Ex Parte Follmer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 3, 2017

13176014 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2017)

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.
13/176,014 07/05/2011 Richard L. Follmer 083-023 3788
36844 7590 03/07/2017
Pp.rmak Nalcaiima Rr Mofrnwan T T P
EXAMINER
127 S. Peyton Street, Suite 200
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
MCGOWAN, JAMIE LOUISE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3671
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/07/2017 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):
CGOODE@cnmiplaw.COM
IP@cnmiplaw.com
ACERM AK @ cnmiplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD L. FOLLMER
Appeal 2015-003594
Application 13/176,014
Technology Center 3600
Before: MICHAEL L. HOELTER, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and GORDON
D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1—15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Kongskilde Industries Inc.
Appeal Br. 2
Appeal 2015-003594
Application 13/176,014
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an automatic guidance system for a pull-
type agricultural implement and to the implement itself. Claims 1—15 are
pending, and claims 1 and 10 are the only independent claims. Claim 1
illustrates the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below.
1. A method for strip tilling a field having an uneven surface,
said method comprising the steps of:
establishing a straight line extending the length of the field
using satellite-based position information;
determining a pre-determined offset distance from said
straight line corresponding to the distance between adjacent
tillage strips;
traversing the field along or parallel to said straight line
while pulling a drawbar having plural ground engaging
implements attached thereto, said drawbar having a center
section and left and right wing sections, each coupled to a
respective opposed end of said center section and capable of
forward and aft pivoting movement relative to said center
section;
comparing the position of the drawbar during a pass of the
field with said predetermined offset distance from the straight
line;
pivoting said left and right wing sections in first and
second opposed directions relative to said center section when
the position of said drawbar and said pre-determined offset
distance do not coincide to correct for down slope drift of said
drawbar caused by the uneven surface of the field; and
pivoting said left and right wing sections in third and
fourth opposed directions relative to said center section when the
position of the drawbar coincides with said predetermined offset
distance to traverse the field at said pre-determined offset
distance relative to the straight line.
Appeal Br. A-l (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal 2015-003594
Application 13/176,014
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 1—7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Drever and McClure.
2. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Drever, McClure and Neumeyer.
3. Claims 13—15 are rejected 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Drever, McClure and Friesen.
The invention provides a method of, and apparatus for, tilling a field
on sloped terrain. Spec. 2. According to claim 1, the method is practiced
using a draw bar (typically attached to the rear of a tractor) to pull a farm
implement, the implement comprising a center section and left and right
wing sections. Appeal Br. A-l (Claims App.). The method uses a GPS
location system to compare the desired path of the implement to its actual
Neumeyer
Drever
Friesen
McClure
US 4,528,920 July 16, 1985
US 4,658,911 Apr. 21, 1987
US 5,113,956 May 19, 1992
US 7,162,348 B2 Jan. 9, 2007
REJECTIONS
OPINION
3
Appeal 2015-003594
Application 13/176,014
path, and to effect a course correction if required. Id. It is the structure that
enables this course correction that is the focus of this decision.
According to claim 1, when course correction is required, the left and
right wing sections are moved in opposite directions with respect to the
center section, that is, one wing is rotated about a vertical axis to angle it
forward of the center section, while the other wing is rotated about a vertical
axis to angle it rearward of the center section. These motions are illustrated,
for example, in Figure 2 of the Specification where the left and right wings
24 and 26, respectively, have been turned so as to cause the implement as a
whole to move toward the left, in the direction of arrow 21. Such movement
would be necessary to keep the implement on the desired course if it were
drifting down-slope to the right, opposite the direction of arrow 21. Once
the implement is back on the desired track, the left and right wings are
rotated to return them to a centered position as shown in Figure 1. In this
decision, following the terminology of claim 1, rotation of the wings about a
vertical axis is called “pivoting.”2
The Examiner finds that Drever discloses a tilling implement with a
center section and left and right wings that are capable of pivoting relative to
the center section. Final Act. 2; Ans. 2—3 (citing Drever 5:5—20). Drever is
the only reference relied on by the Examiner for teaching “pivoting said left
and right wing sections in first and second opposed directions relative to said
center section when the position of said drawbar and said pre-determined
offset distance do not coincide to correct for down slope drift of said
2 We also use the terms “flexing”, “pitching” and “vertical translation,” each
to describe a different motion of a wing with respect to the center section.
These terms will be defined as they are introduced.
