Ex Parte Goering et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 2015

12715237 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2015)

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.
12/715,237 03/01/2010 Kevin Jacob Goering 19258-US 8342
30689 7590 08/25/2015
DEERE & COMPANY
ONE JOHN DEERE PLACE
MOLINE, IL 61265
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, MAI T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3671
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2015 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 KEVIN JACOB GOERING, CRAIG ALAN PUETZ,
CHARLES OSTERMEIER, and
DANIEL JOHN JOHANNSEN
____________________

Appeal 2013-006718
Application 12/715,237
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Kevin Jacob Goering et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4–15.1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Claim 3 is canceled.
Appeal 2013-006718
Application 12/715,237

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a low cost cotton harvester with unit speed
synchronized to ground speed. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. An agricultural implement including a tractor chassis
having a fore-and-aft extending frame with an engine, drive
wheels having drive wheel axles supporting a first end of the
frame and steerable wheels supporting a second end of the
frame, drive transmission structure connected to the engine and
to the drive wheels and having a mechanical front wheel drive
(MFWD) output, wherein the speed of the MFWD output is
synchronized with the speed of the drive wheels, a row unit
extending from the first end of the frame, a crop receptacle
supported by the frame, a crop conveyor supported on the
frame, and a crop conveying duct extending from the row unit
to the receptacle, the improvement comprising:
a row unit drive connected to the MFWD output, the
MFWD output thereby driving the row unit at a speed
dependent on the speed of the drive wheels.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Thomann
Brace
US 2,719,394
US 3,520,119
Oct. 4, 1955
July 14, 1970
Giles
Steffen
US 2005/0000277 A1
US 2007/0123422 A1
Jan. 6, 2005
May 31, 2007

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Thomann and Brace.
Appeal 2013-006718
Application 12/715,237

3
II. Claims 6, 8, 11, and 13–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Thomann, Brace, and Giles.
III. Claims 7 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Thomann, Brace, Giles, and Steffen.

OPINION
Rejection I
Appellants argue claims 1, 4, 5, 9, and 10 together. See Br. 10–11.
We select independent claim 1 as the illustrative claim, and claims 4, 5, 9,
and 10 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Thomann discloses all of the limitations of
independent claim 1except for:
a drive transmission structure connected to the engine and to
the drive wheels and having a mechanical front wheel drive
(MFWD) output, wherein the speed of the MFWD output is
synchronized with the speed of the drive wheels and the row
unit drive connected to the MFWD output to drive the row unit
at a speed dependent on the drive wheels.
Final Act. 2.
The Examiner further finds that:
Brace teaches a similar agricultural implement having the
improvement of a drive transmission structure 4, 15-18, 36, 39,
40 (fig. 2) connected to the engine 1 and to the drive wheels 38
and having a mechanical front wheel drive output 20, 21, 23,
25, 26, wherein the speed of the MFWD output is synchronized
with the speed of the drive wheels and a row unit drive 27-32
connected to the MFWD output, the MFWD output thereby
driving the row unit 33 at a speed dependent on the speed of the
drive wheels.
Id. at 3 (citing Brace, col. 2, ll. 31–52). Based on these findings, the
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
Appeal 2013-006718
Application 12/715,237

4
modify the agricultural implement of Thomann to include [a]
drive transmission structure connected to the engine and to the
drive wheels and having a mechanical front wheel drive input,
wherein the speed of the MFWD output is synchronized with
the speed of the drive wheels and the MFWD output is
connected to the row unit drive to drive the row unit at a speed
dependent on the drive wheels as taught by Brace because the
technique for improving agricultural implements was part of the
ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art in
view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other
agricultural implements.
Id.
Appellants argue that Brace does not disclose a mechanical front
wheel drive because Brace’s hydrostatic drive unit is “intended to drive only
the set of wheels 38 of the cotton picker tractor.” Br. 11. Appellants’
argument is not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner.
Brace describes the hydrostatic drive mechanism 50 as an alternative to the
mechanical front wheel drive (described in column 2, lines 31–45) relied
upon in the rejection. Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is inapposite.
Appellants further argue that “it would not have been obvious to have
used the MFWD output provided specifically for driving the steerable
wheels and to also drive the picker unit in order to achieve synchronization
of the picker unit drive speed with ground speed.” Br. 11. Appellants’
argument is not persuasive, because Appellants do not demonstrate that
Brace’s MFWD is intended to drive only the drive wheels 38. Rather, as
described in column 2, lines 31–45 Brace’s MFWD also drives the
components of the pickers (row units).
Furthermore, as explained by the Examiner, “improving the tractor
and row unit of Thomann by providing the MFWD output and associated
arrangement as taught by Brace would have been an obvious improvement
Appeal 2013-006718
Application 12/715,237

5
since the technique for relating the speeds of the drive wheels and the row
unit was already known in the art.” Ans. 13. The Examiner further explains
that:
One of ordinary skill in the harvesting art understands the
importance of relating the two speeds in order to optimally
harvest crop since driving the row unit faster than the vehicle
speed may result in pre-mature wear and tear of the row unit’s
moving parts, and driving the row unit slower than the vehicle
speed may result in incomplete harvesting or jamming. By
keeping the row unit in pace with the vehicle speed, the row
unit can harvest crop at an appropriate speed based on the
vehicle speed for smooth, continuous harvesting.
Id.
Appellants do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s reasoning.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting independent
claim 1, and claims 4, 5, 9, and 10 which fall therewith.
Appellants separately argue claim 2, stating:
Claim 2 is thought allowable for the additional reason that it
requires the crop conveyor to be driven by a tractor PTO shaft
which is driven by the engine independently of the MFWD
output, and while Brace et al. discloses driving blower fans 14
independently of driving the row units 33, neither Thomann et
al. or Brace et al. disclose an MFWD output, thus making this
limitation unobvious.
Br. 11.
As discussed supra, Appellants’ argument that Brace fails to disclose
an MFWD output is unpersuasive. Accordingly, for these reasons, we also
sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 2.
Appeal 2013-006718
Application 12/715,237

6
Rejection II
Appellants argue that Giles does not overcome the deficiencies in
Thomann and Brace. See Br. 12. As we find no deficiencies in the
combination of Thomann and Brace, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.
We sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6, 8, 11, and
13–15.
Rejection III
Appellants argue that claims 7 and 122 are allowable because “none of
the applied references teach mounting the pump on the tractor chassis
frame.” Br. 12. In support of the argument, Appellants contend that “the
transversely extending sprayers respectively mounted to the front and rear
of the tractor chassis . . . cannot fairly be construed to be the claimed tractor
chassis frame and clearly, neither of the pumps 14A and 13B is supported by
the tractor chassis frame.” Id. at 12–13.
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive, because, as noted by the
Examiner, it is not commensurate in scope with claims 7 and 12. Ans. 14.
Claims 7 and 12 merely require “a sprayer pump supported on the frame.”
Br. 14, 15–16. Furthermore, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s finding that “Steffen teaches a tractor (fig. 1) having sprayer
chassis 6A (fig. 2) including a sprayer pump 4A and a drive structure 2A
powering the sprayer pump from the PTO shaft.” Final Act. 8 (citing
Steffen ¶ 44). The Examiner explains that Steffen’s sprayer chassis is
supported on by the tractor and thus, is “supported ‘by’ the frame.” Ans. 15.

2 We note that in the last paragraph on page 12 of the Appeal Brief,
Appellants refer to claim 10 instead of claim 12. This appears to be a
typographical error and is treated as such.
Appeal 2013-006718
Application 12/715,237

7
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims
7 and 12.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4–15 are AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
Klh