11105858 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 8, 2011)

Ex Parte Wouw

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesApr 8, 2011

11105858 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 8, 2011)

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. 11/105,858 04/14/2005 Rob Van Wouw 15881-US 2047 30689 7590 04/08/2011 DEERE & COMPANY ONE JOHN DEERE PLACE MOLINE, IL 61265 EXAMINER MCGOWAN, JAMIE LOUISE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3671 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/08/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte ROB VAN WOUW ____________________ Appeal 2009-011839 Application 11/105,858 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS, and KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-011839 Application 11/105,858 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8 and 10-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The claims are directed to a twin belt mule drive. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus comprising: a mower deck having three rotary cutting blades mounted to the lower ends of three vertical spindles; a first drive sheave having a larger outer diameter and a second drive sheave having a smaller outer diameter, both sheaves mounted to a horizontal drive shaft; a first guide sheave and a second guide sheave mounted to a horizontal shaft transverse to the horizontal drive shaft, each guide sheave rotating independently of the other; three driven sheaves mounted to the three vertical spindles; a first endless belt engaging the first drive sheave, and twisting from a vertical plane to a horizontal plane to engage the first guide sheave, and rotating one of the driven sheaves; and a second endless belt engaging the second drive sheave, and twisting from a vertical plane to a horizontal plane to engage the second guide sheave, and rotating two of the driven sheaves not rotated by the first endless belt; the first and second endless belts being the only belts engaging the drive sheaves on the horizontal drive shaft and the three driven sheaves on the vertical spindles turning the three rotary cutting blades. Appeal 2009-011839 Application 11/105,858 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Shones Planeta Chase Papke US 3,415,043 US 4,316,356 US 4,813,215 US 6,651,413 B2 Dec. 10, 1968 Feb. 23, 1982 Mar. 21, 1989 Nov. 25, 2003 Melone US 2006/0025255 A1 Feb. 2, 2006 REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 4-6, 10-15, 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shones, Papke, Melone and Chase. Ans. 4. 2. Claims 2, 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shones, Papke, Melone, Chase and Planeta. Ans. 8. 3. Claims 1, 4-6, 10-15 and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Papke, Shones, Melone and Chase. Ans. 8. 4. Claims 2, 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Papke, Shones, Melone, Chase and Planeta. Ans. 12. OPINION Appellant argues the rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 10-15, and 17-20 as being unpatentable over Shones, Papke, Melone and Chase as a group. App. Br. 8-10. Appellant separately argues the rejection of these claims as being unpatentable over Papke, Shones, Melone and Chase but raises substantially the same issues. App. Br. 10-11. We do not consider the order in which Shones and Papke are applied to be significant in this case. See, e.g., In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961). Claims 2, 8 and 16 are argued solely based upon dependency. App. Br. 10, 11. We select claim 1 as the Appeal 2009-011839 Application 11/105,858 4 representative claim, and claims 2, 4-6, 8 and 10-20 will stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). The Examiner correctly found that Shones teaches the basic device claimed and that Shones employs a bevel gear (not shown) to transmit power from the horizontal drive shaft 8 to the horizontally oriented pulleys 9, 11, 12, 16 in place of the claimed twisting belt arrangement (see, e.g., Spec. 4, para. [0013], Fig. 1). Ans. 4-5; Shones, fig. 3, col. 1, ll. 50-55. The Examiner correctly relied on Melone for the teaching of guide sheaves mounted on a horizontal axis, and on Chase for the disclosure of dual drive sheaves having different diameters. Ans. 5-6; Melone, fig. 5; Chase, fig. 4. The Examiner also correctly found that Papke specifically suggests replacing gearboxes in mower systems with belts in order to transmit power from a horizontal power take-off shaft 203 to a horizontally oriented driven sheave 208 rotating about a vertical axis 210. Ans. 5; Papke, col. 1, ll. 36-49; col. 5, ll. 23-32; col. 6, ll. 38-62; figs. 1-4. Making such a substitution would have the predictable result of reducing cost, complexity and maintenance needs of the system. Papke, col. 1, ll. 41-49. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the subject matter of claim 1 amounts to no more than the use of prior art elements according to their established functions in order to yield predictable results and therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in reaching a conclusion of obviousness because there is no support for the Examiner’s stated reason (accommodating a larger horsepower engine) for incorporating Papke’s teachings into Shones. App. Br. 8. This argument is not persuasive. The Examiner may have initially characterized the reason for incorporating Papke’s teachings in terms of the problem faced by Papke rather than the Appeal 2009-011839 Application 11/105,858 5 advantages of Papke’s solution. See Fin. Rej. 3; Ans. 5, 13. However, Appellant recognized that Papke clearly discusses reasons for the Examiner’s proposed modification. App. Br. 8 (“Papke suggests why one might replace the bevel gears with a belt drive. Papke explains at column 1, lines 35-48, that belt drive systems would be lower in cost and complexity.”); see also Ans. 5, 13. Appellant has not persuaded us as to why, despite Papke’s express instruction, the Examiner erred by concluding it would have been obvious to replace Shones’ bevel gear with a belt system such as Papke’s. Appellant additionally argues that the presence of Papke’s intermediate sheave 208 would not result in a system that uses only two belts as required by claim 1. App. Br. 9, 10; Reply Br. 4. As the Examiner points out, Shones already discloses a system wherein two belts drive three sheaves. Ans. 13. There is no need to incorporate Papke’s intermediate sheave 208 when applying Papke’s teaching to replace a bevel gear with the portion of Papke’s belt system that transmits power from horizontal drive shaft to vertical spindles. Combining the teachings of references does not mandate combination of their specific structures. See In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973). Papke uses an intermediate sheave 208 to provide a take-off point for various ground-engaging implements. Papke, col. 1, ll. 14- 26. In a dedicated mower system, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the belt could be routed from the power take-off directly to one or more of the blade spindles. See, e.g., Melone, fig. 5. Finally, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred by relying on Chase’s teaching of different sized pulleys 8 because they are unrelated to the claimed invention. App. Br. 9, 11; Reply Br. 5. This argument is not persuasive. While Chase may not discuss the specific reason for using Appeal 2009-011839 Application 11/105,858 6 different sized pulleys, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to incorporate these pulleys into Shones, Papke and Melone in order to arrive at a working device without needing express guidance from Chase. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962) (an artisan must be presumed to know something about the art apart from what the references disclose). Appellant recognizes one of the possible purposes for such a structure is adjusting the transmission ratios. Reply Br. 6. It is not necessary for the prior art to serve the same purpose as that disclosed in Appellant’s Specification in order to support the conclusion that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016 (CCPA 1972); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 419 (“[N]either the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the [Appellant] controls” in an obviousness analysis.). DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8 and 10-20 are 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED nlk