COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
OBVIOUSNESS: Grain Harvester Equipment
Positioning an additional duct area at the rear of the collector screen to catch
grain which passes over the screen is not novel.
Final Action: Affirmed
**********
This decision deals with a request for review by the Commissioner of
Patents of the Examiner's Final Action dated March 3, 1976, on
application 159,838 (Class 130-19). The application was filed on December
22, 1972, in the name of David J. Farrant, and is entitled "Grain
Harvester Equipment."
This application relates to a grain collecting attachment for a grain har-
vester. The unit is attached to and rearwardly of the downstream duct.
Figures 2 and 3 of the application are shown below to illustrate that device.
(See formula II)
(See formula III)
In the Final Action the examiner rejected the claims for lacking patentable
subject matter over the following reference;
Canadian Patent
597,142 May 3, 1960 Angus
This patent is for a grain saving collecting attachment for combines. It attaches to
the rear of the shaker frame and has an air duct therein. Figure 3 is
illustrative of the patented device
(See formula 1)
In the Final Action the examiner stated (in part):
The examiner in studying applicant's device is unable
to ascertain in the claims any inventive improvement
in this device. The state of the art has not been
advanced. In effect all applicant has done is to
remove the screen 38 and blower 80-84 of Angus, with
the corresponding loss of their function, namely
rejection of chaff. Applicant of course does not
consider a small amount of chaff any great problem
since he returns his saved product for rethreashing.
But this is not seen to involve invention. It is mere
matter of choice.
As regard the adjustability of applicant's components
these are held to be mere matters of choice, well
within the skills of an ordinary workman in this field.
All claims thus stand rejected.
As regards the provision of a blower for producing
an upward draft of air through the main grain duct
below the shaker 18 of Angus it is held that this is
conventional in combines. It is such air flow that
blows the chaff and straw away from the heavier falling
grain. Attention is directed to Canadian Patent
536,636 to Busack on February 5, 1957, note fan at
40,41 for creating an upward air flow. It is this sort
of air flow that is present in Angus even though it is
not discussed by him. Angus does note his blower 44-46
is "auxiliary", page 3, line 1.
It is again stressed that Angus provides his blower
44-46 and pipe 76 with holes 78-82 therein to
separate grain and chaff. But the grain is saved.
Applicant on the other hand is not concerned with an
additional cleaning step and returns not only the saved
grain, but any chaff that is present. Thus applicant's
device is simpler, to be sure, but doesn't perform the
additional cleaning step. Simplification with cor-
responding loss of function is clearly not inventive.
In his response to the Final Action the applicant contended that this
action was improper as it was not on the same ground as any previous action
and submitted arguments with respect to the primary reference which stated
(in part):
Both Angus and the present invention are concerned
with grain saving attachments for harvesters. In both
attachments the objective is to retrieve grain that would
otherwise be lost at the rear edge of the implements
used for separating grain from chaff. At this point
the similarities end.
The Angus apparatus is an attachment to a combine in
which a shaker is used to separate the grain from the
chaff. In Angus, the attachment employs an auxiliary
chaffer 38 attached to the rear of the shaker 18 for
movement with the shaker, a blower and duct arrangement
44, 72, 74 and 76 for blowing air upwardly through the
auxiliary chaffer to separate chaff and straw from
grain, and a grain tray 30 below the auxiliary chaffer
and blower for collecting grain falling through the
chaffer and feeding it through an opening 42 in the
rear of the outlet duct 20. (It will be noted that
the element 30 is a tray and not a duct since it has
only bottom and partial side walls. The top and front
of the tray 30 are open, the top to receive the large
chaffer 38 and the front to permit movement of the
chaffer 38 and tray 30 with respect to the blower
tube 76 and outlet duct 20.)
Applicant's apparatus is an attachment for a harvester
in which a collector screen is used in combination
with an upward draught of air through the outlet duct
and through the screen for separating grain from chaff.
Applicant's attachment consists of a sheet metal return
duct positioned at the rear of the collector screen.
The duct has an unobstructed mouth positioned to collect
grain which passes over the rear edge of the screen.
