Lely Patent N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 23, 2021

2021001948 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 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.
14/374,022 07/23/2014 Jan Martinus Van Kuilenburg 435861US71PCT 1228
22850 7590 07/23/2021
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
CLERKLEY, DANIELLE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/23/2021 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):
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
iahmadi@oblon.com
patentdocket@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAN MARTINUS VAN KUILENBURG

Appeal 2021-001948
Application 14/374,022
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, JILL D. HILL, and CYNTHIA L. MURPHY,
Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, 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 22–28, 30–48, 50–52, and 54. Claim
53 is allowed, and claims 29 and 49 are indicated as containing allowable
subject matter, but are objected to as depending from a rejected claim. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). A video oral hearing was

1 The term “Appellant” is used herein to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies LELY PATENT N.V., as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2021-001948
Application 14/374,022

2
conducted on July 15, 2021, with Andrew M. Ollis, Esq., appearing on
behalf of Appellant.
We REVERSE.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to a feed control system. Claim 22 is
illustrative, and is reproduced below:
22. Feed control system, comprising:
an autonomous feed displacer which is displaceable in a
direction of displacement and which is configured, when
passing a site containing animal feed provided on the ground
along a feeding fence, to displace said animal feed horizontally
over the ground and at right angles to the direction of
displacement towards the feeding fence to form a pile of
displaced animal feed; and
a feed level meter operably coupled to the autonomous feed
displacer, the feed level meter configured to measure a feed
level of said pile of displaced animal feed and to emit a feed
level signal on the basis of the measured feed level.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejects:
(i) claims 22–28, 30–35, 40–45, 50–52, and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Siciliano (US 4,195,594, issued Apr. 1, 1980);
and
(ii) claims 36–39 and 46–48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Siciliano in view of Vaags (US 6,779,486 B2, issued Aug.
24, 2004).
Appeal 2021-001948
Application 14/374,022

3
ANALYSIS
Claims 22–28, 30–35, 40–45, 50–52, and 54--35 U.S.C. § 103--Siciliano
The Examiner finds that Siciliano discloses a feed system having the
structural components recited in independent claim 22, but lacks disclosure
of a site containing animal feed provided on the ground along a feeding
fence. Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner nonetheless asserts that the claim
term “ground” is interpreted as defining any horizontal surface that supports
a feed product, and equates the feeding fence recited in claim 22 to cages 13
disclosed in Siciliano. Id. The Examiner maintains that “[t]he autonomous
feed displacer of Siciliano et al. would perform equally well when passing a
site containing animal feed provided on the ground along a feeding fence.”
Id. at 3–4. The Examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious to
modify the Siciliano feed control system to include a site having animal feed
on the ground near a feeding fence, and to use the Siciliano system to
“displace said animal feed horizontally over the ground and at right angles to
the direction of towards the feeding fence,” thereby providing “the
advantage of continuously presenting feed at reachable distances from the
feeding fence to be easily consumed by animals.” Id. at 4.
The Examiner’s initial findings do not address the claim limitation
requiring that the feed displacer be configured to not only displace animal
feed horizontally, but also to form a pile of displaced animal feed. The
Examiner, in responding to arguments advanced by Appellant during
prosecution, contends that V-shaped wire loop 45 of Siciliano “displaces
feed on opposing sides of the V-shape to displace animal feed horizontally
over the ground . . . towards [a] feeding fence to form a pile of displaced
animal feed. Specifically, the accumulation of animal feed displaced
Appeal 2021-001948
Application 14/374,022

4
towards the feeding fence over a series of movements back and forth, along
the length of the feeding fence, forms piles of displaced feed.” Non-Final
Act. 15.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that “it is not at all clear that the wire
loop will in fact move feed closer to the animals as its primary job is simply
to stir and smooth the pile. The conclusion that it will move the feed
towards the animals appears to be speculative and unsupported.” Appeal Br.
17. Appellant reiterates this position in the Reply Brief, citing three
passages in Siciliano that refer to the wire loop functioning to stir and
smooth feed in a trough to equalize the amount of feed present. Reply Br.
3–4. Appellant maintains that these passages evidence that Siciliano is not
configured to form a pile of displaced feed.
We agree with Appellant. The smoothing and feed-equalizing
function of the wire loop in Siciliano would be regarded by a person of
ordinary skill in the art as producing a flattened, level, top surface of the
feed in a trough, as suggested by Appellant. See Reply Br. 4. The wire loop
does not present any significant cross-sectional area that might be regarded
as being capable of displacing feed outwardly to the sides thereof such that
any sort of pile would be created. Regarding the Examiner’s position that
repeated back-and-forth passes of the wire loop through the feed would
create piles to the sides of the loop is similarly speculative, but even if some
displacement of that type were to occur, Appellant is correct that, then, the
feed sensor in Siciliano, which is centered in the trough in line with the wire
Appeal 2021-001948
Application 14/374,022

5
loop, would not be configured to measure a feed level of the pile created, as
required by claim 22. See Appeal Br. 12–13.
Independent claim 51 does not explicitly require that the mobile feed
displacer therein is configured specifically to form a pile of feed, but does
require that the feed displacer displace feed horizontally, and that the feed
level meter is configured to measure a feed level of the displaced animal
feed. As noted above, to the extent that the Examiner’s speculation that wire
loop 45 of Siciliano would displace some amount of feed horizontally, the
feed sensor in Siciliano, being in line with the wire loop, is not in a position
to, and thus is not configured to, measure a level of the displaced feed.
As such, the Examiner’s rejection lacks rational underpinnings
leading to a conclusion of obviousness. The rejection of claims 22 and 51 is
therefore not sustained. The rejection is also not sustained as to claims 23–
28, 30–35, 40–45, 50, 52, and 54, which depend from one of claims 22 or
51.

Claims 36–39 and 46–48--35 U.S.C. § 103--Siciliano/Vaags
The Examiner does not rely on Vaags in any manner that remedies
the deficiencies of Siciliano noted above. Accordingly, the rejection of
dependent claims 36–39 and 46–48 is not sustained.

CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 22–28, 30–35, 40–45, 50–52, and 54 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Siciliano is reversed.
The rejection of claims 36–39 and 46–48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Siciliano in view of Vaags is reversed.
Appeal 2021-001948
Application 14/374,022

6

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
22–28,
30–35,
40–45,
50–52, 54
103 Siciliano 22–28, 30–
35, 40–45,
50–52, 54
36–39,
46–48
103 Siciliano, Vaags 36–39, 46–
48
Overall
Outcome
22–28, 30–
48, 50–52,
54

REVERSED