Ex Parte Koehn

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 29, 2007

10434804 (B.P.A.I. May. 29, 2007)

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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 LEROY F. KOEHN
____________

Appeal 2007-0788
Application 10/434,804
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: May 29, 2007
____________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, and ROBERT E.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appeal 2007-0788
Application 10/434,804 2
This appeal involves claims 2-9, 11-14, 17-19, 23-30 and 32. Claims
10, 15, 20-22, and 33 are objected to and claim 35 is allowed. Claims 1, 16,
and 34 have been cancelled.1 We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

The claims are directed to a mower including means for selectively
permitting and prohibiting movement of the mower deck from a use position
to a storage/servicing position. Claim 2 is illustrative:
2. A mower comprising:

a vehicle having a front and a rear;

a mower deck for selective attachment to the front of the
vehicle, wherein the deck is selectively movable between a generally
horizontal use position and a generally vertical storage/servicing
position when attached to the vehicle; and

means for selectively permitting and prohibiting movement of
the deck from the use position to the storage/servicing position, said
means including a mowing height adjustment lever, wherein
movement of the deck from the use position toward the
storage/servicing position is permitted when the mowing height
adjustment lever is in a collapsed position.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference to show
unpatentability:
Esau US 6,347,503 B1 Feb. 19, 2002

1 Claim 31 was not included in the list of rejections and therefore we will not
address claim 31.
Appeal 2007-0788
Application 10/434,804 3
The rejection as presented by the Examiner is as follows:
Claims 2-9, 11-14, 17-19, 23-30 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102
as being anticipated by Esau.
The Appellant contends that Esau does not disclose a mower having a
deck wherein movement of the deck from the use position toward the
storage/servicing position is permitted when the height adjustment lever is in
a collapsed position as required by claim 2.
Appellant also contends that Esau does not disclose a mower in which
the movement of the deck from a use position toward the storage/servicing
position is prevented when the mowing height adjustment lever is in an
upright position as recited in claim 3 and as similarly recited in claims 5, 26,
and 32
The Appellant further contends that Esau does not disclose a mower
having a deck and (1) means for selectively permitting and prohibiting
movement of the deck from the use position to the storage/servicing position
in one step or in four steps, as recited in claims 13 and 14 respectively, (2)
means for automatically locking the deck in the storage/servicing position,
as recited in claim 17, and (3) wherein the length of the wheel adjustment
arm is automatically altered as the deck is moved between the use and
storage/servicing position as recited in claim 23.
ISSUES
The first issue is whether the Appellant has shown that the Examiner
erred in finding that Esau discloses a mower having a deck wherein
movement of the deck from the use position toward the storage/servicing
position is permitted when the mowing height adjustment lever is in a
collapsed position as required by claim 2.
Appeal 2007-0788
Application 10/434,804 4
The second issue is whether the Appellant has shown that the
examiner erred in finding that Esau discloses a mower in which the
movement of the deck from a use position toward the storage/servicing
position is prevented when the mowing height adjustment lever is in an
upright position as recited in claim 3 and as similarly recited in claims 5, 26,
and 32.
The third issue is whether the Appellant has shown that the Examiner
erred in finding that Esau discloses a mower having a deck and a means for
selectively permitting and prohibiting movement of the deck from the use
position to the storage/servicing position in one or less than four steps, as
recited in claims 13 and 14.
The fourth issue is whether the Appellant has shown that the
Examiner erred in finding that Esau discloses a mower having a deck and
means for selectively permitting and prohibiting movement of the deck
between a storage/servicing position and a use position in which the mower
deck which automatically locks the mower deck in the storage/servicing
position as recited in claim 17.
The fifth issue is whether Appellant has shown that the
Examiner erred in finding that Esau discloses a mower having a height
adjustment arm which automatically alters in length as the deck is moved
between the use position and the storage/servicing position as recited in
claim 23.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellant invented a mower that comprises a vehicle and a mower
deck attached to the vehicle. The mower deck is selectively movable
between a generally horizontal use position and a generally vertical
storage/servicing position. There is a means which includes a mower height
Appeal 2007-0788
Application 10/434,804 5
adjustment lever that selectively permits and prohibits movement of the deck
from the use position toward the storage/servicing position. This movement
from the use position to the storage/servicing position is permitted when the
mower height adjustment lever is in a collapsed position and is prevented
when the mower height adjustment lever is in the upright position. As
recited in claims 13 and 14 respectively, the movement from the use to
storage/servicing position is accomplished in less than four steps and one
step respectively.
Esau discloses a mower that comprises a vehicle and a mower deck 20
attached to the vehicle. The mower deck is selectively movable between a
generally horizontal use position and a generally vertical storage/servicing
position (Figures 3 and 4). There is a means which includes a mower height
adjustment lever 118 that selectively permits movement of the deck from the
use position toward the storage/servicing position. This movement from the
use position to the storage/servicing position is permitted when the mower
height adjustment lever 118 is in a collapsed position. The height
adjustment lever 118 does not permit the mower deck to be placed in the
storage/servicing position when it is in the upright position. However, the
height adjustment lever 118 does not prevent movement toward the
storage/servicing position when it is in the upright position. In addition, the
height adjustment lever 118 does not automatically alter its length as the
deck is moved between the use position and the storage/servicing position.
Esau discloses that in order to move the mower deck from the use
position to the storage/servicing position, an operator must (1) install a deck
stand 150, (2) collapse the height adjustment lever 118 downward, (3)
disconnect the power take off, rotate the height adjustment lever 118 so that
it lies generally upon the upper surface of housing 22, (3) configure the
Appeal 2007-0788
Application 10/434,804 6
mechanism 66 from the locked to the unlocked position and (4) lift the front
of the deck (Esau, col. 8, ll. 29-65).
Esau discloses a hook end 162 that can be positioned in any suitable
aperture or ledge of tractor 24 to secure the mower deck 20 in the
storage/servicing position. Hook end 162 is not automatically positioned to
secure the mower deck in the storage/servicing position.

ANALYSIS
Esau discloses that the means which includes a height adjustment
lever permits movement of the mower deck from a use position to a
storage/servicing position. In this regard, the term “permitted” as recited in
claim 2 is interpreted to allow additional steps between the collapsing of the
height adjustment lever and the movement of the deck. Therefore, Esau
discloses each and every element of claim 2.
However, as Esau does not disclose a means which includes a height
adjustment lever that prevents movement of the mower deck from a use
position toward the storage/servicing position when the height adjustment
lever is in an upright position, Esau does not disclose the subject matter
recited in claims 3, 5, 26-30 and 32 and dependent claims 6-9, 11, and 12.
Esau likewise does not disclose means for selectively permitting and
prohibiting movement of the deck from a use position to a storage/servicing
position in one step or in less than four steps and therefore does not disclose
the subject matter of claims 13 and 14 respectively. In addition, as Esau
does not describe a means which automatically locks the mower deck in the
storage/servicing position, Esau does not disclose the subject matter of
claims 17 and claims 18 and 19 dependent thereon. Esau does not disclose a
height adjustment arm which automatically alters its length as the deck is
Appeal 2007-0788
Application 10/434,804 7
moved between the use position and the storage/servicing position as
required by claim 23 and dependent claims 24, and 25.
ORDER
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 2. We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 because
the Appellant has not argued the separate patentability of this claim.
We will not sustain the rejection as it is directed to the remaining
claims because as we stated above, Esau does not disclose the subject matter
of these claims.
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) (2006).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

hh

SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
2555 GRAND BLVD
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108-2613