Ex Parte Josset et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 26, 2013

11408828 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2013)

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.
11/408,828 04/20/2006 Etienne Josset 09524-US 2617
30689 7590 06/27/2013
DEERE & COMPANY
ONE JOHN DEERE PLACE
MOLINE, IL 61265
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, MAI T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3671
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2013 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 ETIENNE JOSSET AND JEREMY POURCHET
____________________

Appeal 2009-008547
Application 11/408,828
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
PATRICK R. SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-008547
Application 11/408,828

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Etienne Josset and Jeremy Pourchet (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-13, and 15, of
which claims 1 and 7 are independent. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed generally “to a tine bar housing of a
pick-up unit for harvested agricultural material and, furthermore, to a tine
bar having such a tine bar housing.” Spec., [0001]. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A tine bar housing for a pick-up unit for harvested
agricultural material, the tine bar housing comprising:
an elongate housing body having a back wall joined to
opposite side walls so as to define an open front portion; and
a housing cover extending across said open front portion.
being joined to said housing body and being provided over at
least a portion of a length of the housing body, the housing
cover including openings for receiving tines, the openings being
configured for permitting end segments of the tines to extend
outward through said openings from the back wall of the
housing.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Majkrzak US 6,199,358 Mar. 13, 2001
Appeal 2009-008547
Application 11/408,828

3
THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1, 2, 4-13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Majkrzak. Ans. 3.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation by Majkrzak
Claims 1, 2, and 4-6
Appellants argue claims 1, 2, and 4-6 as a group. We select claim 1 as
representative and claims 2 and 4-6 stand or fall with claim 1. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). The Examiner finds that each element
of claim 1 is taught in Majkrzak. See Ans. 3. With respect to claim 1,
Appellants argue that “tube assembly 24 does not have a plurality of
openings for receiving tines for permitting end segments of the tines to
extend outward through said openings from the back wall of the
housing.” App. Br. 10.1 Appellants further argue that “no part of the tine
32 extends from the back wall through the opening in the cover.” Id. As
the Examiner points out, however, “[c]laim 1 merely requires a housing
body, a housing cover, and openings in the housing cover. Any mention of
tines in the claim is used to describe the intended purpose of the openings.”
Ans. 5. The Examiner goes on to explain that “the tines are simply used to
describe limitations of the openings, the openings merely need to be capable
of permitting tines to extend outward through the openings from the back

1 Appellants did not include page numbers in the brief, but the Table of
Contents states that the Argument section begins on page 10. Appellants’
arguments extend for three pages, so we accept the first page of argument as
page 10 and number the following pages as 11 and 12 and reference them
accordingly.
Appeal 2009-008547
Application 11/408,828

4
wall of the housing.” Id. The Examiner concludes that “a tine is not
claimed and the prior art reads on claim 1 [because] Majkrzak discloses the
claimed housing body and housing cover of the tine bar housing.” Id. We
agree and, as such, sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as dependent
claims 2 and 4-6, as anticipated by Majkrzak.
Claims 7, 10-13, and 15
Appellants argue claims 7, 10-13, and 15 as a group. We select claim
7 as representative and claims 10-13 and 15 stand or fall with claim 7. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Unlike claim 1, claim 7 specifically
recites tines in addition to the tine housing. The Examiner finds that
Majkrzak discloses each element of claim 7. See Ans. 3-4.
Appellants argue that claim 7 “requires end segments of the tine to
extend through the openings in the housing cover, while the end segments
(finger portions 45) of the tine 32 of Majkrzak do not project through the
openings in the tine bar [housing] , as required by claim 7.” App. Br. 11.
As the Examiner points out, and we agree, claim 7 “merely requires that the
‘end segment extend outward from the tine bar housing and through one of
the openings’” and that “[a]s can be seen in figure 3 of Majkrzak, the end of
segment 45 of tine 32 extends outward from the housing 28B and through
the opening at the bottom.” Ans. 5. We understand the Examiner to be
asserting that Majkrzak’s tine 32 extends outward from the tine bar housing
via segment 45 and also that the tine portion identified as element 52 is a
part of the tine that extends through the claimed housing opening, which it
clearly does. Accordingly, we do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive
Appeal 2009-008547
Application 11/408,828

5
and sustain the rejection of claim 7 as well as dependent claims 10-13 and
15 as anticipated by Majkrzak.
Claim 8
Claim 8 further includes a biasing segment and Appellants argue that
“[c]laim 8 is thought allowable for the additional reason that it requires the
plurality of tines to each include a biasing segment, and no such biasing
segment is present in Majkrzak.” App. Br. 11. Appellants go on to argue
that “the Examiner considers the post 52 of Majkrzak to be the required
‘biasing segment[,]’ but the post 52 is provided only for receiving the screw
fastener 60 and has no biasing function, whereas in [A]ppellant’s structure,
the coil segment 20 of the tines provide[s] biasing to the tine end segments
26.” Id.
As we understand the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8, the Examiner
finds that the tine includes Majkrzak’s element 52 and by virtue of element
52, the tine extends through the opening as claimed, as discussed supra.
Further, the Examiner explains that “post 52 is formed with tine 32 and is
positioned inside the housing 28A and cooperates with screw 60 to maintain
the outwardly extending position of the tine” and that “[w]ithout the post,
the tine would be susceptible to uncontrolled sliding over the surface of the
housing.” Ans. 6. As such, at least a “segment” of post 52, which the
Examiner finds to be part of the tine, extends through the opening in the
housing as claimed. Furthermore, the upper portion of post 52 (as viewed in
Figure 3), which includes internal threads that cooperate with screw 60 does
perform a type of biasing function (i.e., maintaining the position of the tine)
sufficient to meet the “biasing segment” as broadly claimed in claim 8.
Appeal 2009-008547
Application 11/408,828

6
Accordingly, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 8 and sustain the rejection.
Claim 9
Appellants argue that
[c]laim 9 is thought allowable for the additional reason that it
requires the tine bar to include a rear housing reinforcement
to be positioned over a rear area of the tine bar housing and,
as can clearly be determined from viewing FIG. 2, the top
(back) of the Majkrzak tine bare assembly 24 does not include a
reinforced area, as required by the claim.
App. Br. 11. As the Examiner responds, “appellant[s] provide[] no
limitation to define which area of the housing is considered the rear area;
claim 9 merely requires a rear area,” which the Examiner determines is met
by “the right side of housing 28B.” Ans. 6. We agree and therefore sustain
the rejection of claim 9.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 1, 2, 4-13, and 15.
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

rvb