Ex Parte Zaun et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 24, 2008

10698147 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 24, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte RICHARD D. ZAUN, RICHARD W. HOOK, JOHN D. LONG,
JOHN OVERBEEKE, BRUCE L. WARMAN, GREGORY M. KNOTT,
JOHN M. ROBINSON, CHRISTOPHER G. KAY, MARK GUTERMAN,
DMITRY I. SPIVAK, THOMAS E. SPARROW,
JOHN A. MADSON and JON AMBUEHL
____________________

Appeal 2007-4398
Application 10/698,147
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Decided: March 24, 2008
____________________

Before: TERRY J. OWENS, JENNIFER D. BAHR and
STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2007-4398
Application 10/698,147

2
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from the final 1
rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2002) as being 2
anticipated by Musil (U.S. Patent 5,100,277) and claims 2 and 4-6 under 3
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2002) as being unpatentable over Musil. The claims on 4
appeal relate to an apparatus of a type which might be used to fill a freight 5
container with farm products at the point of harvest directly from a combine 6
or other harvesting machine. (Spec. 15, ¶ 0048). Claim 1 recites: 7
8
1. Apparatus for transporting and filling freight 9
containers, each of the containers having an 10
opening therein, the apparatus comprising: 11
a chassis supported by ground 12
engaging transport elements; 13
a hopper having an open upper end 14
and a lower outlet; 15
a conveyor having proximal and distal 16
ends, the conveyor disposed beneath the hopper 17
outlet for receiving material from the hopper, the 18
conveyor moving material away from the hopper 19
outlet to the distal end; 20
a container chassis supporting a 21
removable freight container, the freight container 22
having an opening so as to receive material that is 23
to be loaded by the conveyor into the container; 24
and 25
the chassis including a hitch to couple 26
the chassis to the container chassis. 27
28
Claims 2-6 depend from claim 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 29
U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). 30
We REVERSE. 31
Appeal 2007-4398
Application 10/698,147

3
The determinative issue in this appeal is whether Musil discloses or 1
teaches an apparatus including a container chassis supporting a removable 2
container. Musil discloses a road finishing machine including a paver 3
preceded by a direct dump material transfer and elevating apparatus. (Musil, 4
col. 3, ll. 52-56 and col. 4, ll. 14-17). The paver includes a wheeled or 5
endless track frame. The reference teaches that, “[o]n such frame 17, there 6
is supported a front material feed hopper 18.” (Musil, col. 3, ll. 60-65). 7
With respect to claims 1 and 3, the Examiner finds that “the container 18 is 8
considered a ‘removable freight container,’ as broadly claimed, even though 9
no particular removing structure is disclosed.” (Ans. 3). 10
In support of this contention, the Examiner concludes that the 11
limitation of a “removable freight container,” when given its broadest 12
reasonable interpretation: 13
14
does not require the container to be removable 15
from anything in particular, much less in any 16
particular manner. While it is highly likely that the 17
container of Musil is indeed removable in some 18
way from the frame 17 (chassis), even if it isn’t, it 19
still meets the claim recitation because it is clearly 20
“removable” at least from the conveyor by virtue 21
of the hitch 29. 22
23
(Ans. 5). The Appellants contest this claim construction. (Br. 5). 24
We conclude that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase 25
“removable freight container” requires that the freight container be 26
removable from the container chassis. Looking to the claim language itself, 27
the phrase “removable freight container” is recited in the same clause which 28
recites the support of the container by the container chassis and in a clause 29
Appeal 2007-4398
Application 10/698,147

4
separate from that which recites the hitch between the container chassis and 1
the chassis carrying the conveyor. This juxtaposition suggests that the 2
phrase “removable freight container” is intended to require removability 3
from the container chassis rather than from the conveyor or the chassis 4
carrying the conveyor. 5
“During examination, ‘claims . . . are to be given their broadest 6
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification . . . .” In re 7
American Acad. of Science Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 8
(quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). In each instance 9
where the specification refers to “remov[ing]” the container, the present 10
specification refers to removing the container from the chassis which 11
supports the container. (E.g., Spec. 3, ¶0007, ll. 12-13; Spec. 11, ¶ 0037, ll. 12
8-11; and Spec. 13, ¶ 0042, ll. 4-5). Although the present specification 13
describes a notoriously demountable hitch connecting the chassis carrying 14
the conveyor with the chassis carrying the container, we note that the 15
specification does not describe removing the container (as opposed to 16
unhitching the chassis carrying it) from the opposite chassis. To this extent, 17
an interpretation of the phrase “removable freight container” that is broad 18
enough to encompass a container which is (1) supported by a chassis which 19
may be unhitched from the conveyor but which is (2) irremovable from the 20
chassis supporting that container would be inconsistent with the disclosure 21
of the present specification. 22
In addition, the “Background of the Invention” frames the claimed 23
subject matter in the context of segregating farm products throughout the 24
transportation system by containerizing the products at the harvesting site. 25
(See Spec. 2, ¶ 0005). The remainder of the description is consistent with 26
Appeal 2007-4398
Application 10/698,147

5
this context. (E.g., Spec. 9-10, ¶¶ 0031; 11, ¶ 0037; and 15, ¶ 0048). This 1
context suggests interpreting the phrase “removable freight container” as a 2
container removable from the chassis supporting the container. See Nystrom 3
v. Trex Co., 424 F.3d 1136, 1143-44 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (interpreting claims 4
within context in which the written description was framed). If the container 5
were not removable from a chassis supporting it, the container likely would 6
prove an inefficient means for containing and segregating farm products 7
throughout the transportation system including transportation by air or 8
water. Consequently, we believe that any interpretation of the phrase 9
“removable freight container” which does not require that the container be 10
removable from the chassis which supports the container would be 11
inconsistent with the present specification. 12
The Examiner concedes that Musil does not disclose that the feed 13
hopper 18 is removable from the wheeled or endless track frame 17. Since 14
the Examiner has not identified any other structure which might correspond 15
to the “removable freight container,” we conclude that the Appellants have 16
shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 3 under section 17
102(b). 18
With respect to dependent claims 2 and 4-6, we disagree for the 19
reasons previously stated with the Examiner’s finding that Musil’s feed 20
hopper 18 is a “removable freight container” as that phrase is used in claim 21
1. The Examiner has not articulated any reason sufficient to show that one 22
of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Musil’s 23
paver so that the feed hopper 18 is removable from the wheeled or endless 24
track frame 17. We conclude that the Appellants have shown that the 25
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2 and 4-6 under section 103(a). 26
Appeal 2007-4398
Application 10/698,147

6
1
CONCLUSION OF LAW 2
On the record before us, the Appellants have shown that the Examiner 3
erred in rejecting claims 1 and 3 under section 102(b) as being anticipated by 4
Musil. On the same record, the Appellants also have shown that the 5
Examiner erred in rejecting in rejecting claims 2 and 4-6 under section 6
103(a) as being unpatentable over Musil. 7
8
DECISION 9
We reverse the rejections of claims 1-6. 10
11
REVERSED 12
13
14
15
16
vsh 17
18
19
DEERE & COMPANY 20
ONE JOHN DEERE PLACE 21
MOLINE, IL 61265 22