Ex Parte Sukup

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 1, 2012

11307136 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 1, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte EUGENE G. SUKUP
__________

Appeal 2011-009263
Application 11/307,136
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before DEMETRA J. MILLS, LORA M. GREEN, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a rotor
assembly for a grain dryer. The Examiner rejected the claims as anticipated.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

Appeal 2011-009263
Application 11/307,136

2
Statement of the Case
The Claims
Claims 6 and 8-14 are on appeal.
1
Claim 6 is representative and reads
as follows:
6. A rotor assembly for a grain dryer having a shelf
floor, the assembly comprising:
a wiper secured to a frame work and having a
primary support member that extends radially outwardly
from a central axis, and
a block connected to the primary support and
engaging the shelf floor.

The issues

The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 8-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by McKenzie
2
(Ans. 3).
The Examiner finds that “McKenzie shows a rotor assembly 28 for a
grain dryer 10 having a shelf floor 20, the assembly comprising a wiper 40
secured to a framework and having a primary support member 42 that
extends radially outwardly from a central axis 32, and a block 74 connected
to the primary support 42 and engaging the shelf floor 20” (id.).
Appellant contends that “McKenzie does not disclose a block
connected to a primary support that extends radially outwardly from a
central axis.” (App. Br. 4.) Appellant contends that “McKenzie provides no
direct disclosure of blades 74 being connected to primary supports 42.
Instead McKenzie is limited to suggesting or disclosing that only the blade

1
Claim 1 is free of rejection (see App. Br. 2).
2
McKenzie et al., US 6,073,364, issued Jun. 13, 2000.
Appeal 2011-009263
Application 11/307,136

3
supports 72 connect to the primary supports 42” (App. Br. 5). Appellant
contends that “McKenzie does not disclose both a wiper having a primary
support member that extends radially outwardly from a central axis and a
block connected to the radially-outwardly extending primary support” (id.at
5-6).
Appellant “asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
consider McKenzie’s elongated, curved blade 74 portion of wiper 40 as a
block” (id. at 6).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record
support the Examiner’s conclusion that McKenzie anticipates claim 6?
Findings of Fact
1. McKenzie teaches a grain dryer of Figure 6B as reproduced
below:

Figure 6B describes an embodiment of the floor sweep assembly of the grain
dryer (McKenzie, col. 4, ll. 3-5).

Appeal 2011-009263
Application 11/307,136

4
2. McKenzie teaches that
only the lower edge 80 of the blade 74 contacts the grain
shelf floor 20 during rotation of the floor sweep assembly
28. In particular, the lower edge 80 of the blade 74 contacts
the grain shelf floor 20 so as to slide across the upper
surface of the grain shelf floor 20 as the floor sweep
assembly 28 is rotated by the motor 30

(McKenzie, col. 8, ll. 34-40).
3. McKenzie teaches that “the spacers 62 are interposed between
the primary support members 42 and the wipers 40 at various primary
intersections 54 in order to space the primary support members apart from
the wipers 40” (McKenzie, col. 7, ll. 42-45).
4. McKenzie teaches that “the spacer 62 is secured directly to the
primary support member 42 with a number of fasteners 68 . . . . Moreover,
the wiper 40 is secured directly to the spacer 62 with a number of fasteners
70” (McKenzie, col. 7, ll. 47-50).
5. Figures 8A and 8B of McKenzie are reproduced below:

Figures 8A and 8B are side and sectional views of the wipers (McKenzie,
col. 4, ll. 9-11).
6. McKenzie teaches “[m]ounting the blade 74 to the blade
support 72 in the above-described manner prevents any portion of the blade
Appeal 2011-009263
Application 11/307,136

5
support 72 from contacting the grain shelf floor 20 during operation of the
grain dryer 10” (McKenzie, col. 8, ll. 28-31).
7. McKenzie teaches that
each wiper 40 includes a blade support 72 and a blade 74
which is attached to the blade support 72 with a number of
fasteners 76. Each of the blade supports 72 is made from
formed steel. In contrast, each of the blades 74 is made from
a low friction material, for example, abrasion-resistant,
ultra-high molecular weight (uhmw) resin

