Gary A. Schreiner

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 16, 2019

15205585 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2019)

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.
15/205,585 07/08/2016 Gary A. Schreiner 87478-6US1 / ADB 2841
23529 7590 08/16/2019
ADE & COMPANY INC.
2157 Henderson Highway
WINNIPEG, MANITOBA R2G1P9
CANADA
EXAMINER
YUEN, JESSICA JIPING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3762
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2019 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):
djones@adeco.com
uspto@adeco.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GARY A. SCHREINER1
____________

Appeal 2019-001328
Application 15/205,585
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before DANIEL S. SONG, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.

WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Gary A. Schreiner (“Appellant”) appeals from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 12–16. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.

1 Appellant identifies Gatco Manufacturing Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-001328
Application 15/205,585

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to a system for aerating particulate
materials, such as grains, stored in a storage bin, to eliminate moisture from
the grain, which may result in spoilage. See Spec. 1, ll. 8–19 (FIELD and
BACKGROUND).
Claim 12 is the sole independent claim and is reproduced below with
emphasis added to a particular limitation discussed in this Decision.
12. A method of storing and drying by aeration
particulate material comprising:
locating the particulate material in a storage bin having
an upstanding cylindrical peripheral wall standing upwardly
from a bin bottom, and a bin roof on top of the peripheral wall;
mounting an elongate perforated venting tube
approximately centrally within the storage bin, the venting tube
extending generally through the particulate material upwardly
toward the bin roof;
collecting within the venting tube the air from the
particulate materials and transmitting and venting the same;
mounting a plurality of upstanding elongated hollow
aerator ducts disposed inside the storage bin in proximity to the
cylindrical peripheral wall at angularly spaced positions around
the cylindrical peripheral wall;
mounting the upstanding aerator ducts only at the
cylindrical peripheral wall and having no portion of the aerator
ducts on the bin bottom;
providing in each aerator duct perforations for
transmitting air from inside the aerator duct to the particulate
materials within the storage bin;
and drying the particulate material by aeration by driving
exterior air by an air blower arrangement into the hollow
aerator ducts by connecting the air blower arrangement directly
to the aerator ducts by one or more supply conduits;
causing substantially all of said air exterior to said
storage bin from said air blower arrangement to pass into the
Appeal 2019-001328
Application 15/205,585

3
particulate material through said aerator ducts at the peripheral
wall and not at the bin bottom;
and causing said air from said aerator ducts to move in a
direction toward a center of the storage bin by passing through
a perforated front wall of the ducts.
Appeal Br. 18–19 (Claims App’x.) (emphases added).

THE REJECTIONS2
1. Claims 12–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sukup (US 4,009,520, issued Mar. 1, 1977), Kramer (US
1,220,240, issued Mar. 27, 1917), Cottrell (US 3,713,564, issued
Jan. 30, 1973), and Boll (US 1,020,256, issued Mar. 12, 1912).
Final Act. 3.
2. Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sukup,
Kramer, Cottrell, Boll, and Badger (US 3,036,510, issued May 29,
1962). Final Act. 3.

2 In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner withdrew a rejection of claims
12–16 as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Ans. 2.
As such, we do not consider this rejection in our Decision.
Appeal 2019-001328
Application 15/205,585

4
ANALYSIS
Examiner’s Rejections
In rejecting claims 12–16 under Rejections 1 and 2, the Examiner
relies on Sukup for disclosing several of the claimed features. See Final Act.
3–4 (Rejection 1); see also id. at 6 (relying on the same findings in rejecting
claim 16 under Rejection 2). To illustrate several of these findings, we
reproduce Sukup’s Figure 1, below:

According to the Examiner, and as shown above in Sukup’s Figure 1,
Sukup discloses storage bin 10 with peripheral wall 15 from bottom 14, and
bin roof 16 on top of peripheral wall 15. Final Act. 3 (citing Sukup, Fig. 1).
The Examiner also finds that Sukup discloses aerator ducts 19 with
perforations 35 for transmitting air from inside duct 19 to the particulate
material within the storage bin and drying the particulate material by
aeration from air blower 13. Id. (citing Sukup Fig. 1).
The Examiner recognizes, however, that Sukup does not disclose “an
elongate perforated venting tube with open upper end disposed
Appeal 2019-001328
Application 15/205,585

5
approximately centrally within the storage bin, the venting tube extending
generally through the particulate material upwardly toward the bin roof.” Id.
at 4. To address this limitation, the Examiner relies on Kramer for
disclosing an elongate perforated venting tube. Id. (citing Kramer Fig. II).
To illustrate this finding, we reproduce Kramer’s Figure II, below:

According to the Examiner, and as shown above in Kramer’s Figure
II, Kramer discloses an aeration system with venting tube 22, 23 disposed
centrally within the storage bin and extending upwardly toward bin roof 34
for collecting and transmitting the air from the particulate material. Id. at 4
(citing Kramer Fig. II). The Examiner cites to the following excerpt in
Kramer:
In order to provide ventilation within the bin, I provide a
sweat tube comprising a lower cylinder 22, which is adapted to
rest on the bottom of the bin and extends to near the top thereof,
and which is perforated throughout its length so that air may
enter the tube from the body of grain and carry off moisture
therefrom.
Appeal 2019-001328
Application 15/205,585

6
Kramer 2, ll. 26–33; see also Final Act. 4 (citing Kramer 2, ll. 24–33). In
combining Sukup with Kramer, the Examiner reasons that a skilled artisan
would have modified “Sukup to include steps of mounting an elongate
perforated venting tube approximately centrally within the storage bin . . . in
order to vent moisture air to from central of the storage bin to a location
external to the storage bin and therefore improve drying efficiency.” Final
Act. 5 (emphasis added).
The Examiner also acknowledges that Sukup does not disclose that
“each of said aerator ducts has a perforated front wall arranged to transmit
said air in a direction toward a center of the storage bin.” Id. at 4. To
address this difference, the Examiner relies on Boll. Id. at 5 (citing Boll’s
Fig. 1 and 2). To illustrate this finding, we reproduce Boll’s Figures 1 and 2,
below.
Appeal 2019-001328
Application 15/205,585

7

According to the Examiner, and as shown in Boll’s Figure 1 (top) and
Figure 2 (bottom), Boll discloses a storage bin with aerator ducts 11 with
perforated 11a front wall 12 arranged to transmit air in a direction toward a
center of the storage bin. Final Act. 5 (citing Boll Figs. 1 and 2). In further
modifying Sukup with Boll, the Examiner reasons that a skilled artisan
Appeal 2019-001328
Application 15/205,585

8
would have further modified Sukup “to locate the aerator ducts on the bin
floor with no portion of the aerator ducts on the bin bottom and to provide
the aerator ducts with perforated front wall as taught by Boll in order to
transmit air in a direction toward a center of the storage bin from the
aerator ducts above bin floor.” Id. (emphasis added).
The Examiner further finds that Sukup does not disclose the step of
connecting the air blower directly to the aerator ducts by one or more supply
conduits “and substantially all of air exterior to the storage bin passes into
the particulate material through said aerator ducts.” Final Act. 4. To
address this difference, the Examiner relies on Cottrell for teaching an
aeration system with a blower connected to ducts by supply conduits. See
id. at 5. The Examiner reasons that a skilled artisan would have further
modified Sukup to arrange Sukup’s air blower directly to aerator ducts thru
conduits as taught by Cottrell in order to “supply all of the exterior air to the
storage bin thru aerator ducts.” Id. (emphasis added).

Appellant’s Argument
Appellant argues, inter alia, that a skilled artisan would not have
modified Sukup to include a central vent tube. See Appeal Br. 12. In
particular, Appellant contends, “Sukup requires . . . the presence of the under
floor plenum through which air passes” and that in Sukup’s system “forced
air passes through the floor across the whole area of the bin” and that
moisture is “carried upwardly to the roof space.” Id. Appellant further
argues that the Examiner’s modification to add a centrally positioned vent
tube in Sukup “will simply discharge to vent a large proportion of the air
flow and divert it from its intended path.” Id. Appellant explains that, in
Appeal 2019-001328
Application 15/205,585

9
Sukup’s system, “[t]he air must pass through the grain to do its work of
drying” and that “[a]ny air that passes through a center duct simply escapes
to waste.” Id.
Appellant’s argument is persuasive.

Our Analysis
We are not persuaded that a person having ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to modify Sukup by mounting an elongate,
perforated, venting tube centrally within its storage bin, as the Examiner
proposes. See Final Act. 5.
Our reviewing court has cautioned us from succumbing to hindsight
bias if a proposed combination would run contrary to the stated purpose of
one of the references. See Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d
1056, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Even if a reference does not teach away, its
statements regarding preferences are relevant to a finding regarding whether
a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine that reference with
another reference. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 839 F.3d 1034,
1051 n.15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc) (noting that, even if a reference “does
not teach away, its statements regarding users preferring other forms of
switches are relevant to a finding regarding whether a skilled artisan would
be motivated to combine the slider toggle in” that reference with the
invention of a second reference).
In the present case, Sukup discloses:
The blower unit is connected by a duct 26 to a portion of the
interior of the bin 11 between the subfloor 12 and the floor 14a
and which constitutes a transition or plenum chamber 24.
Warmed dry air fills this entire space 24, being forced therein,
Appeal 2019-001328
Application 15/205,585

10
and flows upward through the perforations and through the
grain stored above said subfloor 12. The dry air being stored
above said subfloor 12. The warmed dry air, being forced
through the grain through an opening in 27 in the roof.
Sukup, col. 3, ll. 19–22 (italicized emphases added)
We find that Sukup operates to remove moisture from stored grain by
circulating warm, dry air from the bottom of the stored grain and upward.
We agree with Appellant that adding a centrally located sweat tube, which
would extend from the bottom of Sukup’s bin to its top, as disclosed in
Kramer, would divert the flow of warm, dry air away from the grain, mostly
near the top of the stored grain. See Appeal Br. 12.
We further note that Kramer’s system operates much differently from
Sukup’s system, and we are not persuaded that a skilled artisan, upon
reviewing Kramer, would have been motivated to apply Kramer’s centrally
located sweat tube to Sukup. Notably, Kramer’s system does not force air
through its bin to remove moisture. Rather, in Kramer’s bin, the joints are
“effectively sealed to make them water tight, wherein ventilation is afforded
through the side walls” (Kramer 1, ll. 15–22), and, in such a configuration,
Kramer’s sweat tube “allows surplus moisture to escape from the grain” (id.
at 3, ll. 93–95).
Because Kramer’s system does not force any air into its storage bin to
dry the grain—let alone by forcing warm, dry air into the bin floor, like
Sukup’s system—we are not persuaded that a skilled artisan would have
added Kramer’s sweat tube to Sukup’s system. The record does not support
the Examiner’s assertion that such a sweat tube would have improved
Sukup’s drying efficiency (see Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 7–8) and the
Appeal 2019-001328
Application 15/205,585

11
Examiner’s reason for modifying Sukup is unsupported by rational
underpinnings (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)).
Moreover, and in addition to those reasons discussed above, we are
not persuaded that a skilled artisan would have rearranged Sukup’s aerator
ducts so that “no portion of the aerator ducts [are] on the bin bottom and to
provide the aerator ducts with perforated front wall as taught by Boll in
order to transmit air in a direction toward a center of the storage bin from the
aerator ducts above bin floor.” Final Act. 5. The only reason to modify
Sukup with Boll—so that no portion of the ducts are on the bin bottom and
redirecting air toward the center—appears to be based on impermissible
hindsight in striving to meet those claim limitations. See Appeal Br. 19
(Claim 12 reciting, “mounting the upstanding aerator ducts only at the
cylindrical peripheral wall and having no portion . . . on the bin bottom” and
“causing said air from said aerator ducts to move in a direction toward a
center . . . .”).
We are also doubtful that a skilled artisan would have modified Sukup
to rearrange Sukup’s air blower to “supply all of the exterior air to the
storage bin thru aerator ducts” (Final Act. 5 (emphasis added)), while still
maintaining Sukup’s bin floor air plenum. See Ans. 4 (“To modify Sukup to
include a centrally located venting tube on the bin floor as taught by Kramer
would not require removal of the plenum of Sukup.”) Indeed, if “all of the
exterior air to the storage bin [is circulated] thru aerator ducts” (Final Act.
5), as the Examiner explains, then there is presumably no air being supplied
to Sukup’s bin floor, and we do not see a purpose for Sukup’s bin floor air
plenum.
Appeal 2019-001328
Application 15/205,585

12
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims
12–16 as unpatentable under either Rejection 1 or 2.

SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 12–15 as unpatentable over Sukup, Kramer,
Cottrell, and Boll is reversed.
The rejection of claim 16 as unpatentable over Sukup, Kramer,
Cottrell, Boll, and Badger is reversed.

REVERSED