4
Appeal 2015-003594
Application 13/176,014
drawbar caused by an even surface of the field.” Appeal Br. A-l (Claims
App.). See Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 2—3. Based on our review of Drever, we
disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Drever teaches wings that pivot.
Drever describes a number of motions for the wings with respect to
the center section of his tilling implement. First, the wings 24 and 26 can
rotate about horizontal axes 783 and 102 (which extend parallel to the
direction of travel) so that the wings can follow side slope ground contours.
Drever 5:6—10. Drever calls this movement “flexing”, and we adopt this
terminology. The wings can also be folded up about these axes so the
implement can be pulled along a narrow roadway. Drever 4:6—19.
Second, the wings, when extended in an operative position, can move
as a whole up or down without rotation, as indicated by the letter T in Figure
4. Drever terms the second motion “vertical translation”. Id. 5:12—15.
Third, the leading edge can move up or down independently of the back
edge, effectively allowing the wing to rotate about an axis that is parallel to
the ground and also normal to the direction of travel. Drever terms this third
motion “pitching.” Id. 5:15—20.
Drever also describes “swiveling” of the connections between links
80, 98 that connect wings 24 and 26 to center section 22. Drever explains
that
such pitching causes fore and aft displacement of the
connections 85, 104, respectively, relative to the main section
22, thus imposing bending moments on the links 80, 98 about
3 In Figure 1 of Drever, the right hand axis 78 has been mis-numbered as 28
shown just below the tip of the arrow from numeral 20. The left hand axis
78 is correctly numbered.
5
Appeal 2015-003594
Application 13/176,014
upright axes.4 Such displacements and moments are
accommodated by making the aft links 98 slightly flexible in
fore and aft directions and also by limiting such displacements.
Id. 5:29-35.
During normal tilling on a flat field, the implement of Drever is
configured as in Figure 1. The wings 24 and 26 are pressed to pivot
rearward about connections 85 by the drag of the tools engaged with the
ground. This rearward rotation about 85 is resisted by links 98 which extend
between connection 104 on the center section and connection 100 on the
right wing 24. Each link 98 is in tension. Id. 5:2—5. It will be seen, then,
that during a pitching motion, for example, when the trailing edge of wing
24 moves up and the leading edge does not, link 98 shifts from a horizontal
position to an inclined orientation where connection 100 is above connection
104. With this motion, a small component of the displacement of
connection 100 is in the direction of travel or the implement. This small
component, in turn, could cause some slight change in the alignment of the
wheels 58 compared to the wheels 48.
Any upward movement of connection 100 big enough to cause
substantial pivoting of a wing would necessarily cause a large misalignment
4 Drever here is slightly inconsistent. Item 85 is a ball and socket connection
between link 80 (which has an A-frame shape) and a respective wing 24, 26.
4:28—32. Link 80 is described as pivoting about axis 78 by being journaled
on rod 84 which in turn is supported on the side of the main section 22. Id.
4:32—5. See Fig. 10. Because the link 80 rotates about rod 84, which is
fixed to center section 22 of tilling implement 20, it is not possible for the
ball and socket connection 85 to actually move fore and aft. The same is
true for connection 104 which is fixed to center section 22. Id. 4:63—66.
There are forces applied to the connections 85 and 104 (“moments”), but the
actual displacements must be negligibly small.
6
Appeal 2015-003594
Application 13/176,014
of axis 102 from axis 78. Drever takes steps to limit fore and aft
displacements (i.e., pivoting of a wing) in order “to prevent undue
misalignment of the fore and aft hinge axes 78, 102 of the links 80, 98 so the
wing sections 24 can be folded [i.e. flexed] upward readily.” Id. 5:36—39.
This is accomplished by limiting the extent to which the front rail of the
wing is permitted to pivot about connection 85. See id. 5:32—51 and Figures
1, 9, and 10.
Appellant takes issue with the Examiner’s interpretation and
application of Drever. Appeal Br. 23—24. Focusing on, without quoting, the
last two steps of claim 1 (the “pivoting” steps), Appellant argues:
Nowhere in Drever is there disclosed or suggested the forward
and aft displacement of the wing sections in a coordinated,
controlled manner, where the wing sections simultaneously are
displaced in opposed directions for the purpose of
compensating for down slope drift and maintaining the
agricultural implement on a pre-determined track over an
uneven surface as in Applicant's claimed invention.
Appeal Br. 23.
The Examiner responds that in Drever the frame of the implement
adjusts to the slope of the landscape. Answer 5. “Drever discloses that the
wings can pivot up/down and fore/aft to account for slope.” Id.
Based on our understanding of Drever, we disagree with the
Examiner. While Drever may show minor fore and aft (i.e., pivoting)
displacement of his wings as they flex and change pitch to accommodate
ground contours, Drever teaches that such fore and aft rotation (pivoting) is
to be limited in order to preserve the ability to flex the implement’s wings
upward for travel purposes. Drever 5:36—39. The amount of fore and aft
wing motion (pivoting) generated in any event in Drever appears insufficient
7
Appeal 2015-003594
Application 13/176,014
to achieve the kind of steering called for by claim 1. Specifically, Drever
does not teach or suggest a tilling device that is capable of “pivoting said left
and right wing sections in first and second opposed directions relative to said
center section ... to correct for down slope drift of said drawbar caused by
the uneven surface of the field” nor the final pivoting step which returns the
apparatus toward its initial condition. Appeal Br. A-l (Claims App.).
Because Drever is the only reference relied on for teaching a tilling
apparatus with wings that can pivot fore and aft (see Final Act. 2, 5; Ans. 2,
5—6), and because we find that Drever teaches wings that can translate
vertically, flex, and pitch, but that Drever does not teach rotation of a wing
about a vertical axis (pivoting) other than, perhaps, negligably, a
preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner’s finding that
claim 1 would have been obvious in view of Drever and McClure.
Claim 10 is an apparatus claim which includes limitations similar to
the pivoting steps found in claim 1. Neither the detailed part of the Final
Action (Final Act. 2—7) nor the Answer addresses claim 10 specifically.
Claim 10 is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. Final Act. 2.
Claim 10 requires a flexible implement frame with first and second
pivoting frame members (wings) supporting ground engaging implements.
Appeal Br. A-3 (Claims App.). The first and second pivoting frame
members are movable between a first position in which the ground engaging
implements are aligned with a track along the direction of motion of the
implement frame through the field and a second position wherein the ground
engaging implements are aligned in track along a direction upslope from the
direction of motion of said implement through the field. Id. The apparatus
also includes “a position controlling arrangement [to change] the positions
8
Appeal 2015-003594
Application 13/176,014
of said first and second pivoting frame members so that said ground
engaging members assume said second upslope position so that the track of
said ground engaging implements changes so as to coincide with said
predetermined track.” Id. at A-4.
We construe the “position controlling arrangement” as governed by
35 U.S.C. § 112 paragraph 6. Mechanical components of the disclosed
“position controlling arrangement” include a transverse structural member
52 and two wing sections 24 and 26, one extending from each side. See
Spec., Figure 1. The wing sections are pivotably mounted via pins 54a and
54b to the transverse structural member 52. Links 32 and 34 are part of a
pivot mechanism 36 that causes the wings to move in opposite directions.
See Spec., Figures 2 and 3. We need not further detail the structure or
operation of this mechanism to know that neither it nor any equivalent is
disclosed in or suggested by Drever in as much as in Drever pivoting of the
wings is limited in order to preserve the ability to flex the wings upward
while transporting the implement. Any alteration of Drever that would
allow sufficient pivoting movement to enable the ground engaging
implements to track upslope would cause misalignment of the fore and aft
hinge axes 78, 102 of the links 80, 98 so the wing sections 24 could not be
flexed upward readily. See Drever 5:36—39. Thus we find that Drever does
not disclose a mechanism for pivoting his wings in a manner that could be
used to steer the tilling implement, and any modification of Drever to enable
such pivoting would make it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. See In
re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The Examiner relies exclusively on Drever for teaching a tilling
implement with a center section and pivotably attached wings. Final Act. 2;
9
Appeal 2015-003594
Application 13/176,014
Ans. 2. The Examiner finds that “Drever discloses that the wings can pivot
up/down and fore/aft to account for slope.” Ans. 5. As we have discussed
above, the preponderance of evidence does not support a finding that Drever
provides fore/aft pivoting, given that any fore and aft pivoting in Drever is
minimal and considered disadvantageous. Although Drever discloses
various kinds of motion of the wings in relation to the central section,
forward and aft pivoting motion that could be used to steer the implement is
not something Drever discloses or suggests. Because all the rejections rely
on Drever for a disclosure we find not supported by the evidence, the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—15 is reversed.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—15.
REVERSED
10