Ex Parte Rohou

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2018

13187799 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/187,799 07/21/2011
30689 7590 08/31/2018
DEERE & COMPANY
ONE JOHN DEERE PLACE
MOLINE, IL 61265
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Rohou
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.
01096-US 6927
EXAMINER
JARRETT, RONALD P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2018 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 DAVID ROHOU
Appeal 2016-008491
Application 13/187, 799 1
Technology Center 3600
Before DANIEL S. SONG, KEN B. BARRETT, and
EDWARD A. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
David Rohou ("Appellant") appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner's decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated May 7,
2015 ("Final Act."), rejecting claims 1-3 and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Griffiths (US 2011/0262256 Al, published Oct. 27,
2011) and Cook (US 5,078,569, issued Jan. 7, 1992). 2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Deere & Company as the real party in interest.
Br. 3 (filed Dec. 7, 2015).
2 Claims 4 and 5 are cancelled. Br. 5.
Appeal 2016-008491
Application 13/187, 799
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's invention "relates to a front-loader arrangement for an
agricultural vehicle with a bracket and a mast arrangement for fastening a
front loader to the bracket." Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter on appeal.
1. Front-loader arrangement (12) for an agricultural vehicle
(10) with a bracket (16) and a mast arrangement (18) for
fastening a front loader (13) onto the bracket (16), comprising: a
contact point (53) for application onto a bearing point (36) of the
bracket (16) and a displaceable locking element ( 54) having a
longitudinal axis and that can be displaced longitudinally from
an unlocked position into a locked position in which the locking
element (54) extends through at least one first opening (52, 52A)
formed in the mast arrangement ( 18) and through at least one
second opening (3 8) that can be brought into alignment with the
first opening (52, 52A) and is formed in the bracket (16), wherein
the locking element ( 54) is connected by means of a connection
element (56) to an actuation element (58) arranged offset parallel
to the locking element ( 54 ), and wherein the actuation element
(58) can be actuated by an external force and the locking element
(54) can be displaced longitudinally by means of the connection
element (56) and through actuation of the actuation element (58)
from the unlocked position into the locked position; and
a latching device (59) with which the actuation element
(58) can be latched in the unlocked position,
wherein the latching device ( 59) comprises a latching
lever ( 64) that is supported on the mast arrangement (18) and can
be forced by a second spring ( 68) into a latched position in which
the latching lever ( 64) can be brought into engagement in an
unlocked position with a shoulder (86) formed on the actuation
element (58), and wherein the latching lever (64) has an actuation
face (7 4) that can be brought into engagement with the bracket
( 16) such that the latching lever ( 64) is moved out from the
latched position against an actuating force of the spring ( 68).
Br. 12 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal 2016-008491
Application 13/187, 799
REJECTION
For claim 1, the Examiner finds that Griffiths discloses a loader 10
removably attached to frame structures 12, 14, mast 36, cross pin 73
received by receptacle 88, and cross pin 74 extending through openings in
mast 36. Final Act. 3 ( citing Griffiths, Figs. 1, 4, 5). The Examiner finds
that Griffiths does not teach "a 'locking element ( 54) ... connected by
means of a connection element (56) to an actuation element (58) arranged
offset parallel to the locking element (54) ... from the unlocked position
into the locked position,"' as claimed. Id. The Examiner relies on Cook for
teaching fastening pin 70 attached to offset parallel first leg portion 78 and
second leg portion 80, which function as a locking element and an actuation
element, respectively. Final Act. 3--4 ( citing Cook, Figs. 4, 5); Ans. 3. The
Examiner finds that when detent 82 (on second leg portion 80) is
disengaged, spring 88 applies a force that moves fastening pin 70 from the
unlocked position to the locked position, and that the combined elements 54
(outer frame member), 70, 80, 82, and 88 function as a latching device.
Final Act. 4.
Additionally, the Examiner finds that Griffiths does not teach "a
latching lever ( 64) that is supported on the mast arrangement ( 18) and can be
forced by a second spring (68) into a latched position ... such that the
latching lever ( 64) is moved out from the latched position against an
actuating force of the spring (68)," as claimed. Final Act. 4--5. The
Examiner finds that Cook teaches "a 'detent which is releasably held under
spring tension by the outer upright member of the male coupling structure"'
(id. at 5 (citing Cook, col. 4, 11. 21-26)), and which forms a shoulder for
holding the coupling structure in a disengaged position when engaged in the
3
Appeal 2016-008491
Application 13/187, 799
outer upright member, "which provides the actuation face" (id. ( citing Cook,
col. 4, 11. 22-30)).
The Examiner's finding that Cook discloses a latching lever does not
identify any particular element in Cook that is considered to correspond to
the claimed latching lever. See Final Act. 4--5. Appellant contends that
Cook fails to disclose a latching lever, as claimed. Br. 9. In this regard,
Appellant contends, "detent 82 is not self-latching, but is simply a notch in
leg portion 80 that can be manually engaged with frame member 54 in the
unlocked position." Id. at 10. This contention implies that Appellant
understands the Examiner's position to be that detent 82 in Cook
corresponds to the claimed "latching lever."
In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner responds to Appellant's
contentions regarding the claimed latching lever by elaborating on how
Cook discloses this element. Ans. 4--5. Particularly, the Examiner states
that Cook teaches "a latching lever (70) that moves between a locked
position (when rotated counter-clockwise in Figure 6) and an unlocked
position (when rotated clockwise in Figure 6)." Id. at 4 (citing Cook, col. 9,
11. 1-19, Figs. 5, 6). The Examiner submits that latching lever 70 can be
brought into engagement in an unlocked, disengaged position (Fig. 5
(illustrated with ghost lines) with a shoulder ("side surface of notch 82")
formed on actuation element 80, and that latching lever 70 has an actuation
face ("surface of 80 to the left of notch 82" in Fig. 5) that can be brought
into engagement with bracket 29 such that latching lever 70 is moved out
from the unlocked, disengaged position ("when notch 82 is engaged with
member 54") against an actuating force of spring 88. Id. at 4--5.
4
Appeal 2016-008491
Application 13/187, 799
Claim 1 requires that the latching lever (a) can be forced by a second
spring into a latched position in which the latching lever can be brought into
engagement in an unlocked position with a shoulder formed on the actuation
element and (b) has an actuation face that can be brought into engagement
with a bracket such that the latching lever is moved out from the latched
position against an actuating force of the second spring. It is the Examiner's
position that Cook's actuation element 80 has a shoulder ("side surface of
notch 82 ") which latching lever 7 0 can be brought into engagement in an
unlocked position and an actuation face. See Ans. 4. However, it is not
apparent how fastening pin 70 could be brought into engagement with the
"side surface of notch 82" in any position, much less in the claimed
unlocked position. First, second leg portion 80 forms part of the illustrated
I-shaped fastening pin 70. See Cook, col. 7, 11. 44--45 ("the fastening pin 70
has a generally J-shape configuration"), Fig. 5. Second, Cook discloses that
detent 82 "is sufficiently wide such that it may receive a portion of the outer
frame member 54 between opposite sides thereof." See id., col. 7, 11. 53-55;
see also, col. 9, 11. 5-8 ("detent 82 defined by the second leg portion 80 of
[ fastening pin] 70 is moved into locked association with the outer frame
member 54"). Accordingly, detent 82 is brought into engagement with outer
frame member 54, not with any portion of fastening pin 70, in the "latched
position," i.e., the unlocked, disengaged position. Therefore, fastening pin
70 does not meet requirements (a) and (b) of the latching lever in claim 1.
For these reasons, the Examiner has not established that the
combination of Griffiths and Cook discloses a latching device comprising a
latching lever, as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
5
Appeal 2016-008491
Application 13/187, 799
rejection of claim 1, or of dependent claims 2, 3, and 6-8, as unpatentable
over Griffiths and Cook.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-8.
REVERSED
6