Ex Parte Connell et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201412833801 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 12/833,801 07/09/2010 Richard Joseph Connell 17626D1-US 7226 30689 7590 12/22/2014 DEERE & COMPANY ONE JOHN DEERE PLACE MOLINE, IL 61265 EXAMINER MACARTHUR, VICTOR L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3679 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2014 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 RICHARD JOSEPH CONNELL, SHAWN JEREMY BECKER, GARRETT LEE GOINS, JARROD RAY RUCKLE, and MARK EUGENE BARKER ____________________ Appeal 2012-009456 Application 12/833,801 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: JOHN C. KERINS, JAMES P. CALVE, and MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 3, 4, 12, 13, and 21–23. Br. 10. Claims 5, 6, 8–11, and 14–19 are withdrawn. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appeal 2012-009456 Application 12/833,801 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 3 and 21 are independent. Claim 3 is reproduced below. 3. An agricultural implement frame comprising: a first frame tube being rectangular in cross-section; a second frame tube being rectangular in cross-section; the first and second frame tubes, as considered when disposed horizontally, each having opposed side walls connected at corners by upper and lower walls and the second frame tube having an end shaped complimentary to, and abutting one side wall of the first frame tube; a self-fixturing permanent connection located at a joint location between said end of said second frame tube and the first frame tube, the permanent connection including a weldable connector insertable between the end of said second frame tube and a location along a 1ength of the first frame tube, the weldable connector having a first receiving area opening towards one of the side wall of the first frame tube and conforming to the shape of the first frame tube, and having a second receiving area opening towards the end of the second frame tube and conforming to the shape of the second frame tube; a first weld structure connecting said upper and lower walls of the first frame tube to the weldable connector adjacent the first receiving area, but excluding regions adjacent the corners of the first frame tube; a second weld structure connecting a central portion of the side walls of the second frame tube to the weldable connector adjacent the second receiving area, but excluding regions adjacent the corners of the second frame tube; and wherein the first frame tube and the second frame tube lie generally in the same plane, and the weldable connector is secured to the end of the second frame tube and locates the end relative to the first frame tube. Appeal 2012-009456 Application 12/833,801 3 REJECTIONS Claims 3, 4, 12, 13, and 21–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of an adequate written description. Ans. 4. Claims 3, 4, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Parkinson (US 5,715,643; iss. Feb. 10, 1998), Browning (US 4,660,345; iss. Apr. 28, 1987), and Jaekel (US 2001/0000119 A1; pub. Apr. 5, 2001).1 Ans. 6. ANALYSIS Claims 3, 4, 12, 13, and 21–23 as lacking an adequate written description Regarding claim 3, the Examiner found a lack of written description for the limitation “connection located at a joint location between said end of said second frame tube and the first frame tube” and “a weldable connector insertable between the end of said second frame tube and a location along a length of the first frame tube.” Ans. 5. The Examiner found that Figure 6 of Appellants’ disclosure shows a connection/connector 130 with an opening for the end of the second frame tube 16'. Id. As a result, the second frame tube 16' abuts in direct contact against the first frame tube 20' and no portion of connection/connector 130 is “between” the tubes 16' and 20'. Id. Appellants argue that claim 3 recites that a “self-fixturing permanent connection is located at a joint location between said end of said second frame tube and the first frame tube.” Br. 11. Appellants also argue that “[i]t is clear that the weldable connector 130 extends between the tubes 16' and 20' near the location of the butt joint defined by the end of the tube 16’ and one side of the tube 20'.” Id. 1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 12, 13, and 22 on these grounds. See Ans. 4; Final Rej. 3–4. Appeal 2012-009456 Application 12/833,801 4 Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Claim 3 recites that a joint location is “between said end of said second frame tube and the first frame tube” and “a weldable connector [is] insertable between the end of said second frame tube and a location along a length of the first frame tube.” Appellants have not identified any disclosure in their Specification of this feature. See Br. 7, 11. To the contrary, Appellants disclose generally that the bottoms 32b, 82b of connectors are open between the leg portions 40, 80, i.e., in a region where a frame member is inserted to form a butt joint, as shown in Appellants’ Figure 6. See Spec. 4, paras. 