The duct leads into the outlet duct beneath the
collector screen through a restricted opening. In
applicant's apparatus, no chaffer and no blower are
necessary since the air current passing upwardly through
the screen flows past the mouth of the return duct to
carry the chaff away. Because this flow of air passes
through the outlet duct, the restricted opening
between the return duct and the outlet duct is inclu-
ded to avoid an undesired flow of air upwardly through
the return duct. (No such flow occurs in Angus since
he does not employ a flow of air through the outlet
duct. )
The issue to be considered is whether or not the claims are directed
to a patentable advance in the art. Claim 1 reads as follows:
Grain harvesting equipment comprising a collector screen
for separating grain from chaff, an outlet duct for the
grain passing through the screen, a return duct having
an unobstructed mouth positioned to collect grain which
passes over the screen and leading into the outlet duct,
a blower for providing an upward current of air through
the outlet duct and the screen and past the mouth of the return
duct, and a restricted opening between the return duct and
the outlet duct for controlling draught of air from the
blower through the return duct, and through which gram
collected by the return duct can pass into the outlet duct.
We do not agree with the applicant's submission that the Final Action
was improper. The examiner's action dated September 30, 1975 cited the
Angus patent and stated "the examiner in studying the applicants
device is unable to ascertain any inventive improvement in this device.
The state of the art has not been advanced." In the Final Action the
Angus reference was applied and the examiner stated that "in studying the
applicants device the examiner is unable to ascertain in the claims any
inventive improvement in this device." Also in enlarging on the blower
art, in this field the examiner directed the applicants attention to the
Busack patent of Feb. 5, 1957. This patent is added merely to substantiate
what is common knowledge in the art and was not applied to any of the
rejected claims.
Another objection made by the applicant is to the examiners requirement for
clarification of statements identifying the ducts. As there are other areas
of the disclosure unclear we will comment on this later. We fail to find
any valid basis on either ground for objecting to the Final Action report.
Turning to the specification we observe that the disclosure is not clear and
the drawings also lack many basic essential details necessary for a full
understanding of the alleged invention. For example, in the second paragraph
of page 2 the applicant outlines a series of elements as his invention whereas
these elements and their arrangement with respect of one another is well known
in the grain harvester art,as shown in the Angus citation used by the
examiner. Throughout the disclosure the applicant makes confounding
reference to upstream duct, downstread duct and return duct. In order to
comprehend this arrangement there should be a cross sectional view in the
drawings to clearly show the position of these ducts. As currently on file
figures 2 and 3 are extremely obscure with respect to detail and the size
proportion of the various elements.
Therefore, we can readily understand why the examiner required an amendment
in the Final Action report with regard to duct air flow. In his response the
applicant states that the "examiner has not understood this important aspect
of the applicants claimed apparatus." With the disclosure in its present
form coupled with the inadequate drawings we also have difficulty to understand
the important aspects of the applicants alleged invention.
One of the arguments advanced by the applicant is that this attachment consists
of a sheet metal return duct positioned at the rear of the collector screen
wherein there is an unobstructed mouth to collect the grain which passes over
the rear edge of the screen. Looking at the Angus citation it also has an
additional duct positioned at the rear of the screen as well as an unobstructed
mouth since the duct is retained by the straps 40. We, therefore, find no
novelty in the patent sense in this portion of the applicants arrangement.
Another feature argued by the applicant is that in his device air flow passes
through the outlet duct and the restricted opening between the return duct
and outlet duct to avoid an undesirable flow of air upwardly through the
return duct. Further the applicant states that "no such flow occurs in Angus
since he does not employ a flow of air through the outlet duct." Angus does
have an air flow in his screen area 18 of which some would flow through opening
42 to the added duct. The air supply pipe 72 provides constant air flow
through the openings 78 which is within the confines of the added duct.
Consequently we cannot agree with the applicant that no flow occurs in the
Angus device.
The applicant maintains that an ingenious feature of his invention is that
he has an unobstructed duct for collecting grain and he does not require a
separate outlet duct because he feeds grain from the return duct into the
outlet duct through a small slot. In Angus the opening duct between the
straps 40 also can be construed as an unobstructed duct and the slot 42 feeds
grain into the outlet duct as does the applicant. There is not in our view
any ingenuity in these features.
Considering claim 1 we find it calls for a collector screen, an outlet duct,
a return duct and a restricted opening between the return duct and the outlet
duct. As we have pointed out earlier with respect to page 2