Ex Parte Olander et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2018

14423174 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/423,174 02/23/2015
88988 7590 06/22/2018
AGCO Corporation, IP Legal
Jeff Ellsworth
420 W. Lincoln Blvd.
Hesston, KS 67062
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brian D. Olander
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
US 12/22/WO/US-2 7531
EXAMINER
WORDEN, THOMAS E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patents@agcocorp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAND. OLANDER and CEDRIC J. BLOUGH
Appeal2017-008621
Application 14/423, 174
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, AGCO Corporation, which the Appeal Brief
identifies as the real party in interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-008621
Application 14/423, 174
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A method of determining bale drop locations within a field
for crop bales formed with an agricultural baler, the method
compnsmg:
moving the baler along a route of travel through the field;
flagging at least a first targeted bale drop position and a
second targeted bale drop position in the field;
forming bales within a bale-forming chamber as the baler
moves along the route and transferring each formed bale to a
bale carrier of the baler, the bale carrier operable to release the
crop bale therefrom when actuated;
calculating a current position of the baler with a
geographic location sensor configured to output signals
representative of a geographic location of the baler when the
bale carrier contains a formed bale;
calculating with a control system communicably coupled
with at least one of the bale-forming chamber, the bale carrier,
and the geographic location sensor a distance from the current
baler position to the first targeted drop position;
calculating with the control system a distance from the
current baler position to the second targeted drop position;
comparing with the control system the distances to
determine a desired drop location; and
generating a signal to release the bale from the bale
carrier.
REJECTION
Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as anticipated
by, or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over,
Degen (US 2006/0086263 Al, pub. Apr. 27, 2006).
2
Appeal2017-008621
Application 14/423, 174
DISCUSSION
Anticipation
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, a "method of
determining bale drop locations" comprising the steps of "flagging at least a
first targeted bale drop position and a second targeted bale drop position,"
"calculating with a control system ... a distance from the current baler
position to the first targeted drop position[,] calculating with the control
system a distance from the current baler position to the second targeted drop
position," and "comparing with the control system the distances to determine
a desired drop location." Br. 24 (Claims App.). Claim 9 is directed to a
baler and recites a control system having "a plurality of targeted bale drop
locations stored therein" and configured to make the same distance
calculations and comparison recited in claim 1. Id. at 26 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Degen discloses a method of determining
bale drop locations as recited in claim 1 and a baler as recited in claim 9.
Final Act. 3-6, 7-10. In particular, the Examiner cites Degen's disclosure of
determining the total distance required to press a bale to determine
dynamically a length and course of a bale set-down path, as well as the
disclosure of changing the bale density and geometry to determine the bale
set-down point in time to obtain an optimal set-down point within a bale
group or corridor, as satisfying the claimed step/operation of calculating a
distance from the current baler position to the first targeted drop position.
Id. at 4--5, 8-9 (citing Degen, Fig. 1, claim 17, ,r,r 49, 15, 30). The Examiner
finds that Degen's disclosures of quantifying distance to press a bale and
determining bale set-down path 20 with bale corridor 14 and bale groups 15
satisfy the step of "calculating with the control system a distance from the
3
Appeal2017-008621
Application 14/423, 174
current baler position to the second targeted drop position" as claimed. Id. at
5, 9 (citing Degen ,r,r 49, 38). The Examiner finds that Degen's disclosure
of receiving data, such as field size, amount of swath, location of swath,
location of a bale that has already been set down, or ground level, to ensure
an efficient harvesting route, and carrying out dynamic adaptation of bale
set-down path 20 by incorporating different fundamental and harvesting
conditions, such as non-uniformly deposited swath, satisfies the step of
"comparing with the control system [the distance from the current baler
position to the first targeted drop position and the distance from the current
baler position to the second targeted drop position] to determine a desired
drop location" as claimed. Id. at 5---6, 9--10 (citing Degen ,r,r 27, 12).
Paragraph 15 of Degen discloses changing bale density and bale
geometry to enable a bale to be set down earlier at an optimal set-down point
within a bale group or corridor. Paragraph 30 of Degen discloses assigning
a GPS position to each bale 5 set down, and creating a driving route based
on the next time and place for a bale to be set down in the vicinity of a bale
that has already been set down. Paragraph 49 of Degen discloses using the
distance required to press a bale to calculate, in a dynamic manner, set-down
path 20, to account for swath amounts set down in a non-uniform manner.
Paragraph 3 8 of Degen discloses determining the position and width of
corridor 14 and the position and expansion of bale groups 15 by bale set-
down path 20 in a manner to keep the corridor width and bale group
expansion small. We do not discern in any of these paragraphs cited by the
Examiner a disclosure of calculating a first distance from the baler to a first
targeted drop position and a second distance from the baler to a second
targeted drop position.
4
Appeal2017-008621
Application 14/423, 174
Appellant argues that "[ r ]ather than selecting between multiple target
locations to drop a bale, the system disclosed in Degen adjusts the bale being
formed to ensure that it can be placed at an approaching target location."
Br. 16. Further, Appellant argues that "Degen never calculates a distance
from a current position to a second targeted drop position, ... much less
compares two different distances to determine a desired drop location." Id.
at 17. According to Appellant, "the system of Degen only uses the location
of an approaching bale, bale corridor[,] or bale group to determine a drop
location and then calculates an optimal bale set-down path to that location."
Id.
Degen's disclosure supports Appellant's characterization of Degen.
Degen describes controlling "tractor 1 or press 2 as a function of signals 6a
from a GPS system 6" (Degen ,r 29 (boldface omitted)) and assigning a GPS
position "to each bale 5 that is set down" (id. ,r 30 (boldface omitted)).
Degen also discloses that a software program determines the optimal bale
set-down path, based on information including the swath detected in front of
the tractor, and calculates the driving path to be covered to press a bale. Id.
,r 32. According to Degen, "if it is determined via calculation that, to create
a bale 5, a certain driving path must be covered to pick up swath 4 set down
there, the bale set-down system defines this driving route." Id. (boldface
omitted). Degen discloses that if the driving route along set-down path 20 to
the next bale that was already set down is too short for a bale to be set down
in the immediate vicinity of that bale, the bale currently being formed may
be tied and set down early, by changing the bale density or geometry, so that
the current bale can be placed in the vicinity of the bale already set down.
Id. ,r,r 35, 36, 38, 39. Thus, to the extent that Degen calculates and uses any
5
Appeal2017-008621
Application 14/423, 174
distance from the baler to determine a desired drop location, the only
location with which Degen is concerned is the location of the next already-
set-down bale along the set-down path.
For the above reasons, the Examiner fails to clearly identify an
express disclosure of calculating a distance from the baler to a first targeted
drop position, calculating a distance from the baler to a second targeted drop
position, and comparing those distances to determine a desired drop
location, as claimed in claims 1 and 9.
The Examiner finds that Degen "doesn't specifically say that the
method compares and minimizes distances between the baler and an original
bale drop location, the baler to the next planned bale drop location, and the
original bale drop location to the next planned bale drop location." Final
Act. 6, 10. However, the Examiner finds that "these limitations [involving
calculating and comparing are] inherently done by the method of Degen."
Id. Specifically, the Examiner states that "the method of Degen minimizes
distances between bales ... and dynamically tracks GPS locations of
previously placed and future planned locations of bales in comparison to the
current location of the baler." Id. ( citing Degen ,r,r 38, 49).
Appellant argues that inherency has not been properly established
because "[ t ]he Examiner has failed to show how these claim elements
necessarily flow from the teachings of Degen." Br. 18. Specifically,
Appellant argues that "the system of Degen takes an entirely different
approach that does not require the comparison of two different target drop
locations [ and instead the system] adjusts how the bale is formed to ensure
that it is ready to be placed on the ground at a single, approaching target
drop location." Id.
6
Appeal2017-008621
Application 14/423, 174
The Examiner further states that "calculating a distance from the
current baler position to a second targeted drop location may be the exact
same process as calculating a distance from the current baler position to a
first targeted drop position,just done an additional time." Ans. 2-3. In
addition, the Examiner further states that
Degen dynamically calculates the next logical drop point based
on how much swath has already been picked up as well as how
much more is going to be picked up along the path before the
next opportunity to drop a completed bale near an existing
completed bale or set of bales, which inherently requires both
the calculation and comparison of the distances from its current
position to said further possible target locations.
Id. at 3.
"It is well settled that a prior art reference may anticipate when the
claim limitations not expressly found in that reference are nonetheless
inherent in it. Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily
functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it
anticipates." In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir.
2002) ( citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "Inherency,
however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere
fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not
sufficient." In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting
Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
(quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578,581 (CCPA 1981))).
As discussed above, Degen's system is specifically configured to drop
the bale currently being formed at a location in the vicinity of the next
already-set-down bale to be approached along the set-down path, even if that
requires setting the bale down early. Degen ,r 35. According to Degen,
7
Appeal2017-008621
Application 14/423, 174
"[t]he point in time at which a bale 5 is completed, and, therefore, the set-
down location, can be determined by changing the bale density or bale
geometry during the pressing process." Id. ,r 39 (boldface omitted). The
Examiner does not explain why it would be necessary for determining the
"set-down location" as described by Degen (i.e., by changing the bale
density or geometry) to quantify the distance between the baler and a first
targeted bale drop position and the distance between the baler and a second
targeted bale drop position, and compare these distances to determine a
desired drop location as claimed. Rather, Degen appears to make
adjustments to the pressing process to ensure the drop location is in the
proximity of the next already-set-down bale to be approached.
Further, the Examiner's statements regarding "an additional time" do
not support a finding of inherency. Specifically, even if the claim language
regarding "calculating ... a distance" could be interpreted as set forth by the
Examiner, operation of the system of Degen does not necessarily involve
"comparing" such first and second distances in order to function. As
discussed above, Degen operates to deposit a bale in an upcoming drop
corridor 14 or group 15 by selecting a bale set-down position in the vicinity
of the next already-set-down bale along the bale set-down path. Id. ,r,r 33-
39. Accordingly, the Examiner fails to establish that Degen anticipates the
subject matter of claim 1 or claim 9 by inherency. We do not sustain the
rejection of claim 1 or claim 9, or their dependent claims 2-8 and 10-15, as
anticipated by Degen.
8
Appeal2017-008621
Application 14/423, 174
Obviousness
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, and 15
Having determined that the Examiner's rejection fails to establish that
Degen anticipates the subject matter of claim 1 or claim 9, we next consider
the obviousness rationale set forth in the rejection. The Examiner
determines that, even if Degen does not expressly or inherently disclose
"calculating" and "comparing" as claimed,
it would have been obvious ... to have modified the method of
Degen to measure, compare, and minimize distances ... in
order to dynamically optimize the set-down path and minimize
the size of the bale groups and expedite the time it takes to
execute the entire baling process on each particular field
utilizing the known data available to the baler.
Final Act. 6-7, 10. The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious
to modify Degen "to measure, compare, and minimize distances between the
baler and the bales and the existing bales and the planned bale drop
locations, in order to dynamically optimize the set-down path and minimize
the size of the bale groups and expedite ... the entire baling process." Id. at
22.
The Examiner provides a sketch, reproduced below, explaining "a
possible implementation of Degen's method/system." Ans. 3--4.
9
Appeal2017-008621
Application 14/423, 174
(
t!f'!;"t(~ trnm ··~··""'
.
···.···-·.····'····.· .-- .. , .... ••.,,,.," .
I
··~~····
'~~
The Examiner's sketch shows a bale set-down path, two bales, labeled
"Bale 1" and "Bale 2," which have already been dropped, and two possible
drop locations, labeled "Opt A" (i.e., Option A) and "Opt B" (i.e., Option
B), for the bale currently being formed. The Option A location is in the
proximity of "Bale 2" and the Option B location is in the proximity of "Bale
1." According to the Examiner, "[i]n order to form a logical grouping to
minimize the distances between bales," as disclosed by Degen, "the tractor
could place the next bale at either Option A or Option B, or could place a
third bale at Option A and a fourth bale at Option B." Id. With reference to
the sketch, the Examiner explains that depending on factors such as how
much swath has already been picked up since dropping Bale 2 and how
much swath lies ahead of the tractor on the path, required degree of
consistency in size/shape/density of the bales, etc., the controller may
determine that dropping a bale at Option A would produce a bale smaller
than standard size, but dropping the bale at Option B may produce a bale
larger than desired, requiring the bale to be dropped early, thus undesirably
widening the bale groupings. Id. at 4. Thus, the Examiner reasons that
10
Appeal2017-008621
Application 14/423, 174
Id.
