Ex Parte Viaud et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 30, 2008

10935814 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 30, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JEAN VIAUD and EMMANUEL CHAPON
____________

Appeal 2008-3925
Application 10/935,814
Technology Center 3700
____________

Decided: December 31, 2008
____________

Before WILLIAM F. PATE III, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and
JOHN C. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judges.

WILLIAM F. PATE III, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-10. These are
the only claims in the application.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 6 and
134.
Appeal 2008-3925
Application 10/935,814

2
The claimed subject matter is directed to a baler for baling crop
material for storage and transportation. The baler is characterized by a
wrapping assembly which wraps a web around the crop material after the
bale is constructed.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. In a large round baler having a baling
chamber, a crop material supply unit that can
convey crop material into baling chamber and a
device for supplying a wrapping web for wrapping
a bale formed within the baling chamber, with the
device including a wrapping web feed arrangement
that draws a wrapping web off a supply roll, the
improvement comprising:
said device being operable for bringing a
wrapping web into engagement with said crop
material supply unit, whereby the wrapping web is
seized by said crop material supply unit and
conveyed into engagement with said bale.
REFERENCE
The reference of record relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
lack of novelty is:
Core 4,407,113 Oct. 04, 1983
REJECTION
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Core.
OPINION
Appeal 2008-3925
Application 10/935,814

3
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in light of the
positions taken by Appellants and the Examiner. As a result of this review
we have determined that the applied prior art does not anticipate the claimed
subject matter. Accordingly, the rejection of all of the claims on appeal is
reversed. Our reasons follow.
The main point of contention between Appellants and the Examiner is
the proper claim construction of the term “engagement”, inasmuch as claim
1 requires that the device is operable for bringing a wrapping web into
engagement with the crop material supply unit. The Examiner and
Appellants offer up various definitions of the term “engagement.”
Appellants advance the definition as “the state of being in gear or in such
contact that motion may be transferred.” See Brief at pg. 3. The Examiner
advances the definition as “active or [in an] operational state.” Answer 5.
In our view, the word “engagement” should be given its ordinary and
customary meaning which we find to be “contacting or becoming attached or
secured to or interfitting therewith”. We note that this is the same meaning
that is given to the root word in the disclosure of the referenced Core patent.
For example, in column 3, line 45, leading edge 60 of the plastic material
“engages” the incoming material to be baled. That is, it contacts or becomes
attached to the incoming material. Likewise, in line 63 of column 3, Core
states that “[w]ithout plate 68 air currents could inhibit the engagement of
the leading edge 60 with the incoming layer of hay to be baled.” Here again,
“engagement” means contacting, attachment, or the like. Thus, it is our
conclusion of law that the ordinary and customary meaning of “engagement”
is at least, but not necessarily more than, “contacting or touching.” We also
Appeal 2008-3925
Application 10/935,814

4
note that this meaning is consistent with Appellants’ Specification, which
discloses that when material guide 48 is in its lowered position, wrapping
web 18 is seized by crop material supply unit 40.” Specification 7, ¶ 37
(emphasis ours).
With that claim construction in mind, we turn to our Findings of Fact
with respect to the Core reference. Core discloses a baler with a baling
chamber 16, a crop material supply unit (pickup reel) 18, and a device 40, 42
for supplying a wrapping web for wrapping the bale. See column 2, lines
30-66. The function of Core is described in column 3. In the normal
operation of the device, the leading edge 60 of the wrapping material is
moved to the position shown in Figure 2 where it overlies the incoming hay
material moving towards the bale compartment 16. The plastic material is
caught up between the bale and the incoming hay material and is pulled from
the undriven roll 56. Thereafter, the hay material is stopped as shown in
Figure 4, while the bale continues to rotate, thus pulling off more of the
plastic material until it completely surrounds the bale as shown in Figures 5
and 6. See column 3, lines 28-51. Thus as we interpret the disclosure, the
plastic material never contacts or touches the pickup reel 18 and it is unclear
from Figure 5 whether the plastic material ever touches the conveyor 20.1
As such, it is our view that the Appellants’ arguments that the web of Core
does not come into engagement with the crop material supply unit has merit,
inasmuch as the web never touches or contacts the crop material supply unit.
While the Examiner points out on page 5 of the Answer that the “being

1 The Examiner contends that conveyor 20 also constitutes a component of
the crop material supply unit. Answer 5.
Appeal 2008-3925
Application 10/935,814

5
operable” language of claim 1 only requires that the device be capable of
bringing a wrapping web into engagement with said crop material supply
unit, the Examiner does not explain how Core’s baler is capable of
performing such function. This being the case, it is our finding that the
Examiner has erred in stating that the Core patent anticipates the subject
matter of claim 1. Therefore, the rejection on appeal is reversed.
REVERSED

vsh

DEERE & COMPANY
ONE JOHN DEERE PLACE
MOLINE, IL 61265