Deere & Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 9, 2022

2021002427 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2022)

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. 15/785,098 10/16/2017 Christopher J. Faulkner 208065-9139-US01 3964 132636 7590 03/09/2022 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (JOHN DEERE) 790 N WATER ST SUITE 2500 MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 EXAMINER MISA, JOAN D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3671 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/09/2022 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): mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte CHRISTOPHER J. FAULKNER, VOLKER FUCHS, CORWIN M. PURYK, and MARK L. MATTSON Appeal 2021-002427 Application 15/785,098 Technology Center 3600 __________ Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-17, 19, and 20. Final Act. 1 (Office Action Summary). Claims 9 and 18 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter. Final Act. 1, 10. Claim 4 has been canceled. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Deere & Company.” Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-002427 Application 15/785,098 2 Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons explained below, we find error in the Examiner’s rejections. Accordingly, we REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter “relates to agricultural equipment, and more particularly to a combine harvester and the discharge assembly of a combine harvester.” Spec. ¶ 1. Apparatus claims 1, 10, and 17 are independent. Appeal Br. 4-5. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A combine harvester for harvesting a crop, the harvester comprising: a housing; a separating system contained within the housing for separating a seed material from a straw material of the crop; a cleaning system including a cleaning fan configured to produce a motive flow of air; a straw chopper operable to chop the straw material from the separating system into a chopped straw material; a spreading system positioned downstream of the straw chopper and configured to disperse the chopped straw material from the housing; an air discharge channel located downstream of the straw chopper and above the spreading system and configured to discharge a portion of the motive flow of air produced by the cleaning fan; and a barrier positioned downstream of the straw chopper to inhibit the chopped straw material from entering the discharge channel when the air discharge channel is configured to discharge the portion of the motive flow of air produced by the cleaning fan. Appeal 2021-002427 Application 15/785,098 3 REFERENCES Name Reference Date Jakobi US 6,196,483 B1 Mar. 6, 2001 Farley et al. (“Farley”) US 7,066,810 B2 June 27, 2006 THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Jakobi. Final Act. 2. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Farley and Jakobi. Final Act. 4. ANALYSIS2 The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-17, 19, and 20 as obvious over Farley and Jakobi We address each of independent claims 1, 10, and 17 separately. Claim 1 Claim 1 recites “a straw chopper,” “an air discharge channel located downstream of the straw chopper,” and “a barrier positioned downstream of the straw chopper to inhibit the chopped straw material from entering the discharge channel.” Italics added. The Examiner relies on both Farley and Jakobi for disclosing “a straw chopper,” but relies solely on Jakobi for disclosing both the “air discharge channel” and the “barrier.” Final Act. 4. Appellant disputes the Examiner’s findings regarding Jakobi’s barrier. See Appeal Br. 8-9 (“No element of Jakobi inhibits the chopped straw 2 Appellant addresses the obviousness rejection before addressing the anticipation rejection. See Appeal Br. 6-12. We do the same. Appeal 2021-002427 Application 15/785,098 4 material from entering the portion of the distribution hood that the Examiner considers to be the ‘discharge channel.’”). As per Appellant, “Jakobi lacks a barrier as claimed.” Appeal Br. 8. Thus, “Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner’s argument does not properly address claim 1 as written.” Appeal Br. 10. We agree with Appellant. As noted above, claim 1 recites a “barrier” designed to “inhibit the chopped straw material from entering the discharge channel.” Thus, as understood, the barrier must (to some degree) be upstream from the entrance to the discharge channel if the barrier is to inhibit material “from entering” the discharge channel. The Examiner finds that Jakobi’s corresponding barrier “includes front edge 23 of plate 24, front edge 29 of plate 28, and cover plate 32.” Final Act. 4. However, front edges 23, 29 of their respective plates 24, 28 actually demark the entrance into Jakobi’s air discharge channel, and are spaced a slight distance downstream from Jakobi’s cutting drum (i.e., “straw chopper”). See Jakobi Fig. 1; see also Jakobi 3:33-48. In other words, these edges define a simple entrance into the air discharge channel and would not reasonably be understood to constitute a barrier to that entrance. As noted above, Jakobi teaches that front edge 23 is “around a distance of 10 mm” from the cutting drum while front edge 29 is “around 5 mm from” the cutting drum. Jakobi 3:35-36; 3:45-47. The Examiner is silent as to any discrete structure in this limited space between the cutting drum and the air discharge channel that might inhibit entry into the air discharge channel. Furthermore, and with respect to front edge 23, Jakobi teaches that this edge extends inwardly towards the cutting drum to such a degree that “a Appeal 2021-002427 Application 15/785,098 5 ring of air (25) forming around the cutting drum is cut off and deflected in the direction of the arrow (26)” into Jakobi’s air discharge channel. Jakobi 3:33-40 (italics added); see also Jakobi Fig. 1. In other words, Jakobi does not teach that edge 23 is a barrier inhibiting flow into the air discharge channel, but instead teaches that this edge 23 acts as an aggregator intentionally deflecting and increasing flow into this channel.3 Regarding the Examiner’s referenced “cover plate 32” (see Final Act. 4), Jakobi discloses that this plate is recessed some distance into Jakobi’s air discharge channel. See Jakobi Fig. 1. Thus, because of its recessed location, the Examiner does not explain how any material that might be affected by such recessed plate has not already entered the discharge channel. The Examiner also contends that the referenced lower edge 29 (see Final Act. 4) will “inhibit the chopped straw material from entering the discharge channel.” Ans. 6. In particular, the Examiner finds that “by deflecting the chopped up stalks and the deflected air 22 of Jakobi through the” lower channel (as contrasted with Jakobi’s upper air discharge channel), edge 29 meets this “barrier” criteria. Ans. 6. Additionally, the Examiner explains: even if some chopped up stalks enter the top chamber of the distribution hood of Jakobi, the front edge 29 of intermediate plate 28 of Jakobi will still inhibit[] a certain amount of chopped up stalks from entering the “air discharge channel” or top chamber of the distribution hood of Jakobi. Ans. 6-7. 3 Jakobi teaches a similar deflection occurring with respect to front edge 29 and into an adjacent lower channel. See Jakobi 3:45-48; Fig. 1. This matter is discussed below. Appeal 2021-002427 Application 15/785,098 6 As logical as this may seem, the “barrier” limitation of claim 1 not only recites an inhibition against material entering the air discharge channel, but also that such inhibition is to occur with respect to a certain flow through Jakobi’s system. Claim 1 states, “the air discharge channel is configured to discharge the portion of the motive flow of air produced by the cleaning fan.” Italics added. The above cited “portion” is that flow which is discharged through the air discharge channel, and not via another channel. In contrast, the deflection the Examiner identifies as occurring with respect to edge 29 and into the lower chamber (see above) is not the same flow “portion” referenced in this “barrier” limitation. Instead, the Examiner is referencing another portion of the motive flow that is discharged through Jakobi’s lower channel. See Jakobi Fig. 1. Hence, any deflection occurring at edge 29 and into Jakobi’s lower channel is immaterial to the cited “portion of the motive flow” associated with Jakobi’s upper channel. Accordingly, and in view of the above, the Examiner fails to point to sufficient structure that is “downstream of the straw chopper” and that also inhibits “material from entering the discharge channel” when the discharge channel is configured to discharge the recited “portion” of motive flow. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 3, and 5-8. Claim 10 Claim 10 does not recite a “barrier” as in claim 1 above. Instead, claim 10 recites “wherein the channel defines a path extending upward from the air inlet to inhibit the straw material from entering the air inlet.” The Examiner identifies the same structure as above, and further finds that Jakobi’s air discharge “channel defines a path extending upward from the air Appeal 2021-002427 Application 15/785,098 7 inlet to inhibit the straw material from entering the air inlet.” Final Act. 7 (“due to edges 23, 29 and plate 32 of Jakobi”). Indeed, a part of the entry flow path into Jakobi’s air discharge channel can be said to extend upwardly from edge 23 before this discharge channel turns and directs flow downwardly towards outlet 30 as shown by arrow 26. See Jakobi 2:13-15, 3:33-35, Fig. 1. However, the Examiner does not explain how this recited “path extending upward” is arranged to “inhibit the straw material from entering the air inlet” as required of claim 10. As taught by Jakobi, chopped straw and air are ejected from rotating cutting drum 5. See Jakobi Fig. 1; 1:19-23. There is no barrier depicted or described between this rotating drum and Jakobi’s corresponding “path extending upward.” Hence, it is not clear how this unblocked portion of Jakobi’s air discharge channel is able to, instead, “inhibit the straw material from entering the air inlet” as recited. In fact, Jakobi’s disclosed upward path appears to actually assist in permitting entrance into the discharge channel. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 10 and its dependent claims 11-16. Claim 17 Like claim 10, claim 17 also lacks a recitation to a “barrier.” Instead, claim 17 recites “an air discharge channel located between the straw chopper and the spreading system.” Italics added. The Examiner relies on the same structure in Jakobi as discussed above. See Final Act. 9. The Examiner acknowledges the above limitation directed to the intermediate location of the air discharge channel, yet merely relies on “24 and 28 of Jakobi” for such teachings. Final Act. 9. Appeal 2021-002427 Application 15/785,098 8 Jakobi’s Figure 1 depicts the flow through the system as initially downward from straw hood 2 into counter-clockwise rotating drum 5 (see arrow 4) where the straw is cut and then ejected into Jakobi’s distribution hood and thence onto the ground. See e.g., Jakobi 2:65-67, 3:23-28. Like claims 1 and 10 above, the Examiner correlates Jakobi’s lower channel to the recited “spreading system” and Jakobi’s upper channel to the recited “air discharge channel.” Final Act. 9. The two channels are positioned one atop the other and direct flow in a somewhat parallel direction. See Jakobi Fig. 1. Additionally, both channels have respective entrances nearly in contact with the rotating blades of the drum (as indicated above). See Jakobi 3:33-48. Hence, as understood, both channels receive flow directly from the cutting drum via their near abutment with respective portions of the cutting drum. See Jakobi Fig. 1. The Examiner does not make clear (based on the flow depicted) how Jakobi’s parallel arrangement of the two upper/lower channels somehow teaches that Jakobi’s upper air discharge channel is, instead, “located between the straw chopper and the spreading system” as recited. In fact, even abiding by the counter-clockwise rotation of Jakobi’s drum 5, Jakobi’s upper air discharge channel is always downstream Jakobi’s spreading system, not “between the straw chopper and the spreading system” as recited. Furthermore, in view of the limited distance between Jakobi’s spreading system and the drum’s blades (see Jakobi 3:45-47), the Examiner does not explain how an air discharge channel can be located therein. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 17 and its dependent claims 19 and 20. Appeal 2021-002427 Application 15/785,098 9 The rejection of claims 17, 19, and 20 as anticipated by Jakobi For this additional, anticipation rejection, the Examiner makes the same incorrect findings discussed above with respect to Jakobi. Final Act. 2-3. We likewise reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17, 19, and 20 as being anticipated by Jakobi. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3, 5-8, 10-17, 19, 20 103 Farley, Jakobi 1-3, 5-8, 10-17, 19, 20 17, 19, 20 102(a)(1) Jakobi 17, 19, 20 Overall Outcome 1-3, 5-8, 10-17, 19, 20 REVERSED