12608375 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2014)

Ex Parte Connors et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 9, 2014

12608375 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2014)

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. 12/608,375 10/29/2009 Michael J. Connors 19452 (CNHA:0052/YOD) 6351 71475 7590 12/10/2014 CNH Industrial America LLC Intellectual Property Law Department 700 STATE STREET RACINE, WI 53404 EXAMINER MCGOWAN, JAMIE LOUISE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3671 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/10/2014 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 MICHAEL J. CONNORS, BRIAN ANDERSON, and MARVIN A. PRICKEL ____________ Appeal 2012-009944 Application 12/608,3751 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MICHAEL W. KIM, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejections of claims 1–4 and 6–20 (all of the pending claims) under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal Br. 2, Ans. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We REVERSE the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is CNH America LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2012-009944 Application 12/608,375 2 Claimed Subject Matter Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, which is representative of the subject matter on appeal, is reproduced below. 1. An agricultural implement, comprising: a hitch assembly configured to couple the agricultural implement to a tow vehicle; a carrier frame pivotally coupled to the hitch assembly; a main pivot joint configured to pivotally couple the carrier frame to the hitch assembly, wherein the main pivot joint is configured to resist substantially all lateral loads between the carrier frame and the hitch assembly; a pair of wheel assemblies each rotatably coupled to the carrier frame by a respective pivot joint, wherein each wheel assembly is positioned laterally outward from the hitch assembly, and wherein no structural element of the carrier frame or the hitch assembly is positioned between the pair of wheel assemblies; and an actuator assembly configured to rotate each wheel assembly about the respective pivot joint. Rejections The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting the claims on appeal: Vanderwerf US 2,174,493 Sept. 26, 1939 Gagelin US 4,451,052 May 29, 1984 Ankenman US 6,397,953 B1 June 4, 2002 Meek US 2007/0163791 A1 July 19, 2007 App App bein unpa “con and t claim only that does or a joint of M eal 2012-0 lication 12 Claims 1 g unpatent Claims 3 tentable o Indepen figured to he hitch a 15 requir by the ma The Exa satisfies m not disclo carrier fram and a pair eek in sup Figure 5 09944 /608,375 , 2, and 6– able over M and 4 sta ver Meek, 3 dent claim resist subs ssembly.” es that the in pivot jo miner find any limita se a main e that is c of lift cyl port of the of Meek i 20 stand r eek, Van nd rejected Vanderwe AN 5 U.S.C. § s 1 and 8 b tantially a Appeal B carrier fra int and the s that Mee tions of A pivot joint oupled to inders. An se finding s reproduc 3 ejected un derwerf, a under 35 rf, Gageli ALYSIS 103(a) Re oth requir ll lateral lo r., Claims me be “co pair of m k disclose ppellants’ that resist a hitch as s. 4–5. T s. ed below. der 35 U. nd Gageli U.S.C. § n, and Ank jections e a main p ads betwe App. 16–1 upled to t ain lift cyl s an agricu claims, bu s substant sembly on he Examin S.C. § 103 n. 103(a) as b enman. ivot joint en the car 7. Indepe he hitch as inders.” I ltural imp t admits th ially all lat ly by a ma er cites th (a) as eing that is rier frame ndent sembly d. at 19. lement at Meek eral loads in pivot e Figure 5 , Appeal 2012-009944 Application 12/608,375 4 Figure 5 depicts an agricultural implement in which the carrier frame is coupled to the hitch assembly via carriage pivot 47, tongue lift cylinders 49, and scissors linkage 51. See Meek Fig. 5 and ¶ 30. Because of the presence of scissors linkage 51, the agricultural implement of Meek does not satisfy the requirement of claim 15 that the carrier frame and hitch assembly be coupled only by the main pivot joint and a pair of main lift cylinders. Meek also teaches that scissors linkage 51 acts to keep carriage 11 centered under forward tongue section 7. See id. Thus, it is apparent that carriage pivot 47 of Meek does not resist substantially all lateral loads between the carrier frame and the hitch assembly, as required by claims 1 and 8. The Examiner cites Gagelin to remedy the deficiencies discussed above. The Examiner finds that Gagelin discloses (i) “that the lift mechanism and connection can be accomplished by connecting the wheel assembly to the hitch via only a pivot joint and the lift cylinders,” and (ii) that this type of attachment would “prevent[] loading on the axle (carrier frame is mounted between elements 32 which prevents side loading).” Ans. 5. The Examiner then determines that it would have been obvious to incorporate the attachment means of Gagelin into the hitch and carrier frame combination depicted above “to prevent loading on the axle (thereby eliminating the need for element 51 of Meek). . . .” Id. at 5–6. Appellants argue that the Examiner cites no evidence that “such a modification would obviate the scissor linkage 51 of Meek, and/or provide a main pivot joint configured to resist substantially all lateral loads.” Appeal Br. 13. The Examiner responds by taking the position that Appellants have admitted that the mounting arrangement of Gagelin would “resist lateral loads.” Ans. 9 (citing Appeal Br. 12). In their Reply Brief, Appellants Appeal 2012-009944 Application 12/608,375 5 clarify that they are not admitting that the mounting arrangement of Gagelin would resist lateral loads. Reply Br. 2. We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument. The Examiner cites no persuasive evidence that the mounting arrangement of Gagelin, if incorporated into the agricultural implement of Meek, would be able to resist substantially all lateral loads between the hitch assembly and carrier frame of Meeks so as to make scissor linkage 51 unnecessary. For example, the Examiner does not cite any discussion in Gagelin of lateral loads. Thus, the Examiner’s findings regarding Gagelin are speculative and not supported by persuasive evidence or technical reasoning. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, or 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Dependent claims 2–4, 6, 7, 9–14, and 16–20 depend from, and thus incorporate the limitations of, these independent claims. Thus, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–4, 6, 7, 9–14, and 16–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4 and 6–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED llw