Ex Parte McGrady et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 1, 2013

11512827 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/512,827 08/30/2006 Michael John McGrady 17686-US 2273
30689 7590 11/01/2013
DEERE & COMPANY
ONE JOHN DEERE PLACE
MOLINE, IL 61265
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, TRINH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3644
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2013 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 JOHN McGRADY
and WILLIAM ADAK RATZBURG
____________________

Appeal 2011-012455
Application 11/512,827
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-012455
Application 11/512,827

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-5 and 12-16.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The rejected claims are directed to an agricultural irrigation assembly.
Claim 1, reproduced below and representative of the other claims on appeal,
is the only independent claim.
1. An agricultural irrigation assembly,
comprising:
an irrigation conduit; and
at least one carrier substrate, each said
carrier substrate being directly attached to said
conduit along an entire length of said carrier
substrate, each said carrier substrate carrying a
plurality of seeds mounted to an exterior surface
thereof for direct contact with soil which is
exterior to said agricultural irrigation assembly.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
Claims 1-5 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Seith (US 3,848,359, iss. Nov. 19, 1974) in view of
JP 2007-222034 (pub. Sept. 6, 2007).

1 Our decision will refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed August
30, 2006) and Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed February 21, 2011), as well as the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 9, 2011).

Appeal 2011-012455
Application 11/512,827

3
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 requires “said carrier substrate [carrying a
plurality of seeds] being directly attached to said [irrigation] conduit along
an entire length of said carrier substrate.” In the obviousness rejection, the
Examiner states with respect to Seith that insert strip 12 (which may carry
seeds) teaches the claimed carrier substrate, while irrigation tube 16 teaches
the claimed irrigation conduit (Ans. 3-4). The Examiner further states that
Seith’s knitted-fabric cross links 14, which connect insert strip 12 and
irrigation tube 16, teach the claimed direct attachment along an entire length
of the carrier substrate (Ans. 4, 6). In contrast, Appellants argue that
because Seith uses cross links 14 to attach irrigation tube 16 with insert strip
12, which results in empty spaces between strip 12 and tube 16, strip 12 is
not “directly attached” to tube 16, consistent with the limitations of claim 1
(Br. 10). Appellants further argue that the intermittent placement of cross
links 14 to attach tube 16 with strip 12 does not provide attachment “along
an entire length” of strip 12, consistent with the limitations of claim 1 (Br.
10-11). We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established that
Seith teaches insert strip 12 is directly attached to irrigation tube 16 along an
entire length of strip 12, and thus we find the Examiner has not established
that Seith teaches the above-discussed limitations of claim 1, or provided a
reason why this claim feature would be obvious over art showing an
interrupted connection. For these reasons, we are constrained to reverse the
rejection of independent claim 1.
Inasmuch as the remaining claims depend from claim 1, we also do
not sustain the rejection of claims 2-5 and 12-16.
Appeal 2011-012455
Application 11/512,827

4
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5 and 12-16 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

Mls/rvb