Ex Parte JACOBSON et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 21, 2019

13966417 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/966,417 08/14/2013
30689 7590 03/22/2019
DEERE & COMPANY
ONE JOHN DEERE PLACE
MOLINE, IL 61265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
MARCUS A. JACOBSON
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.
P21582-US 2742
EXAMINER
PALMER, LUCAS EA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3731
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2019 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 MARCUS A. JACOBSON, SCOTT D. WEBER,
JEFFREY S. WIG DAHL, and ROY WITHERS 1
Appeal2018-004074
Application 13/966,417
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JILL D. HILL, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Deere & Company (Appellant) is the applicant as provided in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2018-004074
Application 13/966,417
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's invention relates to "a wrap device for round module
builders." Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1, 12, and 20 are independent. Appeal Br. 22-
25 (Claims App.). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A wrap device for communicating a wrap to a bale chamber
of a round module builder, the round module builder
comprising a bale sheave driving a bale belt to wrap a round
module with the wrap, the wrap device comprising:
a wrap floor comprising a first portion and a second
portion opposite the first portion;
a wrap floor linkage coupling the wrap floor to the round
module builder;
a first sheave coupled to the first portion of the wrap
floor;
a second sheave coupled to the second portion of the
wrap floor;
a wrap floor belt supported by the first sheave and the
second sheave;
and an actuator coupled to at least one of the wrap floor
linkage and the wrap floor to move the wrap floor and the first
sheave relative to the bale sheave from a disengaged position,
where the wrap is not communicated to the bale chamber,
and the top of the first sheave is under the bottom of the bale
sheave, to an engaged position, where the wrap floor belt
engages the bale belt and communicates the wrap to the bale
chamber, and the top of the first sheave is higher than the
bottom of the bale sheave.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 4--7, 12, and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Van Zee (US 5,129,208, issued July 14, 1992)
and Viaud (US 6,453,805 Bl, issued Sept. 24, 2002).
2
Appeal2018-004074
Application 13/966,417
II. Claims 8, 9, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Van Zee and Viaud, or, in the alternative, as
unpatentable over Van Zee, Viaud, and Butler (US 5,129,207,
issued July 14, 1992).
III. Claims 2, 3, 13, 14, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Van Zee, Viaud, and Butler.
IV. Claims 10, 11, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Van Zee, Viaud, and Underhill (US 4,956,968,
issued Sept. 18, 1990).
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Van Zee discloses a wrap device
substantially as recited in claim 1, with the exception that "Van Zee does not
distinctly disclose an actuator to move the wrap floor and first sheave
relative to the bale sheave." Final Act. 2-3. However, the Examiner finds
that Viaud teaches a wrap floor (guide structure 48), a wrap floor linkage
(positioning shaft 50, actuating arrangement 56, lever 78, arms 82, rolls 84),
a first sheave (roll 51 ), a second sheave (transverse support 72), and an
actuator (actuating arrangement 56) coupled to at least one of the wrap floor
linkage and the wrap floor to move the wrap floor and first sheave relative to
the bale sheave. Id. The Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious to modify Van Zee' s actuator and linkage arrangement "such that
the wrap floor is moveable instead of the bale belt as taught by Viaud" by
fixing Van Zee's bale sheave (toggle roller 122) and mounting Van Zee's
first sheave (front upper roller 34) with a pivot instead of a fixed pin "since
3
Appeal2018-004074
Application 13/966,417
Viaud illustrates equivalent structure for moving the wrap floor relative to
the bale belt." Id. at 3--4; see id. at 2 (reading the claimed bale sheave and
first sheave on Van Zee's toggle roller 122 and front upper roller 34,
respectively). According to the Examiner,
[B]ecause these two actuator and linkage systems were art-
recognized equivalents at the time of filing, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the
actuator and linkage taught by Viaud in place of the system of
Van Zee to accomplish the same function of moving the wrap
floor and the bale belt relative to one another.
Id. at 4.
