Ex Parte Garner et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 31, 201914869742 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/869,742 09/29/2015 132636 7590 06/04/2019 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP (John Deere) 100 East Wisconsin A venue Suite 3300 Milwaukee, WI 53202 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Elijah B. Garner 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. 208065-9005-USOl 2099 EXAMINER TORRES, ALICIA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3671 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/04/2019 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 ELIJAH B. GARNER and KAMALAKANNAN NATARAJAN Appeal2018-006138 1 Application 14/869,742 Technology Center 3600 Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1---6, 8-13, 15, and 21-25. We have jurisdiction under § 6(b ). We reverse. 1 We reference herein the Specification filed September 29, 2015 ("Spec."), Final Office Action mailed June 30, 2017 ("Final Act."), Appeal Brief filed January 12, 2018 ("Appeal Br."), Examiner's Answer mailed March 27, 2018 ("Ans."), and Reply Brief filed May 25, 2018. 2 Appellant is the Applicant, Deere & Company, which, according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2018-006138 Application 14/869,742 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 9 are the independent claims on appeal. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, and we reproduce it below, emphasizing the limitation at issue. 1. A seed meter assembly for a seeding machine, the seed meter assembly comprising: a metering member mounted for rotation about a meter axis and driven to rotate in a direction of travel, the metering member having an inner surface configured to receive seeds and an outer surface, and apertures passing through the metering member between the inner surface and the outer surface at a radial distance from the meter axis; and a loader including at least one loader surface movable into and out of a position in which the loader surface is disposed at the radial distance, adjacent one of the apertures. Appeal Br., Claims App. ( emphasis added). REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows: claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15, and 21-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Gaspardo; 3 and claims 4 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Gaspardo. ANALYSIS Appellant argues Gaspardo fails to disclose a "loader including at least one loader surface movable into and out of a position in which the loader surface is disposed at the radial distance, adjacent one of the 3 US 4,511,061, issued Apr. 16, 1985. 2 Appeal2018-006138 Application 14/869,742 apertures," as recited in independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant similarly argues Gaspardo does not disclose a "loader including a loader surface configured to move into and out of a position in which the loader surface is disposed at the radial distance, adjacent one of the apertures," as recited in independent claim 9. Id. at 8. Gaspardo describes a stirrer-feeder for seed distribution. The stirrer-feeder includes rotatable disk 4 having series of holes 6 distributed about the disk's periphery. Disk 4 separates chambers 2, 3. An air pressure differential maintained between chambers 2, 3 induces seeds fed into chamber 2 to adhere to peripheral holes 6. Gaspardo, 1:65-2:7, 2:21-23, Figs. 1-2. Gaspardo's stirrer-feeder also includes stirrer 8 rotatable near the inner surface of disk 4 facing chamber 2. Stirrer 8, as depicted in Figures 1 and 2, includes radial extensions or teeth 14 and flanges at outer ends of the teeth extending axially toward the inner surface of disk 4. Id. at 2:8-11, 15-17. As depicted in Figure 2, the flanges at the outer ends of teeth 14 define annular surfaces. "In the course of the rotation [ of disk 4], the ends of flexible teeth 14 pass near the holes 6, removing thus the seeds that may have gotten stuck." Id. at 2:28-30; see also id. at 2:51-54. The Examiner quotes a general purpose dictionary that defines the preposition "at" as "used as a function word to indicate presence or occurrence in, on, or near." Ans. 4 ( citing www.merriam-webster.com). Seizing on the last word in the definition, the Examiner interprets the claim language "disposed at the radial distance" as sufficiently broad to encompass a loader surface movable, or configured to move, into and out of a position in which the loader surface is disposed near the radial distance. Id. at 3--4. 3 Appeal2018-006138 Application 14/869,742 Relying on this interpretation, the Examiner finds that an annular surface near the outer end of one of teeth 14 of Gaspardo' s stirrer 8 corresponds to the "loader surface" recited in claims 1 and 9, and that the stirrer may be rotated to move the tooth into a position where the annular surface is disposed "at," that is, near, one of holes 6. Id. at 4; Final Act. 3. "During examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The specification "is the single best guide to the rneaning of the meaning of a disputed term." ln re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Although dictionaries can be useful in claim construction, it is improper to adopt a dictionary definition entirely divorced from the context of the specification. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321; see also id. at 1320 (adrnonishing an approach that "limits the role of the specification in claim construction to serving as a check on the dictionary meaning of a claim term"). The Examiner's construction of the claim term "at" relies solely on the dictionary definition of the term and improperly ignores the Specification, including the claims. Rather, as Appellant confirms, when viewed in light of the Specification, a more relevant definition of 'at' would be to indicate 'a particular location or position."' Reply Br. 2-3 (citing www.dictionary.com). 4 Appeal2018-006138 Application 14/869,742 When considered in the context of the claim language, it appears Appellant meant the word "at" to indicate that the loader surface extends to, rather than near to, the radial distance where the apertures are disposed. When Appellant wished to indicate nearness rather than contiguity, as in the final prepositional phrase recited in each of claims 1 and 9, Appellant used other terminology, such as "adjacent." Furthermore, the Specification is consistent with an interpretation by which the word "at" indicates that the loader surface reaches to, rather than near to, the radial distance where the apertures are disposed. According to the Specification, loader surface 86 defined at an outer end of paddle 84 of loader 60 acts as a backstop to direct a seed from an adjacent aperture 26 in metering member 24 toward seed delivery mechanism 32. Spec. ,r 44, Fig. 9. The Specification explains that, "[i]n the backstop position, loader surface 86 is disposed at the central radial distance Fl adjacent the aperture 26 being swept." Id. ,r 44, Figs. 6, 9. Thus, to act as a backstop, the loader surface must at least partially overlap the aperture, not simply be near the aperture. The Examiner's finding that the annular surface of the outer end of Gaspardo's tooth 14 being positioned near hole 6 discloses a loader surface disposed "at the radial distance" is based on an improper construction of the term "at." Consequently, the Examiner has not demonstrated persuasively that Gaspardo discloses the position of the loader surface recited in independent claims 1 and 9. The Examiner finds, in the alternative, that Gaspardo' s stirrer 8 may be rotated to move tooth 14 into a position where an annular surface is disposed at the radial distance where holes 6 are disposed, even if "at," as 5 Appeal2018-006138 Application 14/869,742 used in the claims, indicates a particular location or position. Final Act. 7. The finding is not persuasive. Gaspardo describes the outer ends of teeth 14 of stirrer 8 as passing "near the holes 6," rather than reaching or overlapping the holes. Gaspardo, 2:28-30. In addition, Figure 2 of Gaspardo is ambiguous as to whether teeth 14 of stirrer 8 extend to the radial distance at which holes 6 are disposed. Thus, Gaspardo does not expressly satisfy the limitations at issue. Nevertheless, the Examiner finds that "the teeth [14 of Gaspardo] must reach to the radial distance of the holes, as claimed," in order for teeth 14 to perform the described function of removing seeds stuck in the holes 6. Final Act. 7; see also Gaspardo 2:28-30, 2:51-54. In the Answer, however, the Examiner finds that Gaspardo' s teeth 14 might perform this function even if the teeth merely passed near the holes. Ans. 5. Therefore, the Examiner has not shown persuasively that Gaspardo discloses, expressly or inherently, a loader surface movable, or configured to move, into and out of a position in which the loader surface is disposed at the radial distance, adjacent one of the apertures, as recited in independent claims 1 and 9. For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 9, as well as claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 21-25 depending therefrom. The rejection of claims 4 and 11 suffers from the same deficiency as the rejection of independent claims 1 and 9 (Final Act. 6-7), and, thus, we similarly do not sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 11. 6 Appeal2018-006138 Application 14/869,742 DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1---6, 8-13, 15, and 21-25 is reversed. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation