COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
OBVIOUSNESS: No Invention Over the Teachings of the Prior Art.
The application relates to automated poultry feeders for providing
a predetermined quantity of feed at a prescribed period or
periods. The basic idea was shown in the cited art. A second
control means was used to disable the system when food supply ran
out. The feature was also shown in the cited art. Combining the
two produced no new or improved result worthy of a patent monopoly.
FINAL ACTION: Affirmed.
*************************
This decision deals with a request for review by the Commissioner
of Patents of the Examiner's Final Action dated November 20, 1973
on application 115,583 (Class 119-47). The application was filed
on June 14, 1971 in the name of Forrest L. Ramser and is entitled
"Restricted Feeding Apparatus." The Patent Appeal Board conducted
a Hearing on April 16, 1975 at which Mr. H. O'Gorman represented the
applicant.
The application relates to automated poultry feeders for providing
a predetermined quantity of feed at a prescribed period or periods during
the day. The system includes first and second control means. The
first control means is associated with at least one of the feed dispens-
ing stations and operable to energize the conveyor when the food in
that station falls below a preselected level. The second control means
is associated with the hopper and operates to de-energize the conveyor
when the feed in the hopper falls below a predetermined level. A timer
may also be added to the circuit for feeding at selected time intervals.
In the Final Action the examiner refused claims 1 to 6 (claim 7 was
not refused) as lacking patentable subject matter over the following
United States Patents:
2,801,610 Aug. 6, 1957 Wallace
2,867,314 Jan. 6, 1959 Hansen
2,970,532 Feb. 7, 1961 Skelton
3,033,163 May 8, 1962 Hostetler
In that action the examiner stated (in part):
The rejection of the subject matter which was previously
presented as claims 1-5 and is now presented as claims 1-6
is maintained and the reason for such rejection is based on
obviousness. The cited Hostetler et al patent teaches a
mechanical poultry feeder system whereby the quantity of feed
distributed is regulated as a function of the rate at which
feed is consumed by the poultry with the poultry being free
to consume as much feed as desired since the feed is continuous-
ly supplied so long as it is being demanded by the poultry. A
control means is associated with the feeding stations and causes
the energization of the drive means whenever the amount of
feed in the station is below a preselected level.
Applicant wishes to restrict the total amount of feed during
any one period of feeding. There appears to be many obvious
alternatives for obtaining this desired result. For instance,
one may utilize a timer to control the total operation of the
system or one may utilize a weighing system as a control means
or one may utilize a control means based upon sensing the level
of the mass of feed. Applicant has chosen the latter alternative,
i.e. a known means associated with a hopper and operable upon the
reduction of feed in the hopper below a predetermined level of
disable and drive means. More specifically applicant chooses
to utilize a normally open switch associated with the hopper such
that presence of feed therein will bias the switch to the
closed position to permit the drive means to be energized. This
specific control means being utilized for the same purpose i.e.
to prevent operation of the system when the material in one
hopper has been reduced below a predetermined level is known as
shown, for example, by the cited Skelton patent. Therefore claims
1 and 4 are rejected since the use of the known alternative of
a level sensing means being incorporated in the known unrestricted
feeding system is obvious. The placing in circuit of the first
and second control means with the conveyor drive means is obvious
and claim 2 is rejected.
The utilization of a timer to control the interval of operation
of the drive means is well.known, as shown, for instance, by
the cited patent to Wallace et al. The placement of the timer
in circuit between a power source and the drive means is not a
patentable feature. There is no inventive ingenuity associated
with utilizing a conventional timer to control all or a part of
a feeding system. Therefore claim 3 is obvious in view of the cited
Hostetler et al patent and the knowledge exhibited by the cited
Wallace et al and Skelton patents.
In claim 5 applicant recited a boot having a discharge opening
and placing the switch in association with the boot. However
the cited Hansen patent shows a hopper which acts like a boot, i.e.
it could be utilized at the bottom of the Wallace et al device
and perform as an equivalent of applicant's device. Therefore
the use of an extension such as a boot would be obvious. Also the
placement of the switch does not represent an unexpected solution
to any existing problem and therefore this feature lacks patent-
ability. Therefore claim 5 is obvious in view of the cited Hostetler
et al end Skelton patents and the knowledge exhibited by the cited
Hansen and Wallace et al patents.
