Ex Parte GeorgouliasDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 11, 201713189923 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 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. 13/189,923 07/25/2011 Chris M. Georgoulias P20598-US 1178 30689 7590 DEERE & COMPANY ONE JOHN DEERE PLACE MOLINE, IL 61265 09/11/2017 EXAMINER MCGOWAN, JAMIE LOUISE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3671 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/11/2017 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 CHRIS M. GEORGOT IT IAS Appeal 2016-006150 Application 13/189,923 Technology Center 3600 Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and ADAM PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant is appealing the final rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We reverse. Introduction The invention is directed to: A tine holder for an aerator [which] includes a base attached to a vehicle, having a plurality of generally vertically aligned semicylindrical channels therein. A clamp block is removably attached to the base and has a plurality of generally vertically aligned semicylindrical channels therein. By bringing together the semicylindrical channels in the base and the clamp block, a plurality of cylindrical bores are formed. Threaded fasteners Appeal 2016-006150 Application 13/189,923 secure and tighten the clamp block to the base. Aerating tines may be inserted in and removably held in the cylindrical bores. One or more magnets in the base and/or clamp block contact the tines and provide attractive forces to hold the tines in place. Specification, paragraph 7. Illustrative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized) 1. An aerator tine holder, comprising: a clamp block removably attached to a base of the aerator tine holder, each of the clamp block and the base having a plurality of semicylindrical channels that when attached together form a plurality of cylindrical bores holding a plurality of cylindrical tines; and a plurality of magnets embedded in the base, each magnet contacting and supporting a cylindrical tine in a vertical alignment against the cylindrical bore when the clamp block is loosened from the base. Rejection on Appeal Claims 1-7 and 9-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as being unpatentable over TORO ProCore 648 Aerator, Lemanski (US Patent 3,575,435; issued 3,575,435) and Wolfe (US Patent 6,361,034 Bl; issued March 26, 2002). Final Rejection 2-4. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed December 16, 2014), the Final Rejection (mailed April 16, 2014) and the Answer (mailed May 28, 2015) for the respective details. 2 Appeal 2016-006150 Application 13/189,923 Appellant asserts the claimed “tine holder reduces or minimizes the time required to change one or more tines in an aerator, does not require repositioning several tines held by a clamp block, and does not require special tools to remove and replace tines.” Specification, paragraph 8. Appellant argues the “Toro Procore 648 Aerator does not include any magnets embedded in the base” and “the Toro Procore 648 Aerator does not show anything to support the tines in a vertical alignment against the cylindrical bores when the clamp block is loosened from the base.” Appeal Brief 10. Appellant concludes, “As a result, the Toro Procore 648 Aerator’s tine holder suffers from the same problems that the claimed invention solves.” Appeal Brief 10. Appellant argues in addition, Lemanski “does not have a plurality of magnets that contact and support a plurality of workpieces or a plurality of tines as required by claim 1” and is also “missing the first element because its magnets are not embedded, but are mounted to the face 20 of each jaw 16 of the chuck.” Appeal Brief 10-11. Appellant further contends, “Wolfe is missing the first element [of claim 1] because its magnets 32 together hold a vise parallel 34 against jaw plate 26” and “Wolfe does not show a plurality of magnets that contact or support a plurality of vise parallels, workpieces, or tines.” Appeal Brief 11. Appellant contend Wolfe instead “provides magnets in order to horizontally align a standard vise parallel 34 in the bottom of vise 10 ‘in position to support a workpiece (not shown) as the workpiece is clamped between the clamping surfaces of the jaws.’” Appeal Brief 11. The Examiner finds, “Like TORO, Lemanski discloses a clamping mechanism for holding elements”; however, “Unlike TORO, Lemanski discloses the use of magnets on the clamp surfaces for holding the 3 Appeal 2016-006150 Application 13/189,923 workpiece elements until the clamping force can be applied to thereby hold the element in the correct position.” Final Rejection 2. The Examiner also finds, “Like the combination of TORO and Lemanski, Wolfe also discloses a clamping mechanism utilizing magnets to hold elements in position”; however, “Unlike the combination, Wolfe further discloses that the magnets can be embedded in a portion of the clamping mechanism.” Final Rejection 3. The Examiner finds, “It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to [modify Toro] include a magnet in one or both of each base and clamp block to hold the aerator tines in position until the clamp block could be secured to the base” as taught by Lemanski. Final Rejection 2. The Examiner further finds that it would have been obvious to “embed the magnets in the tool holder of the combination [of Toro and Lemanski] as taught by Wolfe as the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)) since embedding the magnets would maintain the magnets in the correct position thereby making them more user friendly.” Final Rejection 3. We find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. Toro discloses an aerator; however, Lemanski’s invention “relates to lathes and more specifically to improved means for mounting and positioning [a]workpiece within the jaws of a lathe chuck” and Wolfe’s invention is a “magnetic holder of a vise jaw that has a permanent magnet mounted in the jaw for holding metal or other magnetic material workpiece support parallels in position against the jaw clamping surface to properly hold the parallels during the clamping operation. See Toro, page 1; Lemanski, column 1, lines 4-6 and Wolfe’s Abstract. The Examiner’s findings do not indicate particular portions of the 4 Appeal 2016-006150 Application 13/189,923 technologically diverse cited references that the Examiner is relying upon to establish a prima facie case of obviousness and therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established in regard to independent claims 1, 6 and 10.1 See Final Rejection 2-3. We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 6 and 10, as well as, dependent claims 2- 5,1,9 and 11-13 for the reasons stated above. DECISION The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-13 is reversed. REVERSED 1 37 C.F.R. §1.104(c)(2) (In rejecting claims for want of novelty or for obviousness, the examiner must cite the best references at his or her command. When a reference is complex or shows or describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected claim specified.) The procedural burden of establishing a prima facie case is carried when the rejection satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 132, in “notifying] the applicant... [by] stating the reasons for [its] rejection, or objection or requirement, together with such information and references as may be useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the] application.” 35 U.S.C. § 132. This section ‘“is violated when a rejection is so uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection.’” In re Jung 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) citing Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation