11072890 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 18, 2012)

Ex Parte Kormann et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 18, 2012

11072890 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 18, 2012)

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. 11/072,890 03/04/2005 Georg Kormann 09374-US 7753 30689 7590 06/19/2012 DEERE & COMPANY ONE JOHN DEERE PLACE MOLINE, IL 61265 EXAMINER TORRES, ALICIA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3671 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/19/2012 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 GEORG KORMANN, MARCUS HETTIGER, ERIC PELLEGRINI, STEFFEN CLAUSS and WERNER FLOHR ________________ Appeal 2009-014737 Application 11/072,890 Technology Center 3600 ________________ Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN and MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s 1 decision finally rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 9 and 10. The Examiner rejects 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claims 1, 3 and 9 as being unpatentable over 3 Ohlemeyer (US 6,421,990 B1, issued Jul. 23, 2002) and Erickson (US 4 1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as Deere & Company. Appeal No. 2009-014737 Application No. 11/072,890 2 6,254,008 B1, issued Jul. 3, 2001); claim 4 as being unpatentable over 1 Ohlemeyer, Erickson and Turner (US 5,256,873, issued Oct. 26, 1996); and 2 claims 5 and 10 as being unpatentable over Ohlemeyer, Erickson and Mayes 3 (US 6,100,526, issued Aug. 8, 2000). The Examiner objects to claims 6-8 as 4 being dependent on a rejected base claim. Claim 2 has been cancelled. We 5 have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 6 We REVERSE. 7 Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal: 8 1. A discharge arrangement of an 9 agricultural harvesting machine comprising: 10 a duct including a pair of spaced vertical 11 side walls joined by a top wall; 12 a retaining arrangement fixed to said top 13 wall of said duct; 14 a housing removably mounted onto the 15 retaining arrangement; 16 a measuring device mounted within the 17 housing and adapted for detection of properties of 18 harvested crop; and 19 the retaining arrangement including a cover 20 arrangement, with said cover arrangement being 21 mounted to a remaining portion of said retaining 22 arrangement for movement between a first 23 position, in which the cover arrangement 24 cooperates with said remaining portion of said 25 retaining arrangement so as to enclose the housing 26 and measuring device in a location between the 27 cover arrangement and the top wall of the duct of 28 the discharge arrangement, and a second position 29 displaced from said top wall so as to provide 30 access to said housing and measuring device. 31 Appeal No. 2009-014737 Application No. 11/072,890 3 Ohlemeyer describes a crop harvesting machine 10. Ohlemeyer 1 teaches that the crop leaves the harvesting machine 10 to an accompanying 2 trailer through a discharge duct or spout 26. (Ohlemeyer, col. 2, ll. 40-43). 3 The harvesting machine 10 includes a moisture measuring device 44 for 4 measuring the moisture in the crop. (Ohlemeyer, col. 3, ll. 33-35). Figure 1 5 of Ohlemeyer depicts this moisture measuring device 44 as being mounted 6 on the discharge duct or spout 26 for access to the crop in the interior of the 7 duct or spout. 8 Erickson describes a duct mounted humidistat 10 including sensing 9 elements 14 secured on a printed wiring board assembly 16. (Erickson, col. 10 2, ll. 55-62). The Appellants do not appear to challenge the Examiner’s 11 conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art might have had reason to 12 substitute Erickson’s humidistat 10 for Ohlemeyer’s moisture measuring 13 device 44 to measure the moisture of crop in the discharge duct or spout 26 14 of Ohlemeyer’s harvesting machine 10. (See Ans. 4). Instead, the 15 Appellants challenge the Examiner’s finding that Erickson’s printed wiring 16 board assembly 16 is a housing for the sensing elements 14 of Erickson’s 17 humidistat 10. (Br. 12-13; see also Ans. 4 and 7). More generally, the 18 Appellants challenge the Examiner’s finding that Erickson teaches a 19 measuring device mounted within a housing as recited in independent claim 20 1. 21 The ordinary usage of the term “housing” is sufficiently broad to 22 encompass a “case or enclosure to cover and protect a structure or a 23 mechanical device.” (MCGRAW-HILL DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC & 24 TECHNICAL TERMS (McGraw-Hill, Inc., 5th ed. 1994)(“housing”)). The 25 Examiner points to nothing in the Specification requiring a broader 26 Appeal No. 2009-014737 Application No. 11/072,890 4 definition. As depicted in Figures 1 and 2B of Erickson, the printed wiring 1 board assembly 16 neither covers nor protects the sensing elements 14. The 2 Examiner correctly finds that the sensing elements 14 are within the printed 3 wiring board assembly 16 in the sense that Figure 2A depicts the sensing 4 elements as being mounted on the printed wiring board assembly over a 5 footprint within a two-dimensional extent of the board. Nevertheless, this 6 sense does not imply that the printed circuit board assembly 16 houses the 7 sensing elements 14 in accordance with the ordinary usage of the term 8 “housing.” 9 Erickson does not teach a measuring device mounted within a housing 10 as recited in independent claim 1. The Examiner does not articulate any 11 persuasive reason why one of ordinary skill in the art might have modified 12 Erickson’s humidistat 10 to include this structure when substituting the 13 humidistat 10 for the moisture measuring device 44 described by 14 Ohlemeyer. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3 and 9 under 15 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ohlemeyer and Erickson. 16 Regarding the rejection of claim 4, the Examiner cites Turner as 17 disclosing a measuring device 4 similar to those described by Ohlemeyer 18 and Erickson. The Examiner finds that, in Turner’s measuring device 4, “the 19 retaining arrangement (8) includes fixed retaining components (8f).” (Ans. 20 5). The Examiner additionally finds that Turner’s “cover arrangement (10) 21 is connected in joints (14) to the retaining components (8f) and is free to 22 pivot relative to the housing arrangement (38).” (Id.) These teachings do 23 not remedy the deficiency in the teachings of Ohlemeyer and Erickson as 24 applied to independent claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 4 25 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ohlemeyer, Erickson and Turner. 26 Appeal No. 2009-014737 Application No. 11/072,890 5 Regarding the rejection of claims 5 and 10, the Examiner finds that 1 Mayes discloses “an optical measuring device (10) for analyzing the 2 moisture content of harvested products (14) and includes an opening 3 (unnumbered, holds window pane 12) through which the measuring device 4 (10) interacts with harvested crop (14) and includes a window pane (12).” 5 (Ans. 6). This teaching does not remedy the deficiency in the teachings of 6 Ohlemeyer and Erickson as applied to independent claim 1. We do not 7 sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 10 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable 8 over Ohlemeyer, Erickson and Mayes. 9 10 DECISION 11 We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 9 and 12 10. 13 14 REVERSED 15 16 17 Klh 18