Application of McLaughlin
Decision Date | 24 June 1971 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 8474. |
Citation | 443 F.2d 1392,170 USPQ 209 |
Parties | Application of Gerald McLAUGHLIN. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Norman Lettvin, Chicago, Ill., attorney of record, for appellant.
S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D. C., for the Commissioner of Patents; R. V. Lupo, Washington, D. C., of counsel.
Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and RE, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation.
McLaughlin has appealed from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals sustaining the rejection of claims 13, 14 and 15 in his application1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the prior art. One claim has been held allowable.
The subject matter of the claims on appeal may be characterized as an improved construction arrangement for railroad "boxcars" which are adapted for carrying "unitized" cargo. The latter term is defined by appellant as "cargo that is loaded upon a cargo-handling platform (such as a pallet or slip sheet) of a pre-selected size, and which is arranged for transfer between stations by devices such as fork-lift trucks."
Appellant states that prior art arrangements, having the doorways located substantially centrally in the opposed sidewalls, leave the center of the car unsuitable for holding additional pallets securely because side filler panels cannot be placed over the doorways without inconveniencing loading and unloading.
The present invention, as represented in Figure 2 of the application, which we reproduce below along with Figure 3, is alleged to permit a larger volume of freight to be conveniently loaded in a car with the same overall dimensions.
The car used in this arrangement has the door openings 39 (left hand occurrence) and 40 in the opposite sidewalls offset longitudinally so that each sidewall includes a long wall section and a short wall section on opposite sides of the opening. Side filler panels 43 and 45 are affixed to the interiors of the long wall sections 37 and 34, respectively, and longitudinally adjustable bulkheads 47 and 48 are provided. The car is shown completely filled with groups of palletized containers 51 and 52, secured in position by the side filler panels and bulkheads. The application describes the loading of this car as follows:
Typically, the load dividers 47 and 48 are initially moved to the left of doorway 40 to permit free access to the floor surface area in the "deep end" of the car bounded by end wall 30. The pallets 51 are placed into the car in sequence, adjusting the side fillers to the necessary width required to firmly confine the pallets in place. During this time, door 49 is already closed to form the lateral support for the six pallet stacks 51 nearest load divider 48. The load divided 48 is then moved into position against the stacked pallets 51 and locked in place. The second load divider 47 is then temporarily positioned closely adjacent load divider 48 to permit free access to the "short end" of the car terminated by end wall 31. Pallets 52 are then sequentially placed in position, adjusting the side fillers 45 to retain these pallets against lateral shifting. The three side fillers in the series 45 which are closest to the load divider 47 are preadjusted prior to loading the six pallet stacks 52 nearest load divider 47. Finally, load divider 47 is moved into tight engagement with the stacked pallets 52, locked in place, and the door 50 is closed to secure the pallets 52.
The only independent claim on appeal is claim 13 which we reproduce as follows:
Claim 14 adds the additional limitations that the car is adapted to carry palletmounted loads and the lengths of the side walls of the car conform substantially to whole multiples of a dimension of a pallet. Claim 15 further provides that the portion of each doorway directly opposite a wall is "substantially equal to a plural multiple of a dimension of the pallet" and that the rest of the doorway is narrower than a pallet dimension.
Claims 13, 14 and 15 were rejected as unpatentable over Cook2 in view of either Robertson3 and Aquino4 or of Lundvall,5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Cook discloses a railway boxcar having sides defining oversized door openings in diagonally opposite ends of the car. That construction is described as facilitating loading and unloading lumber, permitting it to be palletized and to be handled by lift trucks.
Lundvall discloses a railway car provided with adjustable side filler panels for preventing lateral shifting of the load and adjustable bulkheads to hold the load against longitudinal shifting.
Robertson discloses a specific side filler panel construction for railway cars and Aquino is directed to a bulkhead construction for similar use.
The examiner and board based their holdings that the appealed claims are unpatentable on the view that persons of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use bulkheads and side filler panels, as disclosed in the secondary references, in connection with loads placed in a car of the Cook construction.
OPINIONAppellant has strenuously urged that the reference disclosures were improperly combined. In particular,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.
...1066, 101 S.Ct. 794, 66 L.Ed.2d 611 (1980); Application of Sponnoble, 56 CCPA 823, 405 F.2d 578, 587 (1969); Application of McLaughlin, 58 CCPA 1310, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (1971). Defendant's sales are a portion of the proof of the commercial success factor to be considered by the court in it......
-
Glaxo Wellcome v. Pharmadyne Corp.
... ... 1. Doctrine of Equivalents ... 283 ... 2. Application to the facts in the case at bar ... 284 ... B. Affirmative Defenses and Declaratory Judgment Issues ... 293 ... combined features, old in the art, for their known purposes, without producing anything beyond the results inherent in their use.'" In re McLaughlin, 58 C.C.P.A. 1310, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395-96 (C.C.P.A.1971). Pharmadyne's presentation of evidence falls far short of the clear and convincing ... ...
-
Medtronic, Inc. v. Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc.
...the references, taken as a whole, would suggest the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 58 CCPA 1310, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (1971). The district court did not, however, reach its ultimate conclusion solely on a "might contemplate" approach. Also......
-
LinkedIn Corp. v. eBuddy Techs. B.V.
... ... and Method,” and issued on August 13, 2013, from U.S ... Patent Application No. 12/774,700, filed May 5, 2010, and ... claims priority through a continuation application to U.S ... Provisional Patent Application ... applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is ... proper." In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, ... 1313-14 (CCP A1971). Here, Patent Owner does not direct us to ... any knowledge gleaned only from applicant's ... ...
-
AI Can Almost Generate Evidence Of Patent Obviousness
...used to show that rearrangement of prior art components to a claimed configuration does not improve performance). 9 In re McLaughlin , 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (C.C.P.A. 10 "ChatGPT tutorial: How to easily improve your coding skills with ChatGPT" (2023). Available at https://lablab.ai/t/chatgpt-......
-
Combating Hindsight Reconstruction in Patent Prosecution
...398, 402 (2009) (quoting In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted)).130. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (C.C.P.A. 1971). 131. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (C.C.P.A. 1970); MPEP, supra note 44, § 2143.03.132. Michael E. Kondoudis......