Ex Parte Yanke

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 17, 2014

12259517 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2014)

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.
12/259,517 10/28/2008 Bryan Ray Yanke 18639-US 1128
30689 7590 10/20/2014
DEERE & COMPANY
ONE JOHN DEERE PLACE
MOLINE, IL 61265
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, MAI T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3671
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/20/2014 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 BRYAN RAY YANKE
________________

Appeal 2012-005254
Application 12/259,517
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final
rejection of claims 1–22. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter relates “to agricultural rotary mowers
having multiple cutter heads.” Spec. ¶ 1. Independent claims 1 and 14,
reproduced below (emphasis added), are illustrative of the claims on appeal.
Appeal 2012-005254
Application 12/259,517

2

1. A rotary mower, comprising:
a rotary cutting disk having at least one knife mount
location;
at least one knife, each said knife having an end with an
opening therein, said opening having a double keyhole shape
with a larger center hole and two smaller partial holes
respectively on generally opposite sides of said center hole;
at least one knife pin, each said knife pin extending
through a corresponding said knife opening and mounted to
said rotary cutting disk at a corresponding said knife mount
location, the said knife pin having a distal keeper with a double
keyhole shape which generally approximates and is slightly
smaller than said double key hole shaped opening in each said
knife; and
a spring plate positioned under said cutting disk adjacent
to each distal keeper of each said knife pin.

14. A knife holder for a rotary mower, comprising:
a knife including an end with a keyed opening therein,
said keyed opening having a generally round hole and at least
one adjoining keying feature, and
a knife pin configured to be received within said keyed
opening, said knife pin having a distal keeper with a keyed
shape which generally approximates and is slightly smaller
than said keyed opening in said knife.

THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
1. Claims 1, 2, 6–10, 14–18, 21, and 22 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harer (US 3,604,189; iss.
Sept. 14, 1971) and Kirk (US 3,320,733; iss. May 23, 1967).
2. Claims 3–5, 11–13, and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harer, Kirk, and Kline (US 3,507,104;
iss. Apr. 21, 1970).

Appeal 2012-005254
Application 12/259,517

3

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Harer discloses a “knife having an end with
an elongated slot opening 28” and a “knife pin 13” including a “distal keeper
25.” Ans. 4. The Examiner further finds that Kirk discloses a “keyhole
shape.” Id. at 5. Acknowledging that Kirk does not teach a double keyhole
shape, as claimed, the Examiner reasons that “it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art . . . to provide an additional slot portion to the
keyhole to form the double keyhole shape, since it has been held that mere
duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine
skill in the art.” Id., citing St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8
(7th Cir. 1977). The Examiner also reasons that “it would have been obvious
to a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . to change the shape of the knife
opening and pin keeper of Harer to a double keyhole shape since the shape is
considered a matter of design choice which is . . . known in the art as taught
by Kirk and only requires routine skill.” Id.
Appellant contends that the “independent claims require one or both
of a double keyhole shape and a corresponding key feature on the pin that
closely approximates the shape of the double keyhole shape” and notes the
Examiner’s concession that “none of the references show a double keyhole
configuration.” Br. 4. Regarding Kirk’s disclosure of a single keyhole slot,
Appellant argues that “there is nothing to hold the blade in a yieldably fixed
position thereby allowing the blade to flail around the stud 20 thereby failing
to decrease wear due to such translational movement.” Id. Appellant argues
that the Specification “clearly states that translational movement of the knife
relative to the pin is a problem with prior art configurations” and that the
“double keyhole arrangement prevents this problem and thus solves a
Appeal 2012-005254
Application 12/259,517

4

problem and long felt need in the art.” Id. at 4–5. Appellant concludes that
“the double keyhole is not taught or suggested by the prior art, nor is it an
equivalent to prior or known solutions and therefore is not obvious.” Id. at
5.
In response, the Examiner points out that “prevention of translational
movement by the double keyhole shape[] is not recited in the rejected
claim(s)” and that Appellant “does not provide evidence of how the . . .
double keyhole actually prevents this translational movement to make it
distinct from the single keyhole shape.” Ans. 7–8. The Examiner finds that
the Specification not only “provides no criticality for the double keyhole
shape[,]” but “actually states that the single keyhole shape is equivalent to
the double keyhole shape” (Spec. ¶ 23:5–7) and “describes the single
keyhole shape . . . as not allowing any translational movement of the knife
relative to the knife pin” (Spec. ¶ 21). Id. at 8. Finally, the Examiner
correctly notes that Appellant has presented no factual evidence of solving a
long felt need in the art. Id. at 9.
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with
approval in KSR Int'l. v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “On appeal to
the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by showing insufficient
evidence of prima facie obviousness . . . .” In re Kahn, 41 F.3d 977, 985–86
(Fed. Cir. 2006).
Appeal 2012-005254
Application 12/259,517

5

Appellant’s arguments only address the rejection of independent
claims 1, 8, 14, 21, and 22, and the failure of the prior art to teach or suggest
“one or both of a double keyhole shape [(presumably of the opening on the
knife)] and a corresponding key feature on the pin that closely approximates
the shape of the double keyhole shape.” Br. 4 (emphasis added). Therefore,
our resolution of the issues raised regarding such claims will be dispositive
as to dependent claims 2–7, 9–13, and 15–20. Only issues and findings of
fact contested by the Appellant will be addressed. See Ex Parte Frye, 94
USPQ 2d 1072, 1075–76 (BPAI 2010). Moreover, because Appellant’s
arguments are restricted to claims reciting a double keyhole shape, and
independent claims 14, 21, and 22 recite single keyhole shape limitations
(i.e., a keyed opening or shape having a generally round hole and at least
one adjoining keying feature), Appellant’s contentions are not
commensurate in scope with such claims, and therefore, Appellant has failed
to overcome the rejection of claims 14, 21, and 22 by showing insufficient
evidence of prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Appellant has not shown that the
Examiner’s findings and rationale are insufficient to support a rejection on
the stated grounds of obviousness. To the contrary, although Appellant
submits that the Specification states that the double keyhole arrangement
prevents translational movement of the knife relative to the pin, the
Specification, as pointed out by the Examiner, discloses that a single keyhole
shape, as depicted in Kirk, will work in the same way. In particular, the
Specification provides that
[e]ach opening 26 defines a keyed opening having a generally
round hole 30 and at least one keying feature 32. In contrast
with a conventional blade having a slot-shaped opening at one
Appeal 2012-005254
Application 12/259,517

6

end thereof, the round hole 30 of knife 14 still allows rotational
movement of knife 14 about knife pin 16, but does not allow
any translational movement of knife 14 relative to knife pin 16.
Spec. ¶21 (emphasis added). We note that Appellant has failed to argue that
the Examiner erred in reasoning that providing a double keyhole shape
rather than a single keyhole shape is a mere duplication of the essential
working parts of the knife holder or that such change in shape is a matter of
design choice.
In light of the evidence and argument of record, we agree with the
Examiner’s conclusion that the claimed invention would have been obvious.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s claim rejections.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 6–10, 14–18, 21 and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harer and Kirk is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 3–5, 11–13, and 18–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harer, Kirk, and Kline
is 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).

AFFIRMED

mls