Appellant argues that Van Zee' s bale wrap feed apparatus 26 is not a
"wrap floor" as called for in claim 1. Appeal Br. 10. In particular,
Appellant argues that "there is no physical element disclosed in Van Zee that
couples to the front upper roller 34 and the rear roller 3 8 and can be moved
from disengaged position to engaged position." Id. at 11 (boldface omitted).
Independent claims 1 and 12 recite "a first sheave coupled to the first
portion of the wrap floor" and "a second sheave coupled to the second
portion of the wrap floor." Appeal Br. 22-24 (Claims App.).
The Examiner identifies "element 26" of Figure 2 of Van Zee as
corresponding to the claimed "wrap floor." Final Act. 2. Van Zee uses the
reference numeral "26" to denote "[a] bale wrap feed apparatus." Van Zee
2 :46. Van Zee discloses that "[p ]ower for the wrap feed apparatus 26 is
supplied by a plurality of endless wrap feed belts" 32 and that "wrap feed
belts 32 are ... trained about three rollers, front upper roller 34, front lower
roller 36[,] and rear roller 38." Id. 2:50-52, 55-58 (boldface omitted). Van
Zee also refers to "housing 30 of the wrap feed apparatus 26" and a shaft of
cylinder 128 being pivotally attached to mounting ear 132 depending
4
Appeal2018-004074
Application 13/966,417
downwardly and rearwardly from a frame member of bale wrap feed
apparatus 26. Id. 2:49--50; 5:28-33 (boldface omitted). Van Zee describes
"bale wrap feed apparatus 26" as being "mounted on a lower rearward
portion of the tail gate 16." Id. 2:46-47 (boldface omitted).
Van Zee does not explicitly disclose any structure of bale wrap feed
apparatus 26 that is coupled to front upper roller 34 and rear roller 38, and
the Examiner does not identify with sufficient specificity structural elements
of bale wrap feed apparatus 26 that correspond to the claimed "first portion
of the wrap floor" and "second portion of the wrap floor." See Final Act. 2,
4 (referring only generally to Figure 2 and "element 26"). The Examiner
relies on Viaud for a teaching to modify Van Zee' s actuator and linkage
arrangement to make the wrap floor moveable instead of the bale belt by
fixing Van Zee's bale sheave (toggle roller 122) and mounting Van Zee's
first sheave (front upper roller 34) with a pivot instead of a fixed pin, and not
for any teaching that would make up for the aforementioned deficiency in
the Examiner's findings with respect to Van Zee.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1 and 12, or claims 4--7 and 15-17, each of which depends from
either claim 1 or claim 12, as unpatentable over Van Zee and Viaud.
Rejection II
The Examiner's additional findings and reasoning in rejecting claims
8, 9, and 18 do not overcome the aforementioned deficiency in the rejection
of claims 1 and 12. See Final Act. 5---6. Thus, for the reasons discussed
above, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 8, 9, and 18 as
5
Appeal2018-004074
Application 13/966,417
unpatentable over Van Zee and Viaud, or, in the alternative, as unpatentable
over Van Zee, Viaud, and Butler.
Rejection III
Claims 2 and 3 depend from claim 1, and claims 13 and 14 depend
from claim 12. Appeal Br. 22, 24 (Claims App.). Independent claim 20,
like claims 1 and 12, recites a first sheave coupled (via a first sheave
linkage) to the first portion of the wrap floor and a second sheave coupled to
the second portion of the wrap floor. Id. at 24--25. The Examiner's
additional findings and reasoning in rejecting claims 2, 3, 13, 14, and 20 do
not overcome the aforementioned deficiency in the rejection of claims 1 and
12. See Final Act. 6-10. Thus, for the reasons discussed above regarding
claims 1 and 12, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 13, 14, and
20 as unpatentable over Van Zee, Viaud, and Butler.
Rejection IV
The Examiner's additional findings and reasoning in rejecting claims
10, 11, and 19 do not overcome the aforementioned deficiency in the
rejection of claims 1 and 12. See Final Act. 10-11. Thus, for the reasons
discussed above regarding claim 12, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 10, 11, and 19 as unpatentable over Van Zee, Viaud, and Underhill.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is REVERSED.
6
Appeal2018-004074
Application 13/966,417
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)(l )(iv).
REVERSED
7