the controller of Degen would base its decision [to select
Option A as the drop location or Option B as the drop location]
on not just the amount of swath along the path, but also by
comparing the distance it has before it would hit Option A, the
distance from Option A to Option B, and the sum of those two,
which is the distance from the tractor to Option B.
In essence, the Examiner reasons that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized that, when taking into account actual swath
distributions encountered along the set-down path (Degen ,r 32), as well as
limiting values on the bale density and/or geometry (id. ,r 39), the vicinity of
the location of the next already-dropped bale along the path of the baler may
not be the most logical place to drop the bale currently being formed.
Rather, if, for example, an unexpectedly small amount of swath in a
particular section of the set-down path is detected in front of the tractor, such
that a bale would not be completed, in accordance with the current limiting
values of bale geometry and density, until the tractor reaches the vicinity of
an already-set-down bale (i.e., Bale 1) further along the set-down path than
the next already-set-down bale (i.e., Bale 2), it would make more sense to
drop the full-size bale in the vicinity of Bale 1 (i.e., Option B) than to tie it
early and drop it in the vicinity of Bale 2 (i.e., Option A). This would
"ensure[] that the bale set-down path 20 is calculated in a dynamic manner,
so that swath amounts that were set down in a non-uniform manner do not
have a negative [effect] on the calculation," as taught by Degen. See Degen
Based on the above reasoning, the Examiner's position, as we
understand it, is that it would have been obvious to modify Degen by
configuring the baler to selectively retain a bale through a potential drop
11
Appeal2017-008621
Application 14/423, 174
location along the set-down path in the event that the bale would be
undesirably sized at the potential drop location in view of actual swath
distributions encountered (id. ,r 32) and limiting values on bale density
and/or geometry (id. ,r 39). The modified Degen system and method would
calculate the distance from the baler to the first potential drop location
(Option A) and the distance from the baler to the following potential drop
location (Option B). If the bale at the first potential drop location would be
undesirably small in view of liming values on bale density and/or geometry,
the modified Degen would retain the bale through the first potential drop
location (i.e., Option A) if the distance to an alternative drop location (i.e.,
Option B), and therefore the swath gathered, is expected to provide a bale
having a more desirable size. Although the modification proposed by the
Examiner would not ensure bales of identical bale geometry, as could be
achieved using a bale collecting device, the modification would, at least to
some extent, reduce the degree of non-homogeneity of bales when a bale
collecting device is not used. See id. ,r 55.
The only argument set forth by Appellant contesting the Examiner's
obviousness rationale is that "[ c ]hanging the system disclosed in Degen to
include the elements recited in claim 1 would change the principle of
operation" of Degen' s system. Br. 18. More specifically, Appellant asserts
that Degen's system "places a bale at a target location by adjusting how the
bale is formed," while "the invention of claim 1 places a bale at the closer of
two target drop positions without changing how the bale is formed." Br. 18.
This argument is not well-founded because the modification proposed by the
Examiner would not eliminate Degen's capability to change the bale density
or geometry where appropriate, so that the bale can be placed in the vicinity
12
Appeal2017-008621
Application 14/423, 174
of other bales, such as Bale 2. Further, as the Examiner points out, claim 1
does not recite that the comparison requires the closer of the two positions to
be selected, nor does claim 1 specify anything about how the bale is formed.
Ans. 5. Claim 9, likewise, contains neither of these limitations. Thus,
Appellant's argument is commensurate with neither the modification
proposed by the Examiner nor the scope of claims 1 and 9.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claims 1 and 9. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims
1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Degen. We also
sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6, 8, 11, 14, and 15, for which Appellant
does not present any separate arguments and which thus fall with claims 1
and 9, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Degen.
Claims 2, 3, and 10
Claims 2 and 10 depend from claims 1 and 9, respectively, and further
recite calculating an estimated location of a next completed bale along the
route, and specify that the steps of calculating the distances comprise
calculating a minimum distance from a path between the current baler
position and the estimated location of the next completed bale to the first
targeted bale drop position and a minimum distance from the path to the
second targeted bale drop position, and comparing the minimum distances to
determine the desired drop location. Br. 24--25, 26 (Claims App.). The
Examiner cites Degen's disclosure in paragraphs 8, 27, and 38 of keeping
the corridor width and expansion of the bale corridor and bale groups small
by placing bales down in the immediate vicinity of one another as satisfying
these minimum distance calculation limitations. Final Act. 10-12.
13
Appeal2017-008621
Application 14/423, 174
Appellant contends that while Degen may disclose "estimating a
location where a next bale will be set down," Degen "does not contemplate
determining a minimum distance between a path from a current location to
the estimated drop location and a target drop position, as recited in [ claims 2
and 10], much less comparing two such minimum distances." Br. 21, 22.
We agree with Appellant. We discern in the portions ofDegen's
disclosure cited by the Examiner no disclosure directed to calculating the
minimum distance from the set-down path to the already-set-down bales, or
to any other targeted bale drop position, and the Examiner's explanation on
pages 5-6 of the Answer is not sufficiently enlightening on this point to
establish either that Degen discloses the subject matter recited in claims 2
and 10 or that it would have been obvious to modify Degen to include these
features. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 10, or
claim 3, which depends from claim 2.
Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and further recites determining if the
distances from the current baler position to the first targeted drop position
and to the second targeted drop position are increasing or decreasing to
determine the desired bale drop location. Br. 25 (Claims App.). The
Examiner finds that Degen discloses these limitations, and quotes particular
language from paragraphs 34, 20, 38, and claims 19-25 of Degen in support
of this finding. Final Act. 14--15.
Appellant contends, and we agree, that it is unclear how these portions
of Degen disclose determining whether a distance from a current baler
location to a targeted drop position is increasing or decreasing. Br. 21.
In response, the Examiner points out that
14
Appeal2017-008621
Application 14/423, 174
the determination of a driving direction along the planned route
is used in Degen to determine "if the distances from the current
baler position to the first targeted drop position and from the
current baler position to the second targeted drop position are
increasing or decreasing to determine the desired drop
location."
Ans. 6. The Examiner emphasizes that "Degen discloses that the driving
direction is critical for the efficiency of the method/system." Id. The
Examiner quotes language from paragraph 27 of Degen disclosing, in
pertinent part, that it is "important to know and establish the start of the
harvesting route," as well as the driving direction and sequence in which
swath is picked up. Id. The Examiner then explains that if the calculated
distance from the current baler position to both the first and second targeted
drop positions is increasing even though the baler has not passed either yet,
then the system knows that the driving direction is backwards, and that,
likewise, if the distances to both targeted drop locations are decreasing, then
the system knows that the driving direction is correct. Id. at 6-7.
The procedure described by the Examiner might be one way to
determine whether the baler is traveling in the intended direction along the
calculated bale set-down path. However, there is no indication in any of the
passages of Degen quoted by the Examiner that Degen is using such a
procedure, nor does the Examiner propose that it would have been obvious
to modify Degen to do so.
For the above reasons, the Examiner fails to establish that the subject
matter of claim 4 would have been obvious. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the rejection of claim 4.
15
Appeal2017-008621
Application 14/423, 174
Claims 7 and 12
Claims 7 and 12 require the control system to determine which of the
targeted bale drop locations is closest to the current position of the baler and
whether the baler is moving toward or away from the closest targeted bale
drop location. Br. 25, 26-27 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Degen
discloses the limitations of claims 7 and 12. Final Act. 16-17. The
Examiner quotes particular language from paragraphs 15, 20, 36, 43, and 44
in support of this finding. Id. at 17-18 (also citing Degen, Fig. 1).
Appellant argues that the portions of Degen cited by the Examiner do
not "disclose the concept of determining whether a distance to a target drop
position is increasing or decreasing" and that "the Examiner does not
provide reasoning or an explanation regarding how the cited portions teach
or suggest-or even relate[] to-the invention set forth in [claims 7 and 12].
Br. 22. We agree with Appellant. We discern no clear disclosure in the
passages of Degen quoted by the Examiner of determining whether the baler
is moving toward or away from the closest targeted bale drop location.
In response, the Examiner quotes language from paragraphs 20 and 30
of Degen disclosing setting the bales down in an efficient and uniform
manner by using data from a transmitting unit and a receiving unit to
determine the bale set-down path and assigning and storing GPS positions of
each bale as it is set down, and creating the driving route "based on the next
point in time and the next place for a bale to be set down, with the
requirement that as many bales 5 as possible be set down in the direct
vicinity of each other." Ans. 7. With respect to the limitation relating to
determining whether the baler is moving toward or away from one of the
targeted bale drop locations, the Examiner refers to the aforementioned
16
Appeal2017-008621
Application 14/423, 174
discussion in the Answer responding to Appellant's arguments against the
rejection of claim 4. 2 Id. For the reasons discussed above, this response
does not provide the requisite factual findings to establish that Degen
determines whether the baler is moving toward or away from any targeted
bale drop location. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 7
and 12.
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites, in pertinent part, that "the control system has stored
thereon an average distance traveled by the baler to form each of the crop
bales within the bale-forming chamber" and determining when to release the
bale based on a determination of which of the targeted bale drop locations is
nearest to the current location of the baler, a determination of the current
direction of travel of the baler, and an average distance traveled by the baler
to form each of the bales. Br. 27 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that
Degen discloses these features. Final Act. 19. The Examiner quotes
language from paragraphs 12, 27, 30, and 49 of Degen, and additionally
cites Figure 1 of Degen, in support of this finding. Id. at 19--20. These
passages disclose that harvesting conditions such as a non-uniformly
deposited swath can be used in the dynamic adaptation of the bale set-down
path (Degen ,r 12), and that the distance actually covered to press a particular
bale, and how much total distance is required to press a bale, can be
determined as a function of the bale length measurement and incorporated as
2 We understand the Examiner's reference to "section (2)(E) of this
Examiner's Answer" to be an inadvertent error, and that the reference to the
explanation "relating to the determination of a driving direction along the
planned route" is a reference to the discussion responding to Appellant's
arguments against the rejection of claim 4. Ans. 7; see id. at 6.
17
Appeal2017-008621
Application 14/423, 174
a parameter in the further calculation of the bale set-down path, thereby
ensuring that the bale set-down path is calculated in a dynamic manner so
that swath amounts set down in a non-uniform manner do not negatively
affect the calculation. (id. ,r 49). With respect to driving direction, the
portion of paragraph 27 quoted by the Examiner discloses that it is important
to know and establish the driving direction and sequence in which swath is
picked up to ensure an efficient harvesting route.
Appellant begins by arguing that some of the elements of claim 13
"are similar to those recited in claim 7" and, thus, "the arguments set forth
... in support of claim 7 also apply to claim 13." Br. 22-23. This argument
is unavailing with respect to claim 13 because Appellant's arguments in
support of claim 7 are directed to determining whether a distance from a
current baler location to a targeted bale drop position is increasing or
decreasing (Br. 21-22), but claim 13 does not contain such a limitation.
Appellant adds that Degen does not disclose the concept of storing an
average distance traveled by the baler to form each bale and using that
average distance to determine when to command a bale carrier to drop a
bale. Id. at 23. The Examiner responds that the value for the distance
required to press a bale used as a parameter in the dynamic calculation of the
bale set-down path, as disclosed in paragraph 49 of Degen, is an average
distance in a situation in which only one bale has been placed. Ans. 8. The
Examiner then determines that, although Degen does not specify that an
average value is used if more than one bale has been placed, one of ordinary
skill in the art would "see this as an obvious way to simplify calculations."
Id. Appellant does not specifically contest the Examiner's determination of
obviousness or point out any deficiency in the Examiner's reasoning.
18
Appeal2017-008621
Application 14/423, 174
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 13, which we thus sustain.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15 is AFFIRMED as to
claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 13-15, and is REVERSED as to claims 2--4, 7,
10, and 12.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
19