(McKenzie, col. 8, ll. 16-21).
8. The Specification teaches that the “use of the secondary support
member 44 facilitates the rotation of the rotor assembly 28 and by
supporting the end of the primary support member 42, it assists in
maintaining a uniform depth clearance between the floor and the wiper
blades” (Spec. 3 ¶ 26).
9. The Specification teaches “a stationary block 50 made of wood
or plastic such as UHMW is connected to the plate 46 and positioned to
engage the shelf floor” (Spec. 3 ¶ 25).
10. The Specification teaches that in “an alternative embodiment,
the wheel 48 or the block 50 are directly connected to the primary support
member 42 to perform the same function” (Spec. 3 ¶ 27).
Principles of Law
It is well settled that during examination, the PTO must interpret
terms in a claim using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in
their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the
Appeal 2011-009263
Application 11/307,136

6
applicant's specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
“A single prior art reference that discloses, either expressly or
inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.”
Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
2005).
Analysis
Claim interpretation is at the heart of patent examination because
before a claim is properly interpreted, its scope cannot be compared to the
prior art. In this case, the limitations in claim 6 which are at issue are the
requirements for a “wiper secured to a frame work” and “a block connected
to the primary support and engaging the shelf floor” (Claim 6).
During prosecution, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation as they would be understood by persons of ordinary skill in the
art in the light of the Specification. Therefore, we first turn to the
Specification to determine whether the phrases “wiper secured to a frame
work” and “a block connected to the primary support” have any specified
definitions.
“wiper secured to a frame work”
The Specification teaches that the “use of the secondary support
member 44 facilitates the rotation of the rotor assembly 28 and by
supporting the end of the primary support member 42, it assists in
maintaining a uniform depth clearance between the floor and the wiper
blades” (Spec. 3 ¶ 26; FF 8).
Appeal 2011-009263
Application 11/307,136

7
Thus, when the Specification uses the term “wiper secured to a frame
work” in the context of claim 6, the phrase is reasonably interpreted as
referring to a component which is attached to the frame work but does not
contact the shelf floor.
“a block connected to the primary support”
The Specification teaches that “a stationary block 50 made of wood or
plastic such as UHMW is connected to the plate 46 and positioned to engage
the shelf floor” (Spec. 3 ¶ 25; FF 9). The Specification teaches that in “an
alternative embodiment, the wheel 48 or the block 50 are directly connected
to the primary support member 42 to perform the same function” (Spec. 3 ¶
27; FF 10).
The Specification provides no specific requirements for the “block”
other than it is composed of wood or plastic and engages the shelf floor.
While we would not interpret a wheel as a “block,” the term is reasonably
interpreted as encompassing roughly square or rectangular shapes, even
curved rectangular shapes, which engage the shelf floor. See In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[D]uring patent prosecution when claims
can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of
language explored, and clarification imposed.”)
Anticipation
McKenzie teaches a rotor assembly for a grain dryer having a shelf
floor (FF 1). McKenzie teaches a wiper 40 composed in part by blade
support 72 (FF 5-7). Figure 9 of McKenzie shows that blade support 72 is
secured to the framework of the rotor assembly by connection to the radial
primary support member 42 using spacer 62. McKenzie explains that “the
Appeal 2011-009263
Application 11/307,136

8
spacer 62 is secured directly to the primary support member 42 with a
number of fasteners 68 . . . Moreover, the wiper 40 is secured directly to the
spacer 62 with a number of fasteners 70” (McKenzie, col. 7, ll. 47-50; FF 4).
McKenzie also teaches “[m]ounting the blade 74 to the blade support
72 in the above-described manner prevents any portion of the blade support
72 from contacting the grain shelf floor 20 during operation of the grain
dryer 10” (McKenzie, col. 8, ll. 28-31; FF 6).
Thus, the blade support 72 functions as a “wiper secured to a frame
work” consistent with our claim interpretation. Blade support 72 meets both
of the functional limitations set forth for the component of “wiper secured to
a frame work” of being attached to the frame work but not contacting the
shelf floor.
McKenzie teaches a component which is connected to the primary
support which engages the shelf floor. Specifically, McKenzie teaches that
“each wiper 40 includes a blade support 72 and a blade 74 which is attached
to the blade support 72 with a number of fasteners 76” (McKenzie, col. 8, ll.
15-17; FF 7). McKenzie teaches that the wiper 40 is connected to the
primary support 42 (FF 4). McKenzie also teaches that “only the lower edge
80 of the blade 74 contacts the grain shelf floor 20 during rotation of the
floor sweep assembly 28” (McKenzie, col. 8, ll. 34-36; FF 2).
Thus, the blade 74 functions as “a block connected to the primary
support.” In particular the blade 74 is connected to the primary support and
engages the shelf floor (FF 2, 4, 7).
Appellant contends that “McKenzie does not disclose a block
connected to a primary support that extends radially outwardly from a
Appeal 2011-009263
Application 11/307,136

9
central axis.” (App. Br. 4). Appellant contends that “McKenzie provides no
direct disclosure of blades 74 being connected to primary supports 42.
Instead McKenzie is limited to suggesting or disclosing that only the blade
supports 72 connect to the primary supports 42” (id. at 5).
We are not persuaded. Blade 74 is reasonably interpreted as
satisfying the requirement for a block which connected to a primary support
that extends radially outwardly from a central axis. This interpretation is
consistent with Appellant’s Specification as well as the ordinary meaning of
“connected.” Appellant’s Specification distinguishes between “connected”
and “directly connected.” In one embodiment, the Specification teaches that
“a stationary block 50 made of wood or plastic such as UHMW is connected
to the plate 46” (Spec. 3 ¶ 25; FF 9). However, the Specification teaches
that in “an alternative embodiment, the wheel 48 or the block 50 are directly
connected to the primary support member 42 to perform the same function”
(Spec. 3 ¶ 27; FF 10). Thus, when claim 6 uses the word “connected,”
consistent with Appellant’s usage in the Specification, it is reasonably to
interpret this as simply requiring some link between the blade 74 and the
primary support 42, without requiring that these two components are
“directly connected” with no intermediary components. McKenzie
expressly teaches that blade 74 is linked to blade support 72 which is linked
to primary support 42 (FF 3-6).
Appellant contends that “McKenzie does not disclose both a wiper
having a primary support member that extends radially outwardly from a
central axis and a block connected to the radially-outwardly extending
primary support” (App. Br. 5-6).
Appeal 2011-009263
Application 11/307,136

10
We are not persuaded. As we have already discussed above, the blade
support 72 satisfies the wiper having a primary support member that extends
radially requirement by being connected to primary support member 42 and
blade 74 satisfies the requirements of the block connected, indirectly, to
primary support member 42 and which engages the shelf floor (FF 2-7).
Appellant “asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
consider McKenzie’s elongated, curved blade 74 portion of wiper 40 as a
block” (App. Br. 6).
We are not persuaded. Appellant provides no structural definition of a
block, simply requiring two functions for the block, connection to the
primary support and engagement of the shelf floor (Claim 6). As we
discussed in the claim interpretation, blade 74 satisfies both of these
functional requirements. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d at 322 (“[D]uring patent
prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized,
scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.”)
Without any structural features, the claims do not further clarify the breadth
of the term “block” in a manner which reasonably distinguishes the term
from the blade 74.
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that
McKenzie anticipates claim 6.

Appeal 2011-009263
Application 11/307,136

11
SUMMARY
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by McKenzie. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1),
we also affirm the rejection of claims 8-14 as these claims were not argued
separately.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cdc