Ex Parte Gustafsson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

15000598 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

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