The use of a plurality of interconnected tubular sections,
flexible auger means and a plurality of longitudinally
spaced apertures is obvious in view of the cited Wallace et al
or Hansen patents. Therefore claim 6 is obvious in view of
the cited"Hostetler et al and Skelton patents and the know-
ledge exhibited by the cited Wallace et al or Hansen patents.
The applicant in his response to the Final Action dated Feb. 18, 1974
stated (in part):
This claim (claim 1) has been rejected as obvious over Hostetler
et al U.S. Patent 3,033,163 in view of the knowledge exhibited
by Skelton U.S. Patent 2,970,532. In Hostetler '163, as
shown in column 5, lines 16-22, a mercury switch 108 halts
operation of a motor 79 and the associated feed-conveying auger 78
when a maximum desired feed level is reached. A feed cutoff
switch 108' is also provided for the end tray 28a'. See
column 5, lines 60-61. Contrary to the Examiner's statement at
the bottom of Report page 1, the Hostetler '163 control means
associated with the feeding station does not cause energization
of the drive whenever the amount of feed in the station is
below a preselected level. In Skelton '532, a switch 31 opens
to halt system operation when a minimum feed level is reached.
See column 3, lines 59-64.
Nothing in either patent teaches the claimed "first control
means ... constituting a means for the energization of said
drive means whenever the amount of food in said station is below
a preselected level." Nothing teaches starting a feed conveyor
drive in response to a sensed maximum or minimum feed level,
as claimed in this application. Claim 1 is thus believed allowable.
Since claims 2-7 all depend, directly or indirectly, from
claim 1, they all further define the patentable subject matter
of claim 1. Hence, they are likewise believed allowable.
Of particular interest in this regard is claim 3, which has
been rejected over Hostetler '163 in view of the knowledge ex-
hibited by Skelton. '532 and Wallace 2,801,610. Wallace '610
discloses a time-clock unit adapted to complete a circuit and
effect operation of a motor 38 for driving an auger conveyor.
(Column 3, lines 27-30). The Examiner states that "one may
utilize a timer to control the total operation of the system..."
but that general proposition - whether correct or incorrect -
does not address the specific control system claimed here, which
calls for "a timer (claim 2) which ... will open to disable
and prevent further energization of said drive means" (claim 3).
The general knowledge exhibited by the cited patents does not
teach this specific structure.
Claim 5 calls for "a boot" carrying both "the discharge opening"
and "said normally open switch" used to halt feed flow when a
minimum feed level is obtained in the feed discharge bin ....
The Hostetler patent discloses a mechanical poultry feeder system in-
cluding feeding trays, whereby the quantity of feed distributed is
regulated as a function of the rate at which feed is consumed by the
poultry, with the poultry being free to consume as much feed as desired
since the feed is continuously supplied so long as it is being demanded
by the poultry. A control means is associated with the last feeding tray
on the line, and causes the energization of the drive means whenever
the amount of feed in said feeding tray is below a preselected level.
The Hansen reference discloses an auger type conveyor for delivering
material such as forage, and such material being distributed evenly from
the conveyor throughout the length thereof.
The Wallace reference discloses a conveyor system for feeding poultry.
A time-clock unit is shown intermediate a power source and the drive
means of the system. The time-clock is adapted to complete a circuit
and effect operation of a motor at suitable intervals, which intervals
may be adjusted at will.
The Skelton reference relates to apparatus for feed preparation, and
discloses a control means responsive to a selected amount of material in
the hopper or bin portion of the apparatus. The pressure of the contents of
the hopper causes bulging of one particular side wall, which then contacts
an actuator causing the switch controls to close when the hopper is full,
and to open when the hopper is empty.
As mentioned the application relates to feed dispensing apparatus, and
more particularly to automated poultry feeders for providing a predetermined
quantity of feed at a prescribed period or periods during the day. Claim 1
reads:
Feed dispensing apparatus for the restricted feeding of
poultry ar the like, said apparatus comprising: a hopper
designed to accommodate a quantity of feed and having a
discharge opening; conveyor apparatus, including drive
means, associated with said discharge opening for trans-
porting feed from said hopper to a plurality of feed
stations; and a control system for said feed dispensing
apparatus, said control system including first and second
control means, said first control means being associated
with at least one of said feed stations and constituting a
means for the energization of said drive means whenever
the amount of food in said station is below a preselected
level, said second control means being associated with said
hopper and operable upon the reduction of feed in said
hopper below a predetermined level to disable said drive
means, whereby only a prescribed amount of food may be dispensed.
The question which the Board must consider is whether the applicant has
made a patentable advance in the art over the references cited.
The applicant's main argument, especially emphasized at the Hearing, is
that "the combination as claimed is not taught from the general knowledge
exhibited by the cited patents." It is recognized, however, that in
a novel combination sufficient evidence or presumption of thought, design,
or skilful ingenuity must be present before it can be considered as an
invention.
We will now consider the rejected claims.
Clearly claim 1 is met by Hostetler with exception of the second control
means. Hostetler as noted discloses a mechanical poultry feeder system
whereby the quantity of food distributed is regulated as a function
of the rate at which feed is consumed by the poultry. A control means is
associated with the last feeding tray and causes the energization of
the drive means whenever the amount of feed in said tray falls below a
preselected level.
The second control means is associated with the hopper and operable
upon the reduction of feed in said hopper below a predetermined level to
disable the drive means. This is merely a pressure regulated cut-off
switch which was known and used in the prior art. Skelton's disclosure
on page 2, column 3, starting at line 54 reads: "Each switch is provided
with a contact actuator, the free end of which bears against a diaphragm
which is exposed to the pressure of the contents of the bin to be bulged
outwardly against the contact actuator and to close the switch contacts
as shown (when full). If the contents of the bin fall below the level
of the diaphragm the switch will open to stop the movement of the
apparatus, thereby precluding it from continuing to function."
The applicant argues that "nothing in either patent (Hostetler or Skelton)
teaches the claimed "first control means ... constituting a means for
the energization of said drive means whenever the amount of food in said
station is below a predetermined level." In discussing the prior art
at line 25, page 1, however, the applicant states: "When the poultry
have consumed enough feed to reduce the quantity at the control station
(feeding tray) below said predetermined level, the cut-off switch is
released and the feed conveyor again energized to raise the level of feed..."
We have also noted that Hostetler discloses a similar means to control the
amount of food in the feeding trays.
The applicant also maintained that "nothing teaches starting a feed con-
veyor drive in response to a sensed maximum or minimum feed level, as
claimed in this application." In discussing the prior art the applicant
covers this point. Page 1 of the disclosure, starting at line 14, reads:
The controlling of the distribution of feed to the pans or
trough is commonly done by means of a cut-off switch which
is located at a control feeding station in each series. The
cut-off switch is in circuit with the conveyor motor and is
actuated when a predetermined quantity of feed has accumulated
in the feed pan at the control feeding station. Actuation of
the cut-off switch interrupts the power circuit to the parti-
cular conveyor drive motor associated with said control
station, thus stopping the conveyor and the distribution of
feed to the stations associated therewith, to prevent the
pans or troughs from being filled to overflowing which results
in a needless waste of the feed. When the poultry have consu-
med enough feed to reduce the quantity at the control station
below said predetermined level, the cut-off switch is released
and the feed conveyor again energized to raise the level of
feed.
In considering the above discussion and the facts presented,
it is our view that claim 1 is not directed to a patentable
advance over the art cited and what is considered the knowledge
of workmen skilled in this art. Claim 2, which depends on
claim 1, specifies that the "control means are placed in circuit
with said conveyor drive means." This merely completes the
combination and what would be understood from claim 1.
Claim 3, which depends on claim 2, relates to a timer placed in the
circuit to control the drive means during selected time intervals.
This procedure is known in the art as evidenced by Wallace in his
poultry feeder, where the disclosure on page 2, column 3, starting
at line 24, reads:
The operation of the motor 38 may preferably be
controlled by a time-clock unit 39 of any conven-
tional construction. The main requirement of
such a time-clock unit 39 is that the same is
adapted to complete a circuit and effect operation
of the motor 38 at suitable intervals, which inter-
vals may be adjusted as will be subsequently
explained.
And line 8, column 4, reads:
In actual operation, it has been found that by suitable
setting of the timing unit 39 so as to effect an inter-
mittent or periodic operation of the agitator and
screw, the same may be calculated so as to provide
sufficient feed for all ages of poultry for example.
It has specifically been determined that in a suitable
apparatus of the nature herein discussed, poultry which
has attained the age of approximately 6 weeks, requires
that the screw be operated for a period of about 3
minutes each half hour. It will be obvious that cor-
respondingly long periods (or shorter periods) may be
provided for so as to deposit sufficient feed at each
one of the openings to care for a large number of
chickens or the like who are being fed by the unit. In
an actual apparatus constructed in accordance with the
disclosure herein, the period of time during. which
operation is effected may be increased gradually as the
chickens grow and since regular feeding is productive,
growth is more uniform and encouraged thereby.
In discussing claim 3 the applicant argued that a timer to control the total
operation "does not address the specific control system claimed here, which
call for 'a timer (claim 2) which ... will open to disable and prevent
further energization of said drive means' (claim 3)." Surely the Wallace
patent teaches substantially the same thing. Claim 3, in our view therefore,
is not directed to a patentable advance in the art.
Claim 4, which depends on claim 1, and claim 5, which depends on claim 4,
relate to features of the second control and a specific portion of the
hopper known as a "boot." The use of a similar control feature is shown
by Skelton on a portion of the hopper which is equivalent to a boot,
Hostetler uses a similar arrangement to a boot, but calls it a "feed
intake box." Hansen also uses a similar arrangement to a boot. Therefore
the addition of these features to claim 1 is not patentably significant.
The use of a plurality of interconnected tubular sections, flexible auger
means and a plurality of longitudinally spaced apertures (claim 6) are
shown by Wallace and Hansen. Therefore, the features of claim 6 are not
patentably distinctive over refused claim 1.
The argument in the affidavit, submitted by Mr. Robert A. Murto, that "none
of the cited patents, taken together or in combination, teach this claim
structure," is noted. It has been authoritatively stated, however, that
the art of combining two or more parts, whether they be new or old, or
partly new and partly old, so as to obtain a new result, or a known result
in a better, cheaper, or more expeditious manner, is valid subject matter
if there is sufficient evidence of presumption of thought, design, or
skillful ingenuity in the invention and novelty in the combination. Every
slight difference in the application of a well known thing should not and
does not constitute ground for a patent, for there would be no end to the
interference with trade and with the liberty of adopting any mechanical
contrivance if such were the case. (See Merco Nordstrom Valve Co. v
Comer (1942) Ex. C.R. 138 at 155).
The Board is mindful that when assessing an alleged invention the combina-
tion of a claim as a whole must be considered. Nonetheless, even if the
combination in the claims be novel, it, in our view, lacks the prerequisite
of inventive ingenuity. In other words no result has been achieved which
can be considered to have flowed from an inventive step.
The Board is satisfied that claims 1 to 6 are not directed to a patentable
advance in the art, and recommends that these claims be refused.
J.F. Hughes,
Assistant Chairman,
Patent Appeal Board.
I concur with the findings of the Patent Appeal Board and refuse to allow
claims 1 to 6. The applicant has six months within which to delete these
claims or appeal this decision under the provision of Section 44 of the
Patent Act.
Decision accordingly,
A.M. Laidlaw,
Commissioner of Patents
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this 28th day of
April,1975
Agent for Applicant
Messrs. Smart & Biggar,
Ottawa, Ontario.