Ex Parte Husson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2017

13377647 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2017)

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.
13/377,647 03/05/2012 Geoffroy Husson GB09/016/WO/US-2 4688
88988 7590 06/19/2017
AGCO Corporation, IP Legal
Jeff Ellsworth
420 W. Lincoln Blvd.
Hesston, KS 67062
EXAMINER
LOWE, MICHAEL S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/19/2017 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 GEOFFROY HUSSON and PIERRE DUPIRE
Appeal 2016-004204
Application 13/377,647
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-004204
Application 13/377,647
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—12. Claim 13 is canceled. We have jurisdiction over the
pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a front loader for a tractor. Spec., Title.
Claim 1, reproduced below with a disputed limitation emphasized in italics,
is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A front loader for attachment to a tractor which has an engine
compartment disposed forwardly of a cab and transversely
centred on a longitudinal axis, the front loader being detachable
from the tractor and comprising a pair of lift arms, when in use,
each being pivotally mounted relative to the tractor at respective
pivot points which are transversely spaced either side of the
engine compartment, the lift arms, when lowered, extending
generally forwardly and converging in front of the engine
compartment to attach to a single, transversely centred telescopic
boom which is disposed in front of the engine compartment.
REFERENCES
The prior art cited by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal
is:
Boers US 3,766,952 Oct. 23, 1973
Friesen US 4,347,031 Aug. 31, 1982
Beck US 5,265,995 Nov. 30, 1993
Braud US 6,071,066 June 6, 2000
Knell US 6,106,217 Aug. 22, 2000
2
Appeal 2016-004204
Application 13/377,647
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections1:
Claims 1—6 and 8—12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Friesen and Boers. Final Act. 3—5.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Friesen, Boers, and Knell. Final Act. 5.
APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
1. Neither Friesen nor Boers discloses lift arms that, when lowered,
converge in front of the engine compartment as required by the
disputed limitation of claim 1. Br. 12—13.
2. The applied prior art fails to provide requisite motivation for including
Boers’s telescoping boom in Fiesen’s loader, rendering the
combination improper. Br. 13.
ANALYSIS
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive of Examiner error. We adopt
as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3—6) and (2) the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 5—7) and concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
In connection with contention 1, Appellants argue Friesen does not
describe lift arms converging in front of the engine compartment. Br. 12.
1 The rejection of claims 1—9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
(Final Act. 2), has been withdrawn (Ans. 5).
3
Appeal 2016-004204
Application 13/377,647
Likewise, Appellants argue Boers also fails to disclose the disputed
converging lift arms. Br. 13. The Examiner responds by finding, although it
is not clear whether Friesen’s arms laterally converge,
As shown in Boers figure 2 lift arms laterally] converge as they
must for a single central boom as taught here. The combination
would still need to extend forwardly and in front of the engine
compartment (and as claimed) to keep the modified Friesen from
having restricted movement as would be clear to one of ordinary
skill.
Ans. 6.
Appellants’ contention 1 is unpersuasive of Examiner error because,
inter alia, it is an attack on the individual disclosures of the references rather
than on what the combination teaches or suggests. “Non-obviousness cannot
be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is
based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck &
Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Although Friesen does not describe whether lift
arms 16 are parallel or laterally converge, Boers’s Figures 1 and 2 depict
piston and cylinder actuators 24 and 25 converging to attach on either side of
plate 26 of arm 12, thereby teaching or suggesting converging arms as
required by the disputed limitation. Furthermore, as found by the Examiner,
one skilled in the art would have appreciated that, to attach the single central
boom of Boers to Friesen’s lift arms 16, the lift arms or some portion thereof
would extend inwardly to support the central boom, thereby laterally
converging toward each other. Thus, it is the combination of Friesen and
Boers that teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
In connection with contention 2, Appellants argue motivation for
modifying Friesen’s front loader to incorporate Boers’s telescoping boom is
4
Appeal 2016-004204
Application 13/377,647
not found in the references, “it logically following] that modification of a
front loader has been improperly gleaned from Applicant’s own specification
and that the combination of Friesen and Boers is an exercise of
impermissible hindsight.” Br. 13. The Examiner responds by finding:
In this case, [b]oth references are in the material handling vehicle
technology and so are of common interest and technology. It
would be apparent to one of ordinary skill that telescopic
members allow for greater reach and greater versatility of
different reach movements and so it would be desirable and
within the ordinary ability for one to modify the references as
done in the office action rejections to improve the primary
reference to have the known benefits of the secondary reference.
Ans. 7.
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because it attempts to hold the
Examiner to the now-rejected rigid application of the teaching, suggestion,
or motivation (“TSM”) standard where there must be some suggestion or
motivation in the references themselves to modify the reference or to
combine reference teachings; such a standard is not required. KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415 (2007) (“We begin by rejecting the rigid
[application and requirement of a TSM to combine known elements in order
to show obviousness].”). The proper inquiry is whether the Examiner has
articulated adequate reasoning based on a rational underpinning to explain
why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to combine the
disclosures of Friesen and Boers. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds . . . must [include] some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.”), cited with approval in KSR v. Teleflex, 550
U.S. at 418. Here, as explained supra, the Examiner has articulated
reasoning based on rational underpinning, sufficient to support a conclusion
5
Appeal 2016-004204
Application 13/377,647
of obviousness, i.e., to increase movement flexibility made possible by
Boers’s telescoping boom. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 7. Accordingly,
Appellants’ contention that the combination is improper is unpersuasive.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and, for
the same reasons, the rejection of independent claim 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Friesen and Boers, together with the rejections of dependent
claims 2—9, 11, and 12, these dependent claims not argued separately with
particularity.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6