Deere & Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 19, 2020

2020002287 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 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.
15/292,017 10/12/2016 Timothy J. Kraus 208065-9085-US00 1536
132636 7590 11/19/2020
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (JOHN DEERE)
790 N WATER ST
SUITE 2500
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
BROWN, JARED O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3725
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/19/2020 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY J. KRAUS
Appeal 2020-002287
Application 15/292,017
Technology Center 3700
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10 and 21. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellant, the invention “relates to an agricultural baler
having a compression system for forming bales of crop,” where “variable

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Deere &
Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002287
Application 15/292,017

2
length connecting rods permit the baler to achieve larger compression forces
at the plunger face while limiting the forces experienced by the gearbox of
the baler.” Spec. ¶¶ 1, 20. Independent claim 1 is the sole independent
claim on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as representative of the
appealed claims.
1. A baler comprising:
a frame;
a feed system coupled to the frame;
a baling chamber;
a plunger at least partially positioned within the baling
chamber and reciprocally movable with respect to the baling
chamber;
a plurality of connecting rods coupled to the plunger,
wherein each connecting rod of the plurality of connecting rods
defines a fluid volume therein;
a plurality of sensors, each sensor in fluid communication
with a respective fluid volume of a corresponding one
connecting rod of the plurality of connecting rods, wherein each
sensor is configured to send signals indicating a fluid pressure
within the corresponding fluid volume; and
a controller in operable communication with each sensor
and configured to determine both a total force being applied to
the plunger and at least one local force being applied to the
plunger at a first location, and wherein both the overall force
and the local force are based on the signals received from the
plurality of sensors.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1–3, 6–9, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Wilkens et al. (US 6,257,131 B1, issued July 10, 2001)
(“Wilkens”) and Roth (US 2005/0056165 Al, published
Mar. 17, 2005);
Appeal 2020-002287
Application 15/292,017

3
II. Claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Wilkens, Roth, and Miller (US 2006/0150832 Al, published
July 13, 2006); and
III. Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wilkens,
Roth, and Gerngross et al. (US 2008/0141873 Al, published
June 19, 2008) (“Gerngross”).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I—Obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 and its
dependent claims 2, 3, 6–9, and 21
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part,
a controller in operable communication with each sensor
and configured to determine both a total force being applied to
the plunger and at least one local force being applied to the
plunger at a first location, and wherein both the overall force
and the local force are based on the signals received from the
plurality of sensors.
Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphases added). For the below reasons, the
Examiner does not support adequately that the references of record disclose
the claimed controller configured to determines two forces applied to the
plunger.
In support of claim 1’s rejection, the Examiner finds that Wilkens
discloses a baler, substantially as claimed. Final Action 3–4. Specifically,
the Examiner finds the claimed connecting rods coupled to a plunger, each
connecting rod defining a fluid volume within, are disclosed by Wilkens’s
connecting rod 53 coupled to plunger 8, shown in Wilkens’s Figure 6. Id.
at 3 (citing Wilkens col. 5, ll. 45–46). The Examiner further finds the
claimed plurality of sensors is disclosed by Wilkens’s components 18
and 19, as shown in Wilkens’s Figure 1. Id. at 3–4 (citing Wilkens col.,
Appeal 2020-002287
Application 15/292,017

4
ll. 30–41). According to the Examiner, however, Wilkens’s “sensors” 18
and 19 are in fluid communication with components 10 and 15, but not in
fluid communication with connecting rod 53 that is coupled to the plunger.
Id. Thus, because Wilkens “is silent regarding the sensors are in fluid
communication with a respective fluid volume of the plurality of connecting
rods (53)” that are coupled to the plunger, the Examiner relies on Roth’s
sensor 106 on cylinder 50 to disclose a sensor in fluid communication with a
connecting rod coupled to a plunger. Id. at 4.
Returning to Wilkens, the Examiner finds the claimed controller is
disclosed by Wilkens’s control unit 20, which, according to the Examiner,
is configured to determine both a total force (actual pressure
load) being applied to the plunger (8) and at least one local force
(sensed by at least one of the plunger pressure sensors) being
applied to the plunger (8) at a first location, and wherein both the
overall force and the local force are based on the signals received
from the plurality of sensors (plunger pressure sensors).
Id. at 3–4 (emphasis omitted); see also Answer 6.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is in error because
Wilkens fails to disclose “a controller configured to determine both a total
and at least one local force applied to the plunger based on the outputs of the
sensors.” Appeal Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 2. This, according to Appellant,
is because “Wilkens only shows the use of a single pressure sensor (18), not
a plurality of pressure sensors as recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 5. Based
on our review of the record, we agree with Appellant.
With reference to Wilkens, as discussed above, the Examiner’s
rejection relies on connecting rod 53, as shown in Wilkens’s Figure 6, and
on sensor 18, as shown in Figure 1. Final Action 4. The Examiner does not
Appeal 2020-002287
Application 15/292,017

5
support adequately that Wilkens contemplates more than one connecting
rod 53 coupled to a plunger, such as by pointing to any portion of Wilkens
that shows or illustrates more than one such rod. Further, Wilkens’s
sensor 18 is not in fluid communication with connecting rod 53, and the
Examiner does not support adequately that Wilkens teaches any sensor
associated with connecting rod 53. Wilkens, Fig. 1; see also id. at col. 3,
ll. 58–64.
Wilkens’s component 19 is a switch that optionally is used instead of
sensor 18. Id. at col. 3, ll. 61–62.
Wilkens discloses that control unit 20 senses an overload condition in
accumulator 15 (not in connecting rod 53), based on sensor 18, and “controls
pressure in the hydraulic cylinder of the tension mechanism 10.” Id. at
col. 4, ll. 23–35 (emphasis omitted). This arrangement in Wilkens, of
sensing pressure in one cylinder to control pressure in another cylinder that
does not exert a force on the plunger, is different from what is claimed.
In response to Appellant’s argument in the Appeal Brief that Wilkens
does not disclose the claimed controller, the Examiner incorrectly states that,
“Wilkens discloses a plurality of pressure sensors associated with the
plunger.” Answer 4. As we discuss above, however, the Examiner does not
support adequately that Wilkens discloses anything other than a single fluid-
pressure sensor 18 and a single connecting rod 53. Based on this erroneous
factual finding, the Examiner reasons:
a person of ordinary skill . . . understands that wherever the
pressure sensors are positioned they will determine the force at
that particular position. One having ordinary skill . . . also
understands that sensors, without some type of controller to
interpret and use their data, are worthless. Therefore, it is
implied and understood that Wilkens’[s] controller is
Appeal 2020-002287
Application 15/292,017

6
configured to determine the local forces at each of the plunger
pressure sensors and ultimately the total force (actual pressure
load).
Answer 4. We disagree, and the Examiner does not support adequately that
any portion of Wilkens describes how its control unit 20 determines two
forces applied to a plunger, based on a signal from a single pressure sensor
associated with a single connecting rod. Thus, even if one modifies
Wilkens, based on Roth, such that Wilkens’s sensor 18 is in fluid
communication with connecting rod 53, the Examiner does not support
adequately that the proposed combination discloses the controller that
determines two forces as specifically claimed.
Consequently, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3,
6–9, and 21 that depend from, and the Examiner rejects with, claim 1.
Rejections II and III—Obviousness rejections of dependent claims 4,
5, and 10
Claims 4, 5, and 10 depend from independent claim 1. The Examiner
does not rely on either Miller or Gerngross to disclose anything that would
remedy the above deficiency in independent claim 1’s rejection.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
dependent claims 4, 5, and 10.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–10
and 21.

Appeal 2020-002287
Application 15/292,017

7
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6–9, 21 103 Wilkins, Roth 1–3, 6–9, 21
4, 5 103 Wilkins, Roth, Miller 4, 5
10 103 Wilkins, Roth,
Gerngross
10
Overall Outcome 1–10, 21

REVERSED