Ex Parte PalmquistDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 30, 201813971042 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/971,042 08/20/2013 88988 7590 06/01/2018 AGCO Corporation, IP Legal Jeff Ellsworth 420 W. Lincoln Blvd. Hesston, KS 67062 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Troy R. Palmquist 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. US 12121/US-2 3653 EXAMINER BOECKMANN, JASON J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3752 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2018 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): patents@agcocorp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TROY R. PALMQUIST Appeal2017-000867 Application 13/971,042 Technology Center 3700 Before LINDA E. HORNER, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2017-000867 Application 13/971,042 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant 1 appeals from the Examiner's decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated December 16, 2015 ("Final Act.") and the Advisory Action dated February 9, 2016 ("Adv. Act."), rejecting claims 8-10, 13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huartson (US 2004/0084552 Al, published May 6, 2004) and Bolson (US 4,616,298, issued October 7, 1986). 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a spray nozzle light. Claims 8 and 13 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 8, reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized for emphasis, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 8. An agricultural sprayer configured to spray a fluid product onto a field as the agricultural sprayer moves over the field, the sprayer compnsmg: an elongated boom mounted on the sprayer and positioned such that its elongated dimension is transverse to the direction of travel of the sprayer over the field; a conduit defining a fluid pathway; a plurality of spray nozzles in fluid communication with the fluid pathway and located at various positions along the boom; AGCO Corporation is the applicant under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief, dated February 11, 2016 ("Br."), at 4. 2 Claims 1-7, 11, 12, 14 and 16-20 are cancelled. Br. 6. 2 Appeal2017-000867 Application 13/971,042 a plurality of turbines, each of the plurality of turbines operatively located within the fluid pathway and respectively located proximate the plurality of spray nozzles; a plurality of blockage-indicating light sources, each of the plurality of light sources respectively located proximate the plurality of spray nozzles and respectively in electrical communication with the plurality of turbines so as to indicate fluid flow through each respective spray nozzle, each of the plurality of light sources arranged to direct emitted light into spray patterns produced by respective ones of the plurality of spray nozzles when fluid is flowing through the fluid pathway to the respective spray nozzle. Claim 8 DISCUSSION The Rejection of Claims 8-10, 13, and 15 as Unpatentable Over Huartson and Balson The Examiner finds that the combination of Huartson and Bolson disclose all of the limitations of independent claim 8. Final Act. 3--4. In particular, the Examiner finds that Bolson discloses a hydro light wherein the light source emits light into the spray pattern produced by the spray nozzle when fluid flows through the fluid pathway to the spray nozzle. Id. at 4. The Examiner also finds that Bolson's light will inherently tum off when the fluid is blocked and is no longer turning turbine 37 and, thus, indicate when the fluid path is blocked. Id.; Adv. Act. 2. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art "to replace each of the nozzles of Huartson (26 and 27) with the nozzle, turbine, generator and light ofBolson for utilitarian purposes and to provide a light when fluid is flowing out of the nozzle." Final Act. 4; Adv. Act. 2. 3 Appeal2017-000867 Application 13/971,042 Appellant asserts that the Examiner's rejection is erroneous for several reasons. First, Appellant asserts that "the combination of [Huartson and Bolson] fail[ s] to suggest using a water-powered light to indicate if a spray nozzle is blocked or otherwise not receiving the required flow of fluid as required by claim 8." Br. 14. According to Appellant, "the problem facing the inventor of the current application was ... how to determine if one or more of the many nozzles along the boom of the agricultural sprayer was blocked" and "Huartson does not recognize this problem and Bolson is directed to solving a different problem." Id. Appellant, however, does not address the Examiner's finding that Bolson discloses a light source that inherently turns off when the fluid is blocked and is no longer turning the turbine and, thus, inherently indicates when the fluid path is blocked. Id.; Adv. Act. 2. Thus, Appellant does not identify error in the Examiner's finding that Bolson discloses "blockage indicating light sources" as recited in claim 8. In addition, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness does not require that references solve the same problem solved by the Appellant. In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Appellant's arguments are not persuasive. Second, Appellant asserts that the Examiner's "combination of Huartson and Bolson is an exercise of impermissible hindsight." Br. 14. According to Appellant, because the Specification, not Huartson and Bolson, discloses "that it is desirable that the light source be configured to emit light only when fluid is flowing through the fluid passageway to provide an indication of a blockage in the conduit," "it logically follows that the impetus [to] combine the teachings of Bolson with the teachings of Huartson has been improperly gleaned from Applicant's own specification." Id. 4 Appeal2017-000867 Application 13/971,042 However, the Examiner's rationale for combining Huartson and Bolson is "for utilitarian purposes and to provide a light when fluid is flowing out of the nozzle" (Final Act. 4; Adv. Act. 2), not for a blockage- indicating light source. The Examiner's findings and articulated reasoning for combining Huartson and Bolson are supported by explicit or inherent teachings in the cited prior art. Examiner's Answer (June 17, 2016), at 4 (citing Bolson, Abst.); see also Bolson, col. 5, 11. 4-7, Fig. 12 (disclosing the use of water lights for utilitarian purposes in sprinkler heads). Appellant does not identify any knowledge relied upon by the Examiner that was gleaned only from Appellant's disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, thereby obviating Appellant's assertion of hindsight. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Thus, Appellant does not apprise us of error. Finally, Appellant asserts that "the age of the cited Bolson reference, which was published decades before the current application's filing date, and the elapsed time between the prior art and the application's filing date, tend to suggest the nonobviousness of the claimed combination, and particularly that the invention was not obvious to try," and "this considerable time lapse suggests instead that the Examiner only traversed the obstacles to this invention with a resort to hindsight." Br. 14. However, the "mere passage of time without the claimed invention is not evidence of nonobviousness." See Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127 (CCPA 1977) (100 year old patent was properly relied upon in a rejection based on a combination of references). Appellant's argument is not persuasive. For the reasons above, the rejection of claim 8 is sustained. 5 Appeal2017-000867 Application 13/971,042 Claim 13 The Examiner finds that the combination of Huartson and Bolson discloses all of the limitations of independent claim 13. Final Act. 6; Adv. Act. 2. Specifically, the Examiner finds that LED lights come in various different colors, and "different colored lights are an obvious design choice and would increase the aesthetics of the sprayer, especially since LED lights come in many different colors." Final Act. 6-7. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art "to use two different color LEDs, one for the nozzle on the right (outer nozzle) and the other for the nozzle on the left (inner nozzle) for visual effects and decorative purposes." Final Act. 6. Appellant asserts that the Examiner's rejection is erroneous because "the claim isn't directed to the aesthetics of the sprayer. The claim requires a plurality of blockage-indicating light sources adjacent to the plurality of nozzles along the elongated boom, with the light sources at different positions along the sprayer boom having different colors." Br. 15. Appellant contends that using "different colored lights would enable the operator to more easily identify which nozzle or nozzles are blocked by referencing the color of light associated with each nozzle." Id. Appellant's argument, however, does not identify error in the Examiner's determination that it would have been an obvious design choice to use different lights for different nozzles. Appellant's argument is not persuasive because claim 13 does not require the operator to use different lights to locate different nozzles and, thus, it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 13. For the reasons above, the rejection of claim 13 is sustained. 6 Appeal2017-000867 Application 13/971,042 Claims 9, 10, and 15 Appellant does not present additional arguments addressing specifically the rejection of claims 9, 10, and 15. Br. 15 (Appellant arguing that dependent claims 9, 10, and 15 "should also be patentable as depending from patentable independent claims"). Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 9, 10, and 15 for the reasons set forth above for claim 8. See 3 7 C.F.R. § 41.37( c)(l )(iv). DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 8-10, 13, and 15 is 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). 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation