COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
UNOBVIOUS: Not Taught By the Prior Art.
The claims in the application under Final Action directed to
Figure 1, replaced new claims directed the embodiment of Figure
2. Such amendment permitted since the combination defined in
the new claims is neither taught nor suggested by the prior
art.
FINAL ACTION: Refusal of the application as a whole
withdrawn.
*********************
This decision deals with a request for review by the Commissioner
of Patents of the Examiner's Final Action dated April 4, 1973 on
application 066,891 (Class 111 - Subclass 17). The application
was filed on November 6, 1969 in the name of Paul Koronka and
Richard J. Hirst, and is entitled "Agricultural Apparatus."
Mr. P. Hammond represented the applicant at the Hearing conducted
by the Patent Appeal Board on June 19, 1974.
Briefly, the application discloses a seeder for planting crops
comprising a frame mounted upon wheels and a seed hopper mounted
on the frame. The frame also supports a plurality of drag bars
to which are attached discs or other devices to cultivate the
soil. A cone-shaped rubber pad is fixed on the frame for
transmitting a portion of the weight of the frame to the drag
bars to force the discs down into the soil. Other means are
connected to the frame for adjusting the position of the wheels
on the frame, and consequently will effect both the height the
frame stands above the ground and the weight transmitted to the
drag bars.
The prosecution terminating with the Final Action rejected not
only the claims but the whole application for lack of inventive
subject matter over the following references:
Canadian Patents:
120,304 Aug. 31, 1909 Rogers
496,227 Sept. 22, 1953 Dewey
United States Patents:
2,007,832 July 9, 1935 Nelson
2,813,712 Nov. 19, 1957 Stanis
In the Final Action the examiner stated (in part):
In paragraph 2 on page 2 of the disclosure applicant
lists, in detail, what is known in the art; this list
includes a reference to soil working members being
biased toward the ground by means of coil springs. The
Ropers and Dewey patents merely illustrate what is ad-
mitted to be prior art.
The distinction between the Ropers and Dewey patents,
and the apparatus claimed by claims 1 to 3, 6 and 7 in
this application is that in this application, applicant
has replaced the metal coil springs with rubber cushions
or bumpers which act as spring means.
Rubber bumpers or rubber spring means, however, are
well known as is shown by the Nelson and Stanis patents.
The Nelson patent discloses the use of rubber bumpers
as a spring means in a method similar to that used by
applicant.
Since the rubber springs act in a similar manner and for
the same purpose as the coil springs, and since no
unexpected result is produced, the replacing of coil
springs by ones made of rubber or some other form of
elastomer is a mere substitution of an equivalent and such
substitution is not considered to be inventive.
Regarding applicant's argument that the cited patents
are taken from different arts, that is farm machinery and
automobile engineering, it is pointed out that both are
mechanical arts, and both are directed to the application
of pressure to a beam; the patent to Nelson, in particular,
shows the use of rubber springs where coil springs might
have been used.
Applicant argues that there are certain advantages to the
use of rubber springs such as simplicity, ease of assembly
or disassembly, etc., but these advantages are inherent in
this type of spring and are well known, hence no unexpected
result has been produced.
The applicant in his response dated Oct. 4, 1973 to the Final
Action stated (in part):
A very important advantage of the present spring means
arising from the fact that the spring means are shaped in
the form of a cone is the fact that such a rubber spring means
has a variable rate response, compression being at first
relatively easy and then becoming progressively more
difficult. In consequence, the conical rubber springs
of the present invention are suitable for use with a
wide variety of soils so that they need not be changed
for a different size of spring near as often as with
the use of coil springs. It should be noted that the
coil springs employed is Canadian patent No. 120,304
have a straight line response as opposed to a variable
rate response. In other words, each coil spring under-
goes an equal amount of compression for every equal
amount of increase in the compression force applied to
the spring.
The feature of the "frame mounted means for moving said
ground wheels vertically with respect to said frame for
varying the portion of the weight of said frame borne by
said drag bars" is also important because it is advantag-
eous to be able to load the coulters with different loads,
the particular load being chosen to suit the ground to
be seeded. Where the ground is hard and difficult to
break, the frame can be lowered with respect to the ground
wheels to increase the load on the coulters. Moreover,
being able to adjust the height of the ground wheels with
respect to the rain frame has certain advantages over
being able to adjust the height of the drag bars with
respect to the frame. This ability avoids the need for
such devices as the hand levers 12, the rock arms 13,
and the rack plate or notched arc plate 14, described in
Canadian patent No. 120,304. It also avoids the need
for any connection between the rubber spring means 7 of
the present invention and the drag bars 4. Note that the rod
4 shown in Canadian patent No. 120,304 must be pivotally
connected to the beam 6 in order to be able to vary the
height of the harrow 8. Thus, a much simpler construction
is permitted by the arrangement of the present invention set out in
the new claim 1.
It should also be pointed out that the features described in
claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 are no where described in this
Canadian patent. In particular it should be pointed out
that the discs 16 are sod cutting discs and are not slit
widening disc means disposed to widen the slit formed by the
forward harrows as described in claim 5 of the claims. There
is also no disclosure that the tubular drill-head 19 is to
be disposed between the discs 16. Indeed, there would be no
sense in placing the drill-heads between the discs 16 since
the discs 16 are merely used to cut sod.
Considering the prior art cited,Canadian patent 120,304 discloses
a device which can be used alternatively as either a disc harrow
or a seeder. The machine disclosed employs a plurality of
parallel transverse rock shafts, 2, to which are secured rock
arms 3. To the outer end of each of these arms is pivotally
connected a rod 4. The lower end of this rod is slidably mounted
in a sleeve 5, pivotally connected to a draft beam 6 (see Figure
1) at a point a short distance from the lower end of the draft
beam. The upper end of each draft beam is journelled to move
freely on a transverse rod 7, While the lower end supports an
inclined concave harrow disc 8. In order to enable slight in-
dependent movement of each disc 7 relative to its connecting rod,
the connections between the rod and draft beam 6 are made yieldable
and comprise a collar 9 on the rod and a coil spring 10 adapted
to be interposed between the collar and the top of the sleeves.
Canadian patent 496,227 discloses a seed drill comprising a
frame, ground wheels, a hopper or seed box and a number of soil
working members. This reference illustrates what was admitted
in the disclosure by the applicant to be prior art.
The Nelson and Stanis patents were cited to show that rubber
bumpers or snubbers are well known as spring or damper means.
First it is observed that the applicant cancelled all the claims,
which claims were directed to the embodiment of Figure 1, as a
consequence of the Final Action, and submitted amended claims
directed to the embodiment of Figure 2.
The question which we must decide is whether amended clams 1 to 7
disclose a patentable advance in the art over the cited art.
Amended claim 1 reads:
Seed drill comprising a frame mounted upon group wheels,
said frame having mounted thereon a seed hopper to
which conduit means for conveying seed from the hopper
to the ground is attached, said frame also supporting
a plurality of drag bars bearing soil working members,
said drag bars being pivotally mounted on said frame,
rubber spring means in the form of a cone fixed on said
frame for transmitting a portion of the weight of said
frame to said drag bars, the remainder of the weight of
said frame being borne by said ground wheels, and frame
mounted means for moving said ground wheels vertically
with respect to said frame for varying the portion of the
weight of said frame borne by said drag bars and thereby
controlling the depth to which said soil working members
are urged into the soil.
On considering the difference between the art and that covered by
the amended claims, claim 1 recites the features of "rubber spring
means in the form of a cone fixed on said frame for transmitting
a portion of the weight of said frame to said drag bars," and
"frame mounted means for moving said ground wheels vertically with
respect to said frame for varying the portion of weight of said
frame borne by said drag bars and thereby controlling the depth
to which said soil-working members are urged into the soil."
These features were not recited in the claims rejected by the
examiner and cancelled by the applicant as a result of the Final
Action.
We concur with the applicant's argument, on which particular
emphasis was placed at the Hearing, that the art cited against the
former claims does not show "a frame mounted means for moving said
ground wheels vertically with respect to the frame."
The applicant also argues that amended claim 1 further distinguishes
from the cited art by reciting the feature of "rubber spring means
in the form of a cone fixed on said frame." While the Nelson and
Stanis reference disclose the use of rubber bumpers or snubbers,
it is the claim when read as a whole that must be considered in
order to show a patentable advance in the art, and it is settled
that all the elements of a patentable claim may be old.
Canadian patent 496,227 has no spring means for transmitting a
portion of the weight of the frame to the drag bar (i.e. spring
10 is not disposed between the frame and the drag bar). Canadian
patent 120,304 employs a coil spring 10. There is no reason
apparent to disbelieve the applicant when he states that "rubber
spring means in the form of a cone has a number of advantages
over the coil spring." For example, the applicant maintains that:
(a) less super-structure is required, (b) the rubber cone will
not corrode as readily, (c) a better arrangement of the seed box
is possible, and (d) the rubber cone has a variable rate response
as opposed to a straight line response.
In summary, amended claim 1 distinguishes from the cited art by
the following features:
(1) rubber spring means in the form of cones "fixed on
said frame for transmitting a portion of the weight"
of said frame to said drag bars; and
(2) frame mounted means for "moving said ground wheels
vertically" with respect to said frame to vary the
portion of the weight transmitted to the drag bars.
Accordingly, the Board is satisfied that the combination explicitly
circumscribed by amended claim 1 is neither taught nor suggested
by the cited art. It follows that amended claim 1, and claims
2 to 7 which depend directly or indirectly on claim 1, is an
amendment which avoids the grounds for rejection made by the
Examiner.
The applicant also proposed some clarifying amendments to the
disclosure. The Board recommends that the proposed amendments
including amended claims 1 to 7 be entered, that the rejection
of the application as a whole (as distinct from a rejection of
the original claims) on the art cited be withdrawn, and that the
application be returned to the examiner for a further consideration
of the patentability of the amended claims.
J.F. Hughes,
Assistant Chairman,
Patent Appeal Board.
I concur with the findings of the Patent Appeal Board and accept
the proposed amendments to the application. The application is
returned to the examiner for resumption of prosecution along
the lines indicated by the Board.
Decision accordingly,
A.M. Laidlaw,
Commissioner of Patents.
Dated and signed
in Hull, Quebec this
26th. day of July, 1974.
Agent for Applicant
Smart & Biggar,
Ottawa 4, Ontario.
(see formula 1 and 2)
<IMG>