DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER
ANTICIPATION: Substantially the same structure and use as
Prior Art.
The structure of the car lift frame and its mounting on
lifting devices, and its purpose and function, are substantially
inherent in the structure and use shown and described in one
of three prior art citations.
FINAL ACTION: Affirmed
****************************
This decision deals with a request for review by the Commissioner
of Patents of the Examiner's Final Action dated July 14, 1972 on
application 072,502. This application was filed in the name of Alipio
Lunardini and refers to "Frame For Attachment To Car Lifting Benches".
In the prosecution terminated by the Final Action the examiner
refused the allowance of this application on the grounds that it lacks
patentable subject matter over the following references:
Canadian Patents:
311,996 Stukenborg
366, 824 Myers
631,604 Lawson
In this action the examiner stated in part:
The very brief and schematic disclosure of this application,
describes an oblong frame that can be attached to two
lifting devices ("benches"). It describes a frame that is
made of two longitudinal beams (31, attached (welded) to two
transverse beams (4) and having two additional transverse
beams (6) which may be attached to the longitudinal beams
at different locations. Such frame, when attached to two
lifting devices ("benches") may support the body of a vehicle.
The structural differences between applicant's frame and the
prior art shown in each of the applied patents, are but results
of expected skill and design preferences and may not be relied
on for patentability.
Applicant's device differs from the arrangements shown in the
prior art in the way the frame is attached to the lifting
devices. However, such way of attaching mechanical elements
is merely standard bolting procedure and lacks any inventiveness.
Provision of holes in the transverse beams so that existing
holes in the lifting devices can be used to mount the frame,
is but expected skill.
The applicant in his response of October 6, 1972 stated in part:
In the art, at the time of the invention, there were basically
two distinct types of car benches. One type of car bench
includes a pair of adjacent car lifting benches arranged
Side by side and operatively connected to lift a car by
resting ef the wheels thereon. Therefore, these cooperating
car lifting benches allows rlative displacement of the car
body and, therefore, these car lifting benches are not siuted
for body repair jobs. The other type of car bench is called
a car repair bench and is more elaborate, since it is
constructed to rigidly hold the car body relative to the
axles thereof.
There has therefore been a long-lasting problem due to the
fact that none of the two types of car benches was adapted
to perform also the function of the other. Besides, to our
knowledge, nobody at the time of this invention had suggested
anything to solve the above-mentioned problem--even if the
persons using the benches are generally skilled mechanics.
One must also bear in mind that the two types of benches lack
structural resemblance and this may explain why the skilled
mechanics have not solved the above-mentioned problem which
was known and even of concern to them.
None of the cited patents defines a frame which is similar
to the conversion frame conceived by the Applicant, as
admitted by the Examiner in the middle of page 2 of the
above-mentioned Official Action. None of the cited patents
suggests nor defines a frame adapted to convert a conventional
car lifting bench into a car repair bench. The Applicant's
frame structurally distinguishes itself from the cited prior
art in that it is particularly adapted and constructed to
be removably secured between the transverse members of
conventional car lifting benches. Even this is admitted by
the Examiner.
Having studied the application the Board finds that the alleged
invention lies in a vehicle supporting frame adapted to replace the
conventional frames of a lift device for a particular purpose. Amended
Claim 1 reads as follows:
A vehicle supporting frame adapted for removable attachment
to conventional car lifting benches and to convert the
latter into a car repair bench, said vehicle supporting frame
comprising two longitudinal beams connected at the opposite
ends by two fixed transverse beams, said transverse beams
being provided with holes arranged in such manner that they
come in alignment in with the holes in the vertically movable
transverse members of a conventional car lifting bench
when said transverse beams are located adjacent said
transverse members in the longitudinal direction of the
latter, so that said transverse beams are adapted for
removable connection to said transverse members, and at
least two inner transverse beams secured at opposite ends to
said two longitudinal beams and extending transversely
thereof and adapted for rigidly connecting a vehicle body
thereto and thus to the car lifting bench and to rigidly
support both said car body and the chassis thereof to
permit repairing of damaged vehicle body.
The patent to Strukenburg show a lifting frame having longitudinal
and transverse elements, mounted on a single lifting device and suitable
to support the body of a vehicle.
The patent to Myers shows a supporting frame having longitudinal
and transverse beams secured to lift means at each of its end transverse
beams, and two longitudinally adjustable inner transverse beams. This
frame per se is substantially the same as that disclosed by the applicant.
The patent to Lawson shows a vehicle supporting frame (19) attached
to lifting devices (benches) (11 and 13), comprising two longitudinal
beams (24 and 25) connected at the ends to two fixed transverse beams
(21 and 22) and having two inner transverse beams (27).
The disclosure of this application on page 2 reads: "... this
frame comprises two longitudinal beams (3) welded to two transverse
beams (4) provided with holes (5) to permit the connection of the frame
with the transverse members (2) of the car lifting bench. Secured
to the longitudinal beams (3) are two further inner transverse beams
(6) which may be fixed or adjustable ...." When compared to the Lawson
reference it is noted that beams (3) compare to beams (24 and 25),
transverse members (4) compare to transverse beams (21 and 22), transverse
members (2) of the car lift bench compare to (15 and 17) of the car
lift bench, and transverse beams (6) compare to transverse beams (27).
The only difference is that in this application the transverse
beams (4) are secured face to face with the transverse members (2) of
the car lift bench; whereas, the reference discloses that the transverse
beams rest on and are secured by bolts to the transverse members (15
and 17) of the car lift bench. Therefore, this frame and its attachment
to the transverse members of the car lifting bench are substantially
the same, in that any minor structural differences or the manner of
mounting the frame on the benches are but expected skill and design
dictated by the type and weight of the respective vehicles.
The fact that the applicant for the first time argues that his
frame is removeable is of no consequence, since Lawson provides a similar
structure, which is removeable with the same object in view as stated
at page 2 of the disclosure, "... is designed to replace the conventional
frames...." The applicant further states that the vehicle body can
be secured to the two inner transverse beams, which can be accomplished
in the same manner using the lawson structure which provides two inner
transverse beams.
Therefore, the Board is satisfied that the applicant has made no
patentable advance in the art as the solution claimed by the applicant
is one which is inherently accomplished by the prior art structure,
and recommends that the decision of the examiner, to refuse the appli-
cation, be upheld.
R. E. Thomas,
Chairman, Patent Appeal Board.
I concur with the findings of the Patent Appeal Board and am
satisfied that the applicant is not entitled to the grant of a patent.
The applicant has six months in which to appeal this decision in
accordance with Section 44 of the Patent Act.
Decision accordingly,
A.M. Laidlaw,
Commissioner of Patents.
Dated at Ottawa, Ontario,
thin 3 rd day of November, 1972.
Agent for Applicant
Mr. Pierre Lesperance