Matthew Hagny et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 30, 2021

2021003781 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 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.
15/361,330 11/25/2016 Matthew P. Hagny HAG-013 5214
26821 7590 11/30/2021
THOMPSON LAW, P.A.
P.O BOX 166
402 4th St
SCANDIA, KS 66966
EXAMINER
TORRES, ALICIA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3671
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2021 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 MATTHEW P. HAGNY and JEFFREY ALAN HARRIS

Appeal 2021-003781
Application 15/361,330
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, BRANDON J. WARNER, 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, 4–6, 8–14, 17–23, and 26. See Reply
Br. 3; see also Adv. Act. (dated May 18, 2021) (acknowledging that claims
1, 4–6, 8–14, 17–23, and 26 stand rejected, while claims 15, 16, 24, and 25
have been allowed). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Emilie Downs.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-003781
Application 15/361,330

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The application is titled “Down-Pressure System for Implement with
Opener Assemblies Mounted to Adjustable Rockshaft.” Spec. 1. Claims 1,
17, and 26 are independent. See Appeal Br. 24–33 (Claims App.). Below,
we reproduce claim 1, with emphasis added to a particular limitation
addressed in this Decision:
1. An agricultural implement, comprising:
a frame adapted for forward movement over a field;
a rockshaft assembly connected to the frame, said
rockshaft assembly being arranged to pivot about a transverse
horizontal axis;
an opener assembly comprising an opener arm, a furrow
opener, and a gauge wheel supported for rotation adjacent to the
furrow opener to limit the furrow opener to a preset depth of
operation, said opener arm having a first end pivotally
connected to said rockshaft assembly at a first connection point,
and a second end supporting said furrow opener and said gauge
wheel;
said rockshaft assembly is rotatable between a first
position in which said opener assembly is raised for transport
and a second position in which said opener assembly is lowered
for engaging soil, and a hydraulic rockshaft cylinder is
connected between said frame and said rockshaft assembly for
rotating said rockshaft assembly between said first and second
positions; and
a down-pressure system for adjustably biasing the opener
assembly, said down-pressure system comprising a linear
actuator, said linear actuator having a first actuator end
connected to said rockshaft assembly at a second connection
point, and a second actuator end connected to said opener
assembly;
wherein said linear actuator is a hydraulic actuator that
has a port connected to a source of hydraulic pressure that
biases the linear actuator in an extended direction to apply
downforce to the opener assembly, and a first pressure-
regulating valve is connected to said source of hydraulic
Appeal 2021-003781
Application 15/361,330

3
pressure to regulate pressure in said linear actuator during a
range of movement of said linear actuator between extended
and retracted positions; and
wherein said hydraulic rockshaft cylinder is supplied
with sufficient pressure in said second position to overcome the
regulated pressure in said hydraulic actuator of the down-
pressure system to force said hydraulic actuator into a position
between said extended and retracted positions during operation
while maintaining a set depth of operation of said furrow
opener with said gauge wheel and a set downforce on said
opener assembly with the regulated pressure in said hydraulic
actuator of said down-pressure system.
Appeal Br. 24–25 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Poggemiller US 4,353,423 Oct. 12, 1982
Jensen US 6,701,857 B1 Mar. 9, 2004

REJECTION2
Claims 1, 4–6, 8–14, 17–23, and 26 stand rejected as unpatentable
over Jensen in view of Poggemiller. See Final Act. 3; see also Adv. Act.
(dated May 18, 2021) (acknowledging that claims 1, 4–6, 8–14, 17–23, and
26 stand rejected, while claims 15, 16, 24, and 25 have been allowed); see
also Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.) (noting the cancellation of claim 7).

2 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
See Final Act. 2–3 (identifying indefinite subject matter in claims 1, 7, and
13); see also Ans. 3 (“The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 7, and
13 [have been withdrawn].”).
Appeal 2021-003781
Application 15/361,330

4
I. Issue
The issue on appeal is whether it would have been obvious for a
skilled artisan to replace Jensen’s spring with Poggemiller’s hydraulic
actuator as a matter of simple substitution, as asserted in the rejection.
II. Rule
In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an
obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior
art. See In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590 (CCPA 1958); see also MPEP § 2144.06 II
(stating and citing the same).
III. Analysis
In rejecting the claims as unpatentable over Jensen in view of
Poggemiller, the Examiner relies on Jensen for teaching the claimed
limitations with the exception of a linear actuator that is a hydraulic actuator.
See Final Act. 3–6 (addressing independent claim 1); see also id. at 6–15
(rejecting claims 4–6, 8–14, 17–23, and 26 based on the same reasoning
relied on in rejecting claim 1). In particular, the Examiner finds that Jensen
teaches spring 17, but acknowledges that the spring is not a hydraulic
actuator. See id. at 4.
To address the claimed hydraulic actuator, the Examiner relies on
Poggemiller’s teaching of ram 26 as satisfying the claimed hydraulic
actuator and states that:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to substitute the down-pressure hydraulic actuator
(26) of Poggemil1er for the down-pressure spring (17) of
Jensen since both references disclose opener assemblies having
a depth maintained by a rockshaft cylinder and supplementary
Appeal 2021-003781
Application 15/361,330

5
down-pressure actuators for holding the opener assemblies at
said depth while allowing for resetting over obstacles in the
ground and such a predictable result would be achieved.
Id. at 6. In the Answer, the Examiner further explains that it would have
been a “simple substitution” to replace Jensen’s spring 17 with
Poggemiller’s linear actuator 26 because both Jensen’s device and
Poggemiller’s device “function the same.” Ans. 6–7. To illustrate the
similarities, the Examiner submits the following annotated composite figure:

Id. at 4. The above composite figure is a side-by-side comparison of
Jensen’s “down-pressure system” 17 with Poggemiller’s “down-pressure
system” 26. See id. According to the Examiner,
It is seen then that the devices of Jensen and
Pog[g]emiller, while using different types of parts, operate the
same: to set and maintain an opener disc at a predetermined
depth, yet allow for flexibility over obstructions, thereby
preventing damage to the openers, and a return to the original
predetermined depth after the obstacle has passed.
Id.
Appellant contends that a skilled artisan would not have replaced
Jensen’s spring 17 with Poggemiller’s ram 26 (or hydraulic actuator)
Appeal 2021-003781
Application 15/361,330

6
because “[t]he fully extended cylinder 26 of Poggemiller . . . act[s] as a rigid
link [and] would not be a suitable replacement for the downforce spring 17
in Jensen.” Appeal Br. 21. Appellant further explains, “a person of ordinary
skill in the art would not have looked to a resetting ram assembly that
normally operates in a fully extended condition and acts as a rigid link as a
suitable substitute for a downforce spring.” Reply Br. 7.
We agree with Appellant.
As an initial matter, the record does not support a finding that
Jensen’s spring 17 and Poggemiller’s ram 26 are recognized as mechanical
or functional equivalents in the prior art. As explained above, the
equivalency must be recognized in the prior art. See Ruff, 256 F.2d at 590;
see also MPEP § 2144.06 II.
Jensen discloses that “spring member 17 is located . . . to absorb
shock as the planting implement travels over uneven ground or encounters
an obstruction.” Jensen 6:36–40. Poggemiller, on the other hand, discloses
that “the reduced and adjusted pressure in rams 26 [or linear actuator]
extends these rams to the fullest extent so that they act substantially as rigid
links.” Poggemiller 4:26–31 (emphasis added). Poggemiller explains that as
“an obstruction is encountered . . . pressure builds up within ram 26 and as
soon as this pressure exceeds the pressure set by the regulating valve 33, the
ram will unload thus allowing the particular gang to trip or elevate until the
obstruction is passed.” Id. at 4:32–37.
In other words, Jensen’s spring indiscriminately absorbs shock,
whereas Poggemiller’s ram 26 remains rigid until a pressure exceeds a
particular set point to release the pressurized fluid from ram 26. Indeed, if
Poggemiller’s device encounters minor obstructions that do not result in the
Appeal 2021-003781
Application 15/361,330

7
release of pressure, Poggemiller’s ram would remain rigid. Jensen’s device,
by contrast, would continue to absorb shock, seemingly indifferent to the
obstacle encountered.
As such, Jensen’s spring 17 is not functionally or mechanically
equivalent to Poggemiller’s ram 26. See Ruff, 256 F.2d at 590; see also
MPEP § 2144.06 II. The Examiner erred in concluding that a skilled artisan
would have replaced Jensen’s spring 17 with Poggemiller’s “hydraulic
actuator” 26 as a matter of simple substitution. See Ans. 7.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 4–6, 8–14, 17–23, and 26 as unpatentable over Jensen in view of
Poggemiller.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–6, 8–14,
17–23, 26
103 Jensen,
Poggemiller
1, 4–6, 8–14,
17–23, 26

REVERSED