17, 19; Figs. 3–5. Regarding independent claims 3 and 21, the Examiner found that the limitation of the weldable structure (i.e., a weld) being placed on the frame tubes so it is “excluding regions adjacent the corners” and “offset from the tube corners of said first frame tube” is not supported by the Specification. Ans. 5. The Examiner found that Figure 6 shows weld 172 extending over the rounded corner of tube frame 16’. Id. at 11. The Examiner also found that paragraph 20 of Appellants’ Specification, which discloses that “[t]he welds at 172 are offset inwardly from the corners of the tube 16’” is mis- descriptive because Figure 6 clearly shows welds 172 that are not offset from the corners of tube 16’ but rather extend over a portion of the rounded corners and do not exclude regions adjacent the corners. Id. at 12. We agree with Appellants that the Specification provides an adequate written description of this feature. Br. 11–12. Paragraph 20 discloses that “welds at 172 are offset inwardly from the corners of the tube 16'’ and “[w]elds 174 and 176 connect the leg portions 140 to the walls of the tube 20' inwardly of the adjacent corners of the tube.” Spec. 5, para. 20. Appellants’ Figure 6, reproduced below, discloses this arrangement. Appeal 2012-009456 Application 12/833,801 5 Figure 6 is a perspective view of a frame butt joint. As shown in Figure 6, welds 172 are offset from the very corners of tube 16’ and regions adjacent thereto. Welds 174 and 176 also are offset from the very corners of tube 20' and adjacent regions. We sustain the rejection of claims 3, 4, 12, and 13 for lack of written description of a connector “between” frame tubes but do not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 4, 12, 13, and 21–23 for lack of written description of weld structures that exclude regions adjacent corners of frame tubes. Claims 3, 4, 21, and 23 unpatentable over Parkinson, Browning, and Jaekel The Examiner relied on Parkinson to disclose features of independent claims 3 and 21, except for the location of the welds. Ans. 6. The Examiner found that Browning teaches welding location and Jaekel teaches that when welding rectangular members the corners need not be welded. Id. (citing Browning, Fig. 24 and Jaekel, Fig. 13). Appeal 2012-009456 Application 12/833,801 6 The Examiner has not established, by evidence or technical reasoning, a sufficient factual basis to reasonably support the conclusion that a skilled artisan would have had a reason to provide a weld that excludes regions adjacent the corners of the first and second frame tubes. As Appellants point out, Browning teaches that welds (beads 200a) should be applied along the entire peripheral edges of the connector (casting) that contact the structural members of a tubular frame and does not teach excluding corners of tubes, as claimed. Br. 14; Browning, col. 3, ll. 15–20 and 29–34; col. 5, ll. 10–20; Fig. 24. Figure 13 of Jaekel, upon which the Examiner also relies for this feature, does not disclose a weld that excludes regions adjacent to corners of frame tubes. To the contrary, Figure 13 of Jaekel appears to disclose weld material 464 extending along the entire periphery of wall 454 up to and including a corner of first member 66. The Examiner has not pointed to any disclosure in Jaekel of a weld that excludes regions adjacent to corners of the first and second frame tubes, as recited in claims 3 and 21. Even if Jaekel disclosed this feature, the Examiner has not explained why a skilled artisan would have modified Browning’s weld locations, which extend along the entire periphery of a connector that connects two tubes, to exclude welds from regions adjacent the corners. See Br. 14. Appellants assert that this feature is important because it results in less stress being transferred to the weld material during operation of the frame and connector as the tubes twist or flex. Br. 16. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 4, 21, and 23. Appeal 2012-009456 Application 12/833,801 7 DECISION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 3, 4, 12, and 13 for lack of a written description of a connector “between” frame tubes but REVERSE the rejection of claims 3, 4, 12, 13, and 21–23 for lack of a written description of weld structures that exclude regions adjacent corners of frame tubes. We REVERSE the rejection of claims 3, 4, 21, and 23 as unpatentable over Parkinson, Browning, and Jaekel. 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 pgc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation