12087647 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2014)

Ex Parte Pourchet et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 31, 2014

12087647 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 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. 12/087,647 03/31/2009 Jérémy Pourchet 09598W-US 1590 30689 7590 07/31/2014 DEERE & COMPANY ONE JOHN DEERE PLACE MOLINE, IL 61265 EXAMINER NGUYEN, MAI T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3671 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/31/2014 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 JEREMY POURCHET and ETIENNE JOSSET ____________________ Appeal 2012-000522 Application 12/087,6471 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Deere & Company. Br. 1. Appeal 2012-000522 Application 12/087,647 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Cofer (US 3,613,345, issued Oct. 19, 1971). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim and representative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A pick-up with a frame, with at least one tine carrier that can be moved relative to the frame, with tines that are fastened on the tine carrier and with strippers that are arranged adjacent to one another transverse to a forward direction and between which are formed intermediate spaces through which the tines extend outward and along which the tines can be moved, wherein the strippers feature a first end that is detachably fastened on the frame and a second end that is detachably fastened on the frame, wherein: the strippers are connected to the frame at the first end by two form-fitting connections, and wherein the first form-fitting connection fixes the stripper on the frame in both directions that are oriented transverse to its longitudinal direction and the second form-fitting connection fixes the stripper on the frame along its longitudinal direction such that the second connection can be disengaged by moving the stripper transverse to its longitudinal direction and the stripper can be moved relative to the frame in its longitudinal direction and removed from the frame when the second connection is disengaged, and the strippers are inherently rigid and are respectively connected to the frame at their second end by a force-fitting connection. Appeal 2012-000522 Application 12/087,647 3 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Cofer discloses all of the elements of claim 1, including “first form-fitting connection 58, 60 that fixes the stripper on the frame in both directions that are oriented transverse to its longitudinal direction.” Ans. 4–5. More specifically, the Examiner finds that Cofer’s pin 58 and slot 60 are considered the first form-fitting connection because the pin and slot fixes the first end 44 of stripper 40 on the frame 24, 26 in both directions that are oriented transverse to the longitudinal direction of the stripper such that the stripper is prevented from moving left or right and downwardly relative to the frame. Ans. 6. Appellants argue that “Cofer simply does not disclose the claimed form-fitting connection at one end of the stripper.” Br. 3. Cofer discloses pickup device 12 having tines 32 and strippers 40. Cofer, col. 1, ll. 61–65; col. 2, ll. 9–23; Fig. 1. The upper leg of each stripper 30 is secured to deck 24 via nuts and bolts 48, and the lower leg of each stripper 30 is secured to rear wall 26 via nuts and bolts 50. Id. at col. 2, ll. 31–36; Figs. 2, 3. An additional connection is provided between the upper leg of each stripper 30 and deck 24 via pin 58 of the upper leg and slot 60 formed in deck 24. Id. at col. 2, ll. 43–45; Figs. 2, 3. The Examiner’s finding that Cofer’s pin 58 and slot 60 fix stripper 40 relative to deck 24 in both directions transverse to the device’s longitudinal direction is erroneous. We agree that the pin/slot connection prevents stripper 40 from moving laterally relative to deck 24, but do not agree that this connection prevents vertical movement of stripper 40 relative to deck 24. Pin 58 is capable of sliding vertically (upwardly and downward) in slot 60. Regarding the Examiner’s contention that stripper 40 is prevented from Appeal 2012-000522 Application 12/087,647 4 moving downwardly relative to deck 24, the restriction of downward movement is caused by the stripper upper leg abutting the upper surface of deck 24, not by the pin/slot connection. The Examiner has not established that Cofer’s pin/slot connection would be capable of fixing strippers 40 relative to deck 24 in the vertical direction. As such, Cofer does not disclose a form-fitting connection that fixes the stripper on the frame in the two transverse directions, as required by claim 1. For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1—and of claims 2–4 depending therefrom—under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Cofer. DECISION We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1–4. REVERSED llw