Ex Parte Chapon et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 21, 2010

11395823 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 21, 2010)

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.
11/395,823 03/31/2006 Emmanuel Chapon 09462-US 2517
30689 7590 09/21/2010
DEERE & COMPANY
ONE JOHN DEERE PLACE
MOLINE, IL 61265
EXAMINER
PARADISO, JOHN ROGER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte EMMANUEL CHAPON, JEAN VIAUD, and BENOIT CAMUS
____________

Appeal 2009-008527
Application 11/395,823
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, JOHN C. KERINS, and
STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-008527
Application 11/395,823

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Emmanuel Chapon et al. (Appellants) seek our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-10. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is to a loading device of a wrapping
mechanism, particularly a round baler, using a wrapping material roll.
Spec. 1, para. [0001]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A round baler wrapping mechanism for use with a
wrapping material roll containing a wrapping material,
comprising:
a wrapping material feed roller;
a wrapping material roll loading device including:
an elongate carrier for supporting the wrapping
material roll, the carrier being pivotally mounted for
swinging vertically about a horizontal axis extending
parallel to and being located in adjacent spaced
relationship to, and at a level approximating a level of,
said feed roller for movement between a loading position,
wherein said carrier is substantially horizontal for
receiving a roll of wrapping material to be loaded, and an
operating position, wherein said carrier is substantially
vertical for ejecting the roll of wrapping material into
engagement with said feed roller, whereby wrapping
material can be removed from the wrapping material roll
by said feed roller;
said carrier including a first stop having a first stop
surface disposed adjacent to said axis;
Appeal 2009-008527
Application 11/395,823

3
an arm mounted for pivoting vertically about said axis
and including a second stop having a second stop surface
engaged with said first stop surface when said carrier is in said
loading position;
an activating device coupled directly to said arm and
being configured to resiliently bias said second stop surface into
engagement with said first stop surface so as to assist
movement of said carrier from said loading position toward said
operating position.
THE REJECTION
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Viaud
(EP 1 099 366 A1, published May 16, 2001).
ISSUE
The issue presented by this appeal is whether Viaud discloses an
activating device being configured to resiliently bias a second stop surface
on an arm into engagement with a first stop surface on an elongate carrier so
as to assist movement of the carrier from a substantially horizontal loading
position toward a substantially vertical operating position.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that Viaud’s energy storing devices (gas
cylinders) 196 are the claimed activating device and Viaud’s guide bar 160
is the claimed carrier. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner further found that “the
activating device will inherently ‘assist movement of said carrier’” by virtue
of the connection of activating device 196 to carrier 160. Ans. 4.
Appeal 2009-008527
Application 11/395,823

4
Viaud discloses a feed device for receiving a roll of wrapping material
with a pressure arm assembly and a striking surface between which the roll
of wrapping material is placed during the wrapping process. Viaud 2, para.
[0001]. Viaud describes the operation of energy storing devices (gas
cylinders) 196 as follows:
When the cover 186 is in its closed position, the energy storing
devices 196 exert a force that tends to hold the cover 186 in its
closed position, while they function to work such that they
produce a force which is transferred onto the upper arm regions
168 by means of lever 176 and force transmission link 182; this
results in pressure rollers 174 working through the arm regions
132 to press the pressure rollers against the roller 122. When
the cover 186 is raised in its open position, the energy storing
devices 196 function to retain the cover 186 in its open position
and simultaneously raise the upper arm regions 168 from the
path in order to facilitate the lowering of the lower arm region
128 in the loading position if so desired.
Viaud 15, para. [0029]; fig. 2; see also id. at 17, para. [0032].
In light of this disclosure, we find that Viaud’s gas cylinders 196 act
on the lower arm section 128 (which includes the arm region 132 and guide
bar 160) only when the cover 186 has been closed, and thus only after the
lower arm section 128 has been manually raised from its substantially
horizontal loading position to its substantially vertical operating position.
As such, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Viaud’s gas cylinders
196 inherently assist movement of the carrier from its loading position to its
operating position, as called for in claim 1. Accordingly, we find that Viaud
does not disclose the activating device of claim 1. The rejection of claims 2-
10 is also unsustainable in that these claims depend from claim 1.
Appeal 2009-008527
Application 11/395,823

5
CONCLUSION
Viaud fails to disclose an activating device being configured to
resiliently bias a second stop surface on an arm into engagement with a first
stop surface on an elongate carrier so as to assist movement of the carrier
from a substantially horizontal loading position toward a substantially
vertical operating position.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-10 is reversed.

REVERSED

mls

DEERE & COMPANY
ONE JOHN DEERE PLACE
MOLINE, IL 61265