Ex Parte 7866134 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2018

90013820 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2018)

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.
90/013,820 09/26/2016 7866134 HUSQ.008X2 6553
20995 7590 08/29/2018
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
EXAMINER
ENGLISH, PETER C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3993
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte HUSQVARNA AB
____________________

Appeal 2018-004746
Reexamination Control 90/013,820
Patent US 7,866,134 B21
Technology Center 3900
____________________

Before BRETT C. MARTIN, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN,
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Issued to Lambert et al. on January 11, 2011.
Appeal 2018-004746
Reexamination Control 90/013,820
Patent US 7,866,134 B2

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 22–28, and 30–39, which constitute all
the claims pending in this application. Claims 3–6, 9–21, and 29 are not
subject to reexamination. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claims are directed “generally to means for collecting cut
grass.” Spec. 1, ll. 6–7. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A walk-behind grass mower for cutting grass and
collecting cut grass including:
a main body including a deck, an engine operatively
coupled to a grass cutting blade, and ground engaging wheels, a
chute being provided at a rear of the main body such that grass
cut by the blade within the main body is directed through the
chute to a discharge opening at an end of the chute;
two handle brackets oppositely mounted on lateral sides of
the main body;
a maneuvering handle coupled to the two handle brackets
to allow operation of the mower in a direction desired by a user
of the grass mower who is located at a walk behind location;
a collector element attached to the discharge opening at
the end of the chute collects the cut grass cut by the blade within
the main body and directed through the chute to the discharge
opening at an end of the chute, the collector element being
defined by a frame, the frame including at least two limb
elements located on substantially opposite sides of the collector
element; and
two collector brackets respectively mounted to the two
handle brackets and configured to respectively accommodate the
Appeal 2018-004746
Reexamination Control 90/013,820
Patent US 7,866,134 B2

3
limb elements, wherein the collector element is mounted on the
mower free from the handle.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Deutsch
Schaedler
Kutsukake
White
US 4,936,083
US 5,517,811
US 6,490,851 B2
AU 21090/67
June 26, 1990
May 21, 1996
Dec. 10, 2002
Nov. 6, 1969

Husqvarna 7021RES Owner’s Manual, January 23, 2006 (“Husqvarna”).

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 22–28, and 30–34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Kutsukake. Ans. 3.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 22, 24, 25, 32, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by White. Ans. 8.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 22, 24, 25, 32, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over White and Husqvarna or Schaedler.
Ans. 10.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 24, 25, and 32–34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Green and Husqvarna or Schaedler.
Ans. 13.
Claims 35–39 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph as
failing to comply with the written description requirement. Ans. 15.

Appeal 2018-004746
Reexamination Control 90/013,820
Patent US 7,866,134 B2

4
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the rejection of the claims as anticipated by
Kutsukake is deficient for three reasons. Appellant first argues that
Kutsukake fails to disclose a collector element defined by a frame. See App.
Br. 20–23. According to Appellant, the only portion of the frame identified
by the Examiner is the shaft 83 that Kutsukake describes as being something
“via which the grass bag 24 is supported or caught on the handle stay.” App.
Br. 21 (quoting Kutsukake col 8, ll. 21–22). Appellant further asserts that
the Examiner is incorrect in stating that grass bag 24 is depicted as being
constructed of a porous/fabric material that would necessitate a frame due to
cross-hatching indicated in the Figures. App. Br. 21. While Kutsukake does
not describe extensive detail regarding the structure of the grass bag, as
noted above Kutsukake refers to a bag, which would connote to one of
ordinary skill in the art of lawnmowers to be a flexible material requiring a
frame. Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that the Figures’ depiction
of the grass bag being cross-hatched would be understood to one of ordinary
skill in the art of lawnmowers as not being a solid, self-supporting material
such as hard plastic or the like, thus necessitating a frame. Taken together,
we agree with the Examiner that Kutsukake sufficiently discloses a bag
defined by a frame.
Secondly, Appellant argues that the Examiner fails “to explain how a
single cylindrical shaft has at least two ‘limb elements’ as claim 1 requires.”
App. Br. 21. Appellant asserts that “support shaft 83 is undisputedly a
single, unitary cylindrical shaft and, therefore cannot possibly have the
claimed ‘two limb elements.’” Reply Br. 2. We disagree.
Appeal 2018-004746
Reexamination Control 90/013,820
Patent US 7,866,134 B2

