Ex Parte Gustafsson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 201815000598 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 15/000,598 01/19/2016 148434 7590 09/27/2018 McNair Law Firm, P.A. Husqvarna Bank of America Plaza 101 South Tryon Street, Suite 2610 Charlotte, NC 28280 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Lars Gustafsson 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. 738004/10132/P2577US03 9342 EXAMINER FIORELLO, BENJAMIN F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3678 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2018 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): mcnairip@mcnair.net PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LARS GUSTAFSSON, ROLF JOHANSSON, FREDRIK SJODAHL, TOBIAS NILSSON, and DONALD F. MEISTER Appeal2018-002617 Application 15/000,598 Technology Center 3600 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2018-002617 Application 15/000,598 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) from a rejection of claim 1. Claims 2-20 have been allowed. Final Act. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. THE INVENTION Claim 1, directed to a laying machine comprising a blade assembly, is reproduced below: 1. A laying machine for laying a tube, cable, or wire, the laying machine comprising: a blade assembly mounted to a shaft that rotates to cut a trench in a ground; a consolidation and laying means being arranged behind the blade assembly for clearing and safeguarding the trench from collapsing while laying a tube, cable, or wire into the trench, wherein the consolidation and laying means comprises: a plow front end following the blade assembly; a feeding duct that has an inlet at an upper side of the consolidation and laying means for receiving the tube, cable, or wire; and an outlet at a rear or bottom side of the consolidation and laying means for feeding the tube, cable, or wire into the trench, wherein when the laying machine is in operation, a lowest portion of the consolidation and laying means is arranged 10-100 mm above a lowest portion of the blade assembly. Johnson Parent REFERENCES US 6,189,244 Bl US 2007/0286681 Al 2 Feb.20,2001 Dec. 13, 2007 Appeal 2018-002617 Application 15/000,598 REJECTION Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Johnson and Parent. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that elements 60, 62, and 63, depicted in Figure 1 of Johnson, collectively correspond to the claimed blade assembly; Johnson's "crumber or boot means 40" corresponds to the claimed consolidation and laying means arranged behind the blade assembly; and the leading surface 42 of crumber 40 corresponds to the claimed plow front end following the blade assembly. Final Act. 3 ( citing Johnson, abstract, Fig. 1 ); see Johnson 3:5-7, 12-16. The Examiner acknowledges, however, that Johnson "is silent regarding when the laying machine is in operation, a lowest portion of the consolidation and laying means is arranged 10-100 mm above a lowest portion of the blade assembly." Id. For this limitation, the Examiner relies on Parent. Id. According to the Examiner, "Parent discloses a laying machine for laying a tube, wire, or cable ... wherein when the laying machine is in operation, a lowest portion of the consolidation and laying means (6) is arranged above a lowest portion of the blade assembly (22; para 0029)." Id. at 3--4. Appellants dispute, among other things, that Parent teaches this latter limitation. App. Br. 4--5. Appellants assert that: [T]he steel nose (22) of Parent is merely the lowest point of the component that is alleged to correspond to the consolidation and laying means of Parent. Parent discloses nothing relating to the steel nose (22) being anything relating to the [ claimed] blade assembly. Id. at 4. 3 Appeal 2018-002617 Application 15/000,598 The Examiner responds that "[t]he [E]xaminer agrees that the steel nose (22) of Parent is integral with [Parent's] laying and consolidation means," but reasons that "the purpose of the hardened steel nose is to cut the trench." Ans. 4 ( citing Parent ,r,r 12-14 ). Therefore, the Examiner "disagrees with appellant's assertion that 'Parent discloses nothing relating to the steel nose (22) being anything relating to the blade assembly."' Id. Parent's element 6, which the Examiner asserts corresponds to Parent's consolidation and laying means, is a "mole-plough." Steel nose 22 is located at the foot of leading edge 20 of mole-plough 6. Although the Examiner correctly notes that steel nose 22 performs the same function as the claimed blade assembly, it is still structurally part of the mole-plough and is not itself a blade assembly. Thus, we disagree with the Examiner that Parent teaches that it is known to have a height difference between the bottom of the blade assembly and the laying and consolidation means, because Parent's device does not have a blade assembly. Because the cited references do not teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Johnson and Parent. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 reversed. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation