Ex Parte Shekleton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 15, 2013

11696752 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
11/696,752 04/05/2007 Travis Alan Shekleton 17538-US 5060
30689 7590 07/15/2013
DEERE & COMPANY
ONE JOHN DEERE PLACE
MOLINE, IL 61265
EXAMINER
TROUTMAN, MATTHEW D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3671
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/15/2013 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 TRAVIS ALAN SHEKELTON,
LEROY ERNEST KRASKE, JEFFERSON SCOTT REYNOLDS,
and DAVID JOHN RIX
____________

Appeal 2011-001685
Application 11/696,752
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, JILL D. HILL and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001685
Application 11/696,752

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Travis Alan Shekleton et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-6, 8-17, 21 and
22. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from consideration, and claim 7 is
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a work vehicle having a frame and
a ripper assembly. Independent claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis
added, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A work vehicle, comprising:

a frame,

a ripper assembly comprising a ripper having
multiple teeth, a first tie bar attached to the frame,
a first four-bar linkage attached to and disposed
between the ripper and the first tie bar for
transferring a first load between the ripper and the
frame via the first four-bar linkage and the first tie
bar, a second tie bar attached to the frame, and a
second four-bar linkage attached to and disposed
between the ripper and the second tie bar for
transferring a second load between the ripper and
the frame via the second four-bar linkage and the
second tie bar, the first four-bar linkage and the
first tie bar being co-planar with respect to a first
plane within which the first four-bar linkage is
movable relative to the frame, the second four-bar
linkage and the second tie bar being coplanar with
respect to a second plane within which the second
four-bar linkage is movable relative to the frame.

Appeal 2011-001685
Application 11/696,752

3
THE REJECTIONS
Appellants appeal from the following rejections:
(i) claims 1-6, 8-10 and 12-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art, in the form of two
photographs of a “CAT [Caterpillar] Ripper Assembly” (hereafter AAPA-
1)1 in view of Ede (US 3,032,903, issued Dec. May 8, 1962);
(ii) claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
AAPA-1 in view of Ede and Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art, in the form of a
6-page document containing drawings of a John Deere D-series ripper
assembly (hereafter AAPA-2)2; and
(iii) claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over AAPA-1 in view of Ede and Gaylord (US 166,200, issued Aug. 3,
1875).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-6, 8-10 and 12-17--Unpatentable over AAPA-1 and Ede
The Examiner found that AAPA-1 discloses all limitations set forth in
independent claim 1, with the exception that the tie bars and the
corresponding four-bar linkages are not coplanar with respect to planes
within which the first and second four-bar linkages are movable relative to
the frame of the vehicle. Ans. 4. The Examiner turned to Ede, noting that
Ede discloses a four-bar linkage attached to a tie bar, with the linkage and tie
bar being coplanar and forming a direct load path through the four-bar

1 Identified as Cite No. 2 in an Information Disclosure Statement filed on
April 29, 2008, in the underlying application.
2 Identified as Cite No. 1 in an Information Disclosure Statement filed on
April 29, 2008, in the underlying application.
Appeal 2011-001685
Application 11/696,752

4
linkage assembly and the tie bar to the vehicle frame. Id. The Examiner
concluded that it would have been obvious to modify the AAPA-1 structure
such that the four-bar linkages would be coplanar with the tie rods, in order
to create a direct load path, as is shown by Ede to be well known in the art.
Ans. 5.
Appellants first argue that Ede is directed to pulling a single tooth
through the earth, and is not concerned with or does not consider the
operation of a ripper with multiple teeth and multiple linkages. Appeal Br.
6. Appellants do not, however, explain or present evidence as to why the
teachings of a single tooth ripper would not be looked to by persons of
ordinary skill in the art when considering a multiple-tooth ripper design, or
that modifying some aspect of a multiple-tooth ripper in view of teachings
directed to a single-tooth ripper would be beyond the level of ordinary skill
in the art.
Appellants further argue that portions of the four-bar linkage in Ede
are not coplanar with other portions of the four-bar linkage. Appeal Br. 6-7.
In particular, Appellants point to the “grossly forked shape” of linkage
member 22 and the two bent members constituting linkage member 23, as
shown in Figure 10 of Ede, arguing that these members are not coplanar
with each other or with the other elements of the linkage. Appeal Br. 6-7.
The Examiner posits that “if the linkages of Ede are not coplanar, then
the linkages of Appellant are not coplanar either,” identifying elements 34a
and 34d of the embodiment shown in Figures 5 and 6 of Appellants’
disclosure as being positioned offset from the centerline of the linkage, and
thus not coplanar. Ans. 12. The Examiner notes that, in view of Appellants’
disclosure, “’coplanar’ was interpreted to constitute linkages which could
Appeal 2011-001685
Application 11/696,752

5
comprise members on either side of the centerline, but were centered on the
plane shared by all linkages.” Id.
The Examiner’s position is reasonable and is supported by
Appellants’ Specification. The real deficiency in Appellants’ argument is
that claim 1 does not call for all of the components of the four-bar linkage as
well as the tie rod to be coplanar in the sense of all of those components
lying in the same plane. The claim instead calls for the first four-bar linkage
and the first tie bar to be coplanar “with respect to a first plane within which
the four-bar linkage is moveable relative to the frame,” with the same being
the case for a second four-bar linkage, a second tie bar, and a second plane
of movement. Appeal Br., Claims Appendix. The defined plane is a plane
of movement of the linkage, and not a plane in which all linkage members
must lie, and the claim calls for the tie bar to be coplanar with the linkage in
that respect.
As such, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s position with
respect to claim 1. Appellants do not present separate arguments for claims
2-6, 8-10 and 12 which depend from claim 1 and which are subject to the
same ground of rejection. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-6, 8-10 and
12 as being unpatentable over AAPA-1 and Ede is sustained.
Independent claim 13 employs slightly different language in reciting
the relationship between the four-bar linkages and the tie bars, setting forth
that, in plan view, “the first and second four-bar linkages and the first and
second tie bars are, respectively, in-line with one another.” Appeal Br.,
Claims Appendix. Appellants do not advance any substantive arguments
with respect to claim 13, referencing only those raised with respect to the
rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 7. The difference in the claim language of
Appeal 2011-001685
Application 11/696,752

6
claim 13 is a difference without a distinction in terms of the prior art applied
by the Examiner and the arguments advanced by Appellants in opposition.
We are thus not apprised of error in the rejection of claim 13 as being
unpatentable over AAPA-1 and Ede. Appellants do not advance any
separate arguments for claims 14-17, which depend from claim 13 and
which are subject to the same ground of rejection. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 13-17 as being unpatentable over AAPA-1 and Ede is
also sustained.
Claim 11--Unpatentable over AAPA-1, Ede and AAPA-2
Appellants rely on the same arguments advanced with respect to claim
1, and further argue that AAPA-2 does not remedy the alleged deficiencies
of the base combination of AAPA-1 and Ede. Appeal Br. 8. For the reasons
discussed above, we do not find the base combination deficient, and the
rejection of claim 11 is sustained.
Claims 21 and 22--Unpatentable over AAPA-1, Ede and Gaylord
Claims 21 and 22 depend from claims 1 and 13, respectively, and set
forth that the ripper assembly further includes a toolbar supporting a number
of teeth, and that the toolbar has a V-shaped leading edge defined by an
underside surface and an inclined surface. Appeal Br., Claims Appendix.
Appellants first reference the arguments advanced with respect to
claims 1 and 13, from which these claims depend. Appeal Br. 8. As
discussed above, the arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s
position.
Appellants additionally maintain that the cutting blade A of Gaylord,
relied on by the Examiner as disclosing a V-shaped leading edge, is not a
toolbar having multiple teeth, and is more appropriately considered to be an
Appeal 2011-001685
Application 11/696,752

7
element corresponding to the claimed teeth, and not the claimed toolbar.
Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner acknowledges that the cutting blade of Gaylord
is not a toolbar bearing multiple teeth, but is relied on as teaching the
rearward angling of an upper surface of an element that rides along the
ground, to create a V-shaped leading edge so that material can easily flow
over the surface of the element. Ans. 14-15.
While Gaylord does mention that the cutting blade A preferably rides
just under the surface of the ground to cut stalks just beneath or at the
surface of the ground (col. 1, ll. 20-22, ll. 27-28), Gaylord does not make
any mention of the orientation of the blade having any particular effect on
how material will flow over and/or under the blade. The positioning or
orientation of the blade appears to be governed by Gaylord’s desire to
produce a “drawing cut” on cotton or corn stalks. Gaylord, col. 2, ll. 9-13.
Thus, as intimated by Appellants, while a person of ordinary skill in the art
might consider this teaching in relation to a tooth element performing a
potentially analogous function in a ripper assembly, the Examiner has not
adequately established why a person of ordinary skill would find the
teachings directed to the cutting blade of Gaylord pertinent to a toolbar
carrying one or more tooth elements.
The rejection of claims 21 and 22 over AAPA-1, Ede and Gaylord is
not sustained.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-6 and 17, 21 and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is AFFIRMED.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 21 and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is REVERSED.
Appeal 2011-001685
Application 11/696,752

8
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-IN-PART

Klh