concerned.” Ans. 10 (citing In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). That is, the Examiner’s unrebutted findings and
analysis show that Hunts is analogous art. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Hunts and Barker suggests recitation [3]
of claim 15.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 15
for reasons similar to those Appellant argues with respect to claim 1 (i.e.,
that Barker fails to teach recitations in claim 15 similar to recitation [1] of
claim 1). Appeal Br. 19–20. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the
reasons discussed above. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 15, as well as of claims 42, 71, and 72, which
Appellant does not argue separately. Appeal Br. 19–21.

Appeal 2019-001876
Application 14/419,258

14

CONCLUSION
Claims Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 8, 18, 21, 25,
28, 29, 33, 35, 45,
48, 62, 66
102(b) Barker 1, 2, 8, 18, 21,
25, 28, 29, 33,
35, 45, 48, 62, 66

6 103(a) Barker,
Official Notice
6
15, 42, 71, 72 103(a) Barker, Hunts 15, 42, 71, 72
Overall Outcome 1, 2, 6, 8, 15, 18,
21, 25, 28, 29,
33, 35, 42, 45,
48, 62, 66, 71, 72

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