Ex Parte FollmerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 3, 201713176014 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation