Ex Parte Georget

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 30, 2005

10156328 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 30, 2005)

- 1 -
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________

Ex parte CLAUDE GEORGET
______________

Appeal No. 2005-2681
Application 10/156,328
_______________

ON BRIEF
_______________

Before WARREN, OWENS and KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal and Opinion
We have carefully considered the record in this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134, and based
on our review, find that we cannot sustain the grounds of rejection advanced on appeal: appealed
claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Naaktgeboren et al.
(Naaktgeboren); and appealed claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Naaktgeboren in view of Glass et al. (Glass).1,2 Answer, pages 3-5.
We refer to the answer and to the brief for a complete exposition of the positions
advanced by the examiner and appellant.
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether Naaktgeboren discloses to one skilled in

1 Claims 1, 2 and 7 are all of the claims in the application. See the appendix to the brief.
2 The examiner does not state which prior Office action contains the grounds of rejection. We
find the grounds of rejection set forth in the final action mailed June 15, 2004.
Appeal No. 2005-2681
Application 10/156,328
- 2 -
the art in Figs. 1-3 thereof, as explained at col. 3, l. 51, to col. 4, l. 4, particularly col. 3, ll. 56-
60, and col. 4, l. 54, to col. 5, l. 3, that “twine brake 70 is . . . [located] between the separating
arrangement 74,80 and the baling chamber 22, as required by claim 1” as framed by appellant
(brief, page 3; original emphasis deleted).
The examiner submits that appellant’s
disclosure states, “the housing 12 includes sidewalls 18 between which a baling
chamber 20 is formed for the forming of a cylindrical bale 16.” The boundarys [sic] of
the bailing [sic] chamber are therefore between the side walls of the housing and
therefore the bailing chamber is located at either the front end or the rear of the bail
[sic]. [Naaktgeboren] shows in figures 1-2, sidewalls, constituting a bailing chamber.
Please see fig. 2, which clearly shows the twine brake (70) is located between the
separating arrangement (74) and an upper portion of a bailing chamber. [Answer,
pages 3-4.]
On this record, we cannot subscribe to the examiner’s position. We agree with the
examiner that when appealed claim 1 is interpreted in light of the specification by one of
ordinary skill in the art, see, e.g., In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027
(Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989), the
binding arm, separating arrangement and twine brake can be orientated in any position relative to
the baling chamber as long as the relationship of these elements to each other and to the baling
chamber are as stated in the claim. However, one skilled in the art finds teachings and
inferences in a reference based on the disclosure of that reference, and does not use any aspect of
the disclosure in the specification of an application to do so. In this respect, it is well settled that
a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of
ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom, see In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782-83 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Preda, 401
F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968), presuming skill on the part of this person. In
re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the present case, Naaktgeboren discloses with respect to FIG. 1 thereof, that “[w]ithin
[bale forming] chamber 22, the crop material at first curls freely under the combined action of
the floor roll 20, a chain conveyor 24 and a rotating stripper roll 26, and packs loosely under its
own weight until chamber 22 is filed” (col. 3, ll. 57-60). We find that one skilled in this art
would recognize from the reference that the “bale forming chamber” is within the confines of
Appeal No. 2005-2681
Application 10/156,328
- 3 -
chain conveyor 24, and that stop devices, that is, twine brakes, 70 are not between separating
means 74,80 and the bale forming chamber 22, but rather “[t]he twine separating arrangement
74,80 is located between a twine brake 70 and the baling chamber 22” as appellant argues (breif,
page 3).
Accordingly, in the absence of a prima facie case of anticipation, we reverse the ground
of rejection of appealed claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We find that the ground of rejection of appealed claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
based on the same analysis and the examiner does not dispute appellant’s position that Glass
does not suggest a different arrangement of the subject elements of Naaktgeboren (brief, page 4).
Accordingly, we reverse this ground of rejection as well.

Appeal No. 2005-2681
Application 10/156,328
- 4 -
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
Reversed

CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
TERRY J. OWENS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
PETER F. KRATZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Appeal No. 2005-2681
Application 10/156,328
- 5 -
Deere & Company
One John Deere Place
Moline, IL 61265-8098