Ex Parte Hinds

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2013

11581858 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2013)

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.
11/581,858 10/17/2006 INV001Michael Lynn Hinds 17808-US 8540
30689 7590 03/22/2013
DEERE & COMPANY
ONE JOHN DEERE PLACE
MOLINE, IL 61265
EXAMINER
ADAMS, GREGORY W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2013 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 L. HINDS
____________

Appeal 2011-000996
Application 11/581,858
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, HYUN J. JUNG, and
ADAM V. FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judges.

FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1 and 2. Claims 3 and 4 are objected to as
being dependent upon a rejected base claim and otherwise indicated as being
allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of
the base claim and any intervening claim. Claim 5 has been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2011-000996
Application 11/581,858

2
INVENTION
The invention relates to a sugar cane loader having a piler (for
pushing cut cane stalks into a pile) and grab arrangement (for picking up the
stalks) which operates “to prevent the grab from engaging soil and mixing it
with gathered cane stalks during loading operation.” Spec., 1, ll. 25-27. The
object of the invention “is achieved by providing the piler and grab with
cooperating surfaces which effect rotation of the grab arrangement as the
boom arrangement is lowered so as to keep the grab tines from soil
engagement during the operation of closing the tines upon a pile of case
stalks.” Spec. 1, ll. 28-31.
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal and recites:
1. In a mobile wholestalk sugar cane loader including
a main frame, a piler arrangement mounted at a forward region
of said main frame for vertical movement between a raised
transport position and a lowered piling position and including a
piler frame having a cross member extending transversely to a
forward direction of travel of said loader; a plurality of
transversely spaced, vertical piler plates being respectively
fixed at transversely spaced locations of said cross member,
with said piler plates each having a generally C-shaped forward
edge, whereby the piler plates, when the piler arrangement is in
its piling position, create a pile of cut sugar cane stalks as the
loader moves forwardly along a windrow of cane stalks, with
two adjacent piler plates cooperating with each other so as to
define a forwardly opening piler pocket between them, and a
boom assembly including an inner boom having a first end
coupled by a first horizontal pivot arrangement to a mast
mounted to the main frame for rotating about an upright axis,
an outer boom having a first end coupled by a second horizontal
pivot arrangement to a second end of the inner boom, and a
grab assembly including opposed, curved first and second tines,
a third horizontal pivot arrangement coupling a first end of each
of said first and second tines to a second end of the outer boom,
Appeal 2011-000996
Application 11/581,858

3
and with a tine cylinder arrangement being coupled to said first
and second tines for selectively effecting opening and closing
of said grab assembly by respectively moving said first and
second tines away and toward each other, and said piler pocket
being adapted for receiving said first tine, when said first and
second tines are in fore-and-aft alignment with each other and
said piler pocket during loading piled cane stalks into the grab
assembly, the improvement comprising:

a downwardly and forwardly inclined guide plate
extending between and being joined to rear regions of
adjacent piler plates thereby defining a back side of said
piler pocket, with said guide plate having a lower edge
which is spaced above ground level by a preselected
distance when the piler arrangement is in its piling
position;

and said first tine, as considered when said grab assembly
is disposed with said first and second tines in fore-and-aft
alignment with each other and with said piler pocket,
having a back side lower region including a rearwardly
projecting first contact surface located adjacent to, and
above, a lower tip of said first tine, and a rearwardly
projecting second contact surface being spaced above
said first contact surface by a distance greater than said
preselected distance, with said first and second contact
surfaces being so configured relative to said guide plate
that initial lowering of said grab assembly, when said
grab assembly in an open position, so as to bring said
first contact surface into engagement with said guide
plate effects an initial forward rotation of said grab
assembly, and subsequent lowering of said grab assembly
results in said first contact surface and guide plate
cooperating to effect a rearward rotation of said grab
assembly until said second contact surface contacts said
guide plate and said first contact surface contacts the
ground and holds a lower tip of said first tine out of
contact with the ground, whereby said grab assembly
may thereafter be closed about a mass of said piled cane
Appeal 2011-000996
Application 11/581,858

4
stalks without either of said first and second tines coming
into ground contact.

REJECTION
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Boudreaux (US 2,674,380, issued Apr. 6, 1954) and Miller (US
1,022,104, issued Apr. 2, 1912).

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1 and 2 as unpatentable over Boudreaux and Miller
The Examiner found that Boudreaux discloses all the limitations of
independent claim 1 with the exception of rearwardly projecting first and
second contact surfaces. Ans. 5. The Examiner also finds that Miller
discloses two rearward projections (i.e., rollers 40) on a tine and that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the back side
region of Boudreaux’s tine to include two rollers so as to prevent damage to
goods during grabbing. Ans. 4-5. However, the Examiner makes no
specific findings that Miller discloses the claimed working relationship of
the contact surfaces.1 Rather the Examiner merely finds that Miller teaches

1 The claim requires that the rollers (i.e., first and second contact
surfaces) be configured relative to the guide plate so that “initial lowering of
said grab assembly . . . bring[s] said first contact surface into engagement
with said guide plate [to] effect[] an initial forward rotation of said grab
assembly, and subsequent lowering of said grab assembly results in said first
contact surface and guide plate cooperating to effect a rearward rotation of
said grab assembly until said second contact surface contacts said guide
plate and said first contact surface contacts the ground and holds a lower tip
of said first tine out of contact with the ground, whereby said grab assembly
Appeal 2011-000996
Application 11/581,858

5
spacing the contact surfaces at distances relative to a preselected distance to
eliminate the need to grab through the pile. Ans. 5.
However, here, the “preselected distance” is not merely any distance,
but is defined in the claim as the distance between the ground level and the
lower edge of the guide plate when the piler is in its piling position. Spec.,
claim 1 (“guide plate having a lower edge which is spaced above the ground
level by a preselected distance when the piler arrangement is in its piling
position.”). The Examiner does not make findings regarding modifying the
structure of Boudreaux to incorporate the rollers of Miller on the backside of
Boudreaux’s tine so as to generate the claimed working relationship of the
contact surfaces. Thus, the Examiner has not made the initial factual
findings required to demonstrate a prima facie case of obviousness of claim
1. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (the examiner has
the initial duty of supplying the requisite factual basis and may not, because
of doubts that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded
assumptions, or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual
basis). Without an articulated rationale based on rational underpinning for
modifying the reference as proposed, the Examiner's rejection appears to be
the result of hindsight analysis. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007)) ("rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by
mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness").

may thereafter be closed about a mass of said piled cane stalks without either
of said first and second tines coming into ground contact.”
Appeal 2011-000996
Application 11/581,858

6
Thus, the Examiner provides no rational basis for concluding that
providing the backside of Boudreaux’s tine with Miller’s rollers having a
spacing to avoid grabbing though the pile being picked up would result in
the claimed spacing such that the two contact surfaces form the claimed
working relationship with the guide plate. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1 and 2 over the combined teachings of Boudreaux and
Miller.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Boudreaux and Miller is reversed.

REVERSED

msc