Ex Parte Carr et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2016

11934242 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111934,242 11102/2007
34082 7590 07/01/2016
ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C.
CAPITAL SQUARE
400 LOCUST, SUITE 200
DES MOINES, IA 50309-2350
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brian W. Carr
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P07113USO 5287
EXAMINER
MITCHELL, JOEL F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3671
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/0112016 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):
swood@zarleylaw.com
kconrad@zarleylaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN W. CARR, ANDREW G. JENKINS,
CURTIS R. HAMMER, SCOTT A. SPORRER, NICK MERFELD, and
MARCUS D. WOSTER
Appeal2014-006783
Application 11/934,242 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Gary W. Clem,
Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2014-006783
Application 11/934,242
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A method of operating a planter for planting seed in a
field for experimental purposes, comprising the steps of:
inputting plot characteristics into a controller associated
with a planter;
sensing ground speed and distance traveled by the
planter, and transmitting the sensed information to the
controller; and
automatically adjusting the rotational speed of a seed
plate of the seed metering unit to maintain alley alignment
based upon the sensed information and the inputted plot
characteristics.
CITED REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
O'Neall et al.
(hereinafter "O 'Neall")
Luxon
Keaton
us 5,621,666
US 6, 176,393 B 1
US 6,644,225 B2
Upadhyaya et al. US 6,941,225 B2
(hereinafter "Upadhyaya")
REJECTIONS
Apr. 15, 1997
Jan.23,2001
Nov. 11, 2003
Sept. 6, 2005
I. Claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Upadhyaya and Luxon.
II. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Upadhyaya, Luxon, and Keaton.
III. Claims 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Upadhyaya, Luxon, and O'Neall.
2
Appeal2014-006783
Application 11/934,242
FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely upon and adopt the Examiner's findings stated in the Final
Action at pages 2-6 and the Answer at pages 4---6. Additional findings of
fact may appear in the Analysis below.
ANALYSIS
The sole issue on Appeal is whether Upadhyaya and Luxon teach
claim 1 's "automatically adjusting the rotational speed of a seed plate of the
seed metering unit to maintain alley alignment." See Appeal Br. 3.
The Appellants argue that Upadhyaya employs real-time kinematics
("R TK") GPS to determine that the planter is at a desired location for
planting seeds, whereupon seeds are dispensed by a vacuum controlled
metering plate, but that Upadhyaya does not disclose "adjusting the
rotational speed of a seed plate." Appeal Br. 4--5 (citing Upadhyaya col. 3,
11. 3-17, col. 9, 1. 60 - col. 10, 1. 26); see also id. at 8, Reply Br. 2.
The Appellants further argue that Luxon employs a seed meter with a
rotatable seed disc, but does not disclose adjusting its rotational speed.
Appeal Br. 5---6, 8 (citing Luxon col. 1, 1. 66- col. 2, 1. 64, Figs. 1--4); see
also id. at 8-9, Reply Br. 2.
As stated in the Answer, the foregoing arguments - which consider
the alleged deficiencies of the references individually - are unavailing
because the rejection relies upon the references' combined teachings. See
Answer 5 (citing In re Keller, 642 F .2d 413 (CCP A 1981 ), In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
The Appellants also argue that the references' combined teachings fail
to meet the limitation of claim 1 at issue. Appeal Br. 6, 9-10. This
argument is not persuasive because, as the Examiner finds, Upadhyaya
3
Appeal2014-006783
Application 11/934,242
teaches automatically adjusting the dispensing of seeds in a manner that
deposits the seeds in a particular arrangement and doing so, by using the
Luxon seed-dispensing technique, would be achieved by automatically
adjusting the rotational speed of the seed plate. See Final Action 3, 6.
The Appellants also argue that the Examiner's rationale for combining
the references lacks support in their disclosures. Appeal Br. 6. This
argument is not persuasive because such rationale need not be drawn from
the references themselves. See Answer 5---6 (citing KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347 (Fed. Cir. 1992), In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
The Appellants also argue that combining Upadhyaya with Luxon
would render such devices inoperable or unsatisfactory for the intended
purpose thereof. Appeal Br. 6, 9. This argument is unpersuasive because
the Appellants' characterizations of such combination addresses features of
their bodily incorporation, whereas assessing obviousness involves what the
references' combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See Answer 6 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA
1981)).
As to dependent claims 2-8, the Appellants rely on the arguments
presented as to independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 10, 11. Accordingly,
the rejection of claims 1-8 is sustained.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
4