5
Kutsukake’s shaft 83 extends through bag 24 such that the ends of the
shaft extend beyond the bag itself. We find it reasonable to conclude that
the portion of the shaft that forms the top support for the bag nearest the
lawnmower opening would be part of the bag frame and that the portions
that extend beyond the bag reasonably can be considered limb elements. If
the shaft were only there to support the bag, it would not need to extend
beyond the bag as depicted in Kutsukake. Thus, the extra extension of the
shaft beyond what is necessary to support the bag may reasonably be
considered limb elements. One looking at the bag would not see the
projecting ends of the shaft as being necessary for the bag frame as they
extend beyond the bag itself and serve no purpose vis-à-vis the bag. Indeed,
these shaft extensions serve a wholly different purpose, namely to allow for
the bag to seat in cradle elements 78. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of
error in the Examiner’s interpretation of the shaft portions that extend
beyond the bag as meeting the claimed limb elements.
Lastly, Appellant asserts that the Examiner has employed “an
erroneous construction of ‘mounted to’” in interpreting the claims.
Reply Br. 2. Appellant emphasizes how the claims use two different terms,
“coupled to” and “mounted to” to describe various connections. As such,
according to Appellant, we must interpret these terms differently. See, e.g.,
Reply Br. 2–5. Appellant further asserts that because of these separate
terms, we must construe “mounted to” as a non-unitary construction, even
though no such definition is provided in the Specification. Reply Br. 2.
While Appellant’s argument construes “mounted to” to require non-
unitary construction, no construction of “coupled to” is ever presented. For
Appeal 2018-004746
Reexamination Control 90/013,820
Patent US 7,866,134 B2

6
Appellant’s argument to be persuasive, a skilled artisan would need to
understand how “mounted to” differs from “coupled to.” If “mounted to”
were to require non-unitary construction (with the handle bracket), then it
would seem to imply that “coupled to” would require a unitary construction
in order to be different. Normally, however, “coupled to” simply refers to
some kind of reversible connection that is also non-unitary. Accordingly,
we see no distinction between Appellant’s proposed definition of “mounted
to” and the ordinary and accustomed meaning of “coupled to,” such that
Appellant’s proposed construction would also fail under the argument
presented.
Appellant’s Specification and drawings make clear that the elements
referred to in the claims that are “coupled” are done so using fasteners (i.e., a
shaft and nut to couple the blade to the mowing deck and pins, screws, or the
like to couple the handle). See, e.g., Fig. 1. As such, we find it more
reasonable to conclude that something that is coupled is reversibly attached
while something that is mounted to may be more permanently attached,
including by a weld as asserted by the Examiner. See RAN 4. Regardless,
without sufficient explanation as to how we are to apply “coupled to” in a
different manner than “mounted to,” we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in this construction. Appellant makes no other arguments regarding
the anticipation of the claims by Kutsukake and we, therefore, sustain the
Examiner’s rejection.
As to the written description rejections (RAN 15), we agree with
Appellant that the Specification sufficiently describes both claim terms at
issue. See App. Br. 47–53. Regarding the first term, the Examiner appears
Appeal 2018-004746
Reexamination Control 90/013,820
Patent US 7,866,134 B2

7
to be asserting that the claim language requires that the collector brackets be
mounted outside or above the topmost edge of the handle brackets. We
agree with Appellant, however, that the claim language merely requires the
collector brackets to extend beyond an edge at the upper portion of the
bracket as depicted in Figs. 7A and 7B. These figures show that the
collector brackets extend beyond the edge of the handle bracket and do so in
the upper portion or half of the bracket, which is sufficient to support the
claim language at issue. As to the second limitation, we also agree with
Appellant that the Figures show that collector bracket is positioned above
and behind the pivot axis of the pivoting door as claimed. See App. Br. 53.
As such, we do not sustain the Examiner’s written description rejections.
No prior art rejections were made against claims 35–39.

DECISION
For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 35–39 and AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1,
2, 7, 8, 22–28, and 30–34.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART