JAGER PRO, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 19, 2021

2020005903 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2021)

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.
16/122,384 09/05/2018 RODNEY GENE PINKSTON 10132.0001U6 3615
23859 7590 04/19/2021
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
SUITE 1600
999 PEACHTREE STREET
ATLANTA, GA 30309-4421
EXAMINER
ARK, DARREN W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/19/2021 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
USpatentmail@ballardspahr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RODNEY GENE PINKSTON

Appeal 2020-005903
Application 16/122,384
Technology Center 3600
Before DANIEL S. SONG, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–27. See Appeal Br. 20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Jager Pro, LLC as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-005903
Application 16/122,384

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The application is titled “Systems and Method for Animal Trapping”
and describes traps that “are provided for remotely trapping nuisance
wildlife such as rats, feral pigs, and the like.” Spec. ¶ 2. Independent
claim 1 is representative of the claims discussed in this Decision and is
reproduced, below:
1. A method for capturing a plurality of feral pigs,
comprising:
moving at least one portion of an enclosure from an open
position to a closed position that restricts passage of the plurality
of feral pigs out of the enclosure, wherein in the closed position,
the enclosure cooperates with a ground surface to define an
enclosure area in which the plurality of feral pigs are trapped,
wherein in the open position, the enclosure permits passage of a
plurality of feral pigs into the enclosure area, and wherein the
ground surface extends continuously from within the enclosure
area to areas surrounding the enclosure area,
wherein the enclosure comprises a release mechanism that
effects movement of the at least one portion of the enclosure
from the open position to the closed position, and
wherein the release mechanism effects movement of the at
least one portion of the enclosure from the open position to the
closed position upon receipt of a release signal from a control
mechanism that is in communication with a display device,
wherein the display device is in communication with a camera
assembly and configured to transmit a wireless control signal,
wherein the camera assembly transmits an image of at least a
portion of the enclosure area to the display device, and wherein
the wireless control signal corresponds to an instruction to the
control mechanism to generate the release signal.
Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2020-005903
Application 16/122,384

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Ronnau US 2006/0150470 A1 July 13, 2006
Kurachi US 7,854,088 B2 Dec. 21, 2010
Alter US 8,112,934 B2 Feb. 14, 2012
Godts FR 2,819,989 Aug. 2, 2002
Kimura JP 2004097019A April 2, 2004
Ueno JP 2006340627A Dec. 21, 2006

REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us on appeal:
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–27 Nonstatutory double patenting
based on U.S. Patent No. 9,814,228
1–3, 6–8 103 Kurachi, Godts, Kimura
4 103 Kurachi, Godts, Kimura, Ronnau
5 103 Kurachi, Godts, Kimura, and either
Alter or Ueno
9–12 103 Kurachi, Godts, Kimura, Alter
13 103 Kurachi, Godts, Kimura, Alter
14–18, 21–24 103 Kurachi, Godts, Kimura
19 103 Kurachi, Godts, Kimura, Ronnau
20 103 Kurachi, Godts, Kimura, and either
Alter or Ueno
25–27 103 Kurachi, Godts, Kimura, Alter
Ans. 3–4.

Appeal 2020-005903
Application 16/122,384

4
OPINION
1. Double Patenting Rejection of Claims 1–27
The Examiner rejects claims 1–27 on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–28 of U.S. Patent No.
9,814,228. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3.
Appellant does not contest this rejection. See, generally, Appeal Br.
“If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue — or,
more broadly, on a particular rejection — the Board will not, as a general
matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection.” Ex
parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (citing, e.g., Hyatt v.
Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313–14 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (precedential).
Absent any argument from Appellant, we summarily affirm the
rejection of claims 1–27 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.

2. Prior Art Rejection of Claims 1–3 and 6–8
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3 and 6–8 as unpatentable over
Kurachi, Godts, and Kimura. Final Act. 4.
Appellant argues these claims as a group, only presenting arguments
contesting the rejection of independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 7–11. We
select independent claim 1 as the representative claim, with claims 2, 3, and
6–8 standing or falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

a. Examiner’s Rejection of Claim 1
In rejecting independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Kurachi, Godts,
and Kimura, the Examiner finds that Kurachi discloses a method of
Appeal 2020-005903
Application 16/122,384

5
capturing a plurality of feral pigs, citing in relevant part Kurachi’s Figures
1A and 5. Final Act. 4–5. We reproduce Kurachi’s Figure 1A, below:

Figure 1A “is a schematic top plan view of an animal trap . . . showing its
general layout and features.” Kurachi, 2:9–11. The Examiner finds that
Kurachi discloses enclosure 14, 18 with fences 12, 16, and gate 24. Final
Appeal 2020-005903
Application 16/122,384

6
Act. 4. To further illustrate gate 24, we reproduce Kurachi’s Figure 5,
below:

Figure 5 “is a front elevation view of the trap entrance and drop gate.”
Kurachi, 2:21–22. The Examiner finds that Figure 5 depicts a gate in the
open position to permit the passage of pigs into the enclosure area. See Final
Act. 4. The Examiner further finds that Kurachi discloses motor 84 with
winch/spool 86, which satisfies the claimed “release mechanism” that
Appeal 2020-005903
Application 16/122,384

7
“effects movement of the at least one portion of the enclosure (24) from the
open position to the closed position . . . upon receipt of a release signal
from” control mechanism (trip arm 28 with switch 44). Id. at 4–5; see also
Kurachi Figs. 3, 4 (depicting trip arm 28 and switch 44).
The Examiner acknowledges, however, that Kurachi does not disclose
a “control mechanism that is in communication with a device, wherein the
device is configured to transmit a control signal, and wherein the control
signal corresponds to an instruction to the control mechanism to generate the
release signal.” Final Act. 5. To address this limitation, the Examiner relies
on Godts, referencing in relevant part Godts’s Figure 2. Id. We reproduce a
portion of Godts’s Figure 2, below:
Appeal 2020-005903
Application 16/122,384

8

According to the Examiner, Figure 2 depicts trap 2 in the open
position with panel 3 upward. See Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds that
this figure further depicts control mechanism 7, panel lock mechanism 4,
and electromagnet 5. The Examiner explains that Godts’s control
mechanism is in communication with a remote control transmitter (the
Appeal 2020-005903
Application 16/122,384

9
claimed “device”) operated by the user and able to observe the animals
without scaring them. Id. The Examiner further finds that when the user
operates the remote control transmitter, a coded control signal is transmitted
to the receiver, which activates a relay to electromagnet 5, which then
actuates panel lock mechanism 4 so as to release it, making panel 3 fall,
thereby closing the trap. Id.
In modifying Kurachi based on Godts’s teachings, the Examiner
reasons:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify the method of Kurachi such that it comprises a control
mechanism that is in communication with a device, wherein the
device is configured to transmit a control signal, and wherein the
control signal corresponds to an instruction to the control
mechanism to generate the release signal in view of Godts in
order to allow the user to manually control the movement of the
at least one portion of the enclosure from the open position to the
closed position so as to enable the user to determine how many
of the plurality of feral pigs are to be trapped within the
enclosure.
Final Act. 6–7.
The Examiner further acknowledges, however, that the combination
of Kurachi and Godts “do[es] not disclose the control mechanism that is in
communication with a display device . . . in communication with a camera
assembly and configured to transmit a wireless control signal.” Id. at 7. To
address this shortcoming, the Examiner relies on Kimura.
We reproduce Kimura’s Figure 1, below:
Appeal 2020-005903
Application 16/122,384

10

The Examiner finds that Kimura’s Figure 1 depicts display device 12 in
communication with a control mechanism and camera assembly 8. See Final
Act. 8. The Examiner further finds that device 12 is configured to transmit a
wireless control signal to the controller while camera assembly 8 transmits
an image of the enclosure area via transceiving equipment. See id. The
Examiner finds that the wireless control signal instruction from device 12
corresponds to an instruction “to generate a signal that ultimately controls
the movement of the at least one portion of the enclosure.” Id. Based on
Kimura’s teachings, the Examiner reasons:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify the trapping method of Kurachi and Godts such that the
control mechanism that is in communication with a display
device, wherein the display device is in communication with a
camera assembly and configured to transmit a wireless control
signal, wherein the camera assembly transmits an image of at
Appeal 2020-005903
Application 16/122,384

11
least a portion of the enclosure area to the display device, and
wherein the wireless control signal corresponds to an instruction
to the control mechanism to generate a signal in view of Kimura
in order to provide a display device that can not only show the
user the trap activity but also send wireless command signals to
the control mechanism so as to consolidate the functions of the
control unit [] and television of Godts into a single device so as
to reduce the number of separate parts and to centralize control
of the trap apparatus at the display device.
Id. at 8–9.
In modifying Kurachi based on the teachings of Godts and Kimura,
the Examiner explains that the user will “conveniently have total control of
the trap” from the user’s display device (e.g., smartphone) (see Ans. 11),
thereby reducing the need for “the user to have to travel a great distance to
reach the trap[,] which would not be an efficient use of time” (see id. at 13).

b. Appellant’s Argument as to Claim 1
Appellant argues that a skilled artisan would not have modified
Kurachi as proposed by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 7–11; Reply Br. 4–7.
Specifically, Appellant explains that the proposed modification of Kurachi
in view of Godts “would change the principle of operation of Kurachi” and
“prevent Kurachi from achieving its intended purpose.” Reply Br. 6–7;
Appeal Br. 7–10. In support of its argument, Appellant asserts the
following:
(1) Kurachi notes that “larger traps for herd animals typically require
the presence and actions of human operators to close off a
relatively narrow opening into a larger containment area;”
Appeal 2020-005903
Application 16/122,384

12
(2) “[A]utomated traps for larger animals typically include trigger
mechanisms that can only be actuated by a single time without
requiring resetting by a human operator;”
(3) “Kurachi provides a trap that ‘is completely automatic and
requires no human action or intervention other than checking the
trap periodically to gather any captured animals and reset the gate,
and/or to recharge the electrical battery used to power the gate
release mechanism’;” and
(4) “In use, the trapping system disclosed by Kurachi is activated
solely by animal movement within the enclosed area of the trap,
thereby avoiding the need for human monitoring or action while
capturing large numbers of animals within the enclosure.”
Appeal Br. 9 (citing Kurachi, 1:20–29, 1:35–54). Appellant explains, “the
Office Action has taken the position that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to discard the goal of eliminating ‘the need for
user actuation of the trap’ in favor of a method that requires the user to
‘actuate the trap.’” Id. at 10.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner “has failed to articulate a
rational basis for modifying Kurachi in view of Godts.” Reply Br. 4–6.

c. Analysis
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
As to Appellant’s argument that the proposed modification would
both change the principle of operation of Kurachi and prevent Kurachi from
achieving its intended purpose (Reply Br. 6), the record does not support
Appellant’s position. Specifically, the record does not support Appellant’s
Appeal 2020-005903
Application 16/122,384

13
characterization of Kurachi. We disagree with Appellant’s assertion that
“the entire purpose of Kurachi’s design is to eliminate” user involvement.
Appeal Br. 9 (emphases added); see also Reply Br. 3 (“the fundamental goal
of Kurachi, the primary reference, is eliminating user involvement in the
trapping process”) (emphasis added). Rather, the purpose of Kurachi is to
improve upon systems for trapping large groups of animals. See Kurachi,
1:20–31. Indeed, we find that the Examiner’s proposed modification
supports this purpose.
Although Kurachi states that its trap is “completely automatic and
requires no human interaction,” the entirety of the statement reads:
The trap is completely automatic and requires no human action
or intervention other than checking the trap periodically to
gather any captured animals and reset the gate, and/or to
recharge the electrical battery used to power the gate release
mechanism.
Kurachi, 1:50–54 (emphasis added). Clearly, Kurachi’s system requires
some human interaction, including checking the trap, resetting the gate, and
recharging the electrical battery. Id. The goal or intended purpose of
Kurachi is not to provide a trap that eliminates all human involvement, but
one that lessens human involvement. See id. at 1:20–29. Indeed, we find
that the proposed modification fits within Kurachi’s stated goals and
objectives by easing human involvement in the trapping process.
We agree with Appellant that the proposed modification would
require some additional user involvement, as the user must view the display
device (e.g., smart phone with screen) and make a determination whether to
close the gate and trap the animals. Appeal Br. 9 (“the combination in the
Office Action modifies Kurachi to add features that require more direct user
Appeal 2020-005903
Application 16/122,384

14
intervention with the trapping activity”). Nevertheless, taken as a whole, we
agree with the Examiner that the proposed modification would result in an
improved system that would allow precise control of the number of feral
pigs to be trapped and yield a more convenient trapping system that would
require less user involvement. See Ans. 11 (explaining that an “advantage”
of the proposed modification “is that the user may have all necessary
information and input means in hand so as to conveniently have total control
of the trap.”) (emphasis added); see also Final Act. 6–7 (reasoning that the
proposed combination of Kurachi and Godts would conveniently “enable the
user to determine how many of the plurality of feral pigs are to be trapped”).
By “centraliz[ing] control of the trap apparatus at the display device”
(see Final Act. 8–9), the Examiner’s proposed modification provides for a
more convenient system that allows the user to open and close the gate from
his or her mobile phone. See Ans. 11 (discussing, “conveniently hav[ing]
total control of the trap”). As such, the proposed modification improves
Kurachi’s system by reducing the need for the user to physically visit the
trap—which may be in a remote location that is difficult to get to, where
feral pigs roam free—in order to operate the gate or simply check the trap.
See Kurachi, 1:50–54; see also Ans. 13 (“For example, automatic trap
operation may be suited for very remote locations where animals are to be
trapped because it would not require the user to have to travel a great
distance to reach the trap which would not be an efficient use of time”).
If, for example, Kurachi’s gate needed to be opened or closed, the
user of Kurachi’s system would have to visit the trap location to manually
open or close the gate. See Kurachi, 1:50–54. With the Examiner’s
proposed modification, on the other hand, the user would be able to
Appeal 2020-005903
Application 16/122,384

15
conveniently view the status of the gate from his or her mobile phone and, if
the gate required opening or closing, the user would be able to conveniently
operate the gate from the comfort of his or her home, assuming Internet or
cellular service is available.
As to Appellant’s argument that a skilled artisan would not have
modified Kurachi due to the added step requiring the user to shut the gate
with his or her display device (e.g., smart phone), we disagree. See Reply
Br. 6 (“[A] PHOSITA would not have looked to the fundamentally different
‘manual’ trapping system of Godts when evaluating potential modification
to the Kurachi system.”). Although the modification would require some
additional user involvement, as discussed above, the benefits gained from
the modification outweigh Appellant’s stated drawback. See Arctic Cat Inc.
v. Polaris Indus., Inc., 795 F. App’x. 827, 833 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board
must weigh the benefits and drawbacks of the modification against each
other, to determine whether there would be a motivation to combine.”)
(citing Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed.
Cir. 2000)). In the present case, rather than increase user involvement, the
proposed modification would ultimately decrease user involvement by
reducing the need for the user to visit the trap location in order to simply
check the status of the trap or to manually operate the gate.
In summary, Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner
error in the rejection of independent claim 1. As such, we affirm the
rejection of claim 1, along with claims 2, 3, and 6–8, which fall therewith
(see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)), as unpatentable over Kurachi, Godts, and
Kimura.

Appeal 2020-005903
Application 16/122,384

16
3. Prior Art Rejections of Claims 4, 5, and 9–12
Claims 4, 5, and 9–12 depend from independent claim 1 and the
Examiner rejects these claims under three different rejections, each of which
rely on Kurachi, Godts, and Kimura. See Ans. 3.
Appellant does not present additional arguments challenging the
rejections of these dependent claims. See, generally, Appeal Br.
Accordingly, Appellant has waived any argument separately contesting the
rejections of these claims. Frye, 94 USPQ2d at 1075.
Accordingly: (1) we affirm the rejection of claim 4 as unpatentable
over Kurachi, Godts, Kimura, and Ronnau; (2) we affirm the rejection of
claim 5 as unpatentable over Kurachi, Godts, Kimura, and either Alter or
Ueno; and (3) we affirm the rejection of claims 9–12 as unpatentable over
Kurachi, Godts, Kimura, and Alter. Ans. 3–4.

4. Prior Art Rejection of Independent Claim 13
The Examiner rejects claim 13 as unpatentable over Kurachi, Godts,
Kimura, and Alter. Final Act. 12.
Independent claim 13 is similar to independent claim 1 and the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 is also similar to the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1. Compare id. at 12–18, with id. at 4–9.
In contesting the rejection of claim 13, Appellant relies on the same
unpersuasive arguments discussed above in its challenge of claim 1. See
Appeal Br. 11–15; see also Reply Br. 2–7 (presenting the same arguments in
contesting all rejections).
Appeal 2020-005903
Application 16/122,384

17
For the same reasons Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of
Examiner error in the rejection of claim 1, we affirm the rejection of claim
13 as unpatentable over Kurachi, Godts, Kimura, and Alter.

5. Prior Art Rejection of Claims 14–18 and 21–24
The Examiner rejects claims 14–18 and 21–24 as unpatentable over
Kurachi, Godts, and Kimura. Final Act. 15.
Appellant argues these claims as a group, only presenting arguments
contesting the rejection of independent claim 14. See Appeal Br. 15–19.
We select claim 14 as the representative claim, with claims 15–18 and 21–24
standing or falling with claim 14. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Independent claim 14 is similar to independent claim 1 and the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 is also similar to the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1. Compare Final Act. at 19–24, with id. at 4–9.
In contesting the rejection of claim 14, Appellant relies on the same
unpersuasive arguments discussed above pertaining to the rejection of claim
1. See Appeal Br. 15–19; see also Reply Br. 2–7 (presenting the same
arguments in contesting all rejections).
For the same reasons Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of
Examiner error in the rejection of claim 1, we affirm the rejection of claim
14, along with claims 15–18 and 21–24, which fall therewith (see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv)), as unpatentable over Kurachi, Godts, and Kimura.

Appeal 2020-005903
Application 16/122,384

18
6. Prior Art Rejections of Claims 19, 20, and 25–27
Claims 19, 20, and 25–27 depend from independent claim 14 and the
Examiner rejects these claims under three different rejections, each of which
rely on Kurachi, Godts, and Kimura. See Ans. 4.
Appellant does not present additional arguments challenging the
rejections of these dependent claims. See, generally, Appeal Br.
Accordingly, Appellant has waived any argument separately contesting the
rejections of these claims. Frye, 94 USPQ2d at 1075.
Accordingly: (1) we affirm the rejection of claim 19 as unpatentable
over Kurachi, Godts, Kimura, and Ronnau; (2) we affirm the rejection of
claim 20 as unpatentable over Kurachi, Godts, Kimura, and either Alter or
Ueno; and (3) we affirm the rejection of claims 25–27 as unpatentable over
Kurachi, Godts, Kimura, and Alter. Ans. 4.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1–27 as unpatentable.

Appeal 2020-005903
Application 16/122,384

19
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–27 103 Nonstatutory double
patenting based on
U.S. Patent No.
9,814,228
1–27
1–3, 6–8 103 Kurachi, Godts,
Kimura
1–3, 6–8
4 103 Kurachi, Godts,
Kimura, Ronnau
4
5 103 Kurachi, Godts,
Kimura, and either
Alter or Ueno
5
9–12 103 Kurachi, Godts,
Kimura, Alter
9–12
13 103 Kurachi, Godts,
Kimura, Alter
13
14–18,
21–24
103 Kurachi, Godts,
Kimura
14–18,
21–24

19 103 Kurachi, Godts,
Kimura, Ronnau
19
20 103 Kurachi, Godts,
Kimura, and either
Alter or Ueno
20
25–27 103 Kurachi, Godts,
Kimura, Alter
25–27
Overall
Outcome
1–27

Appeal 2020-005903
Application 16/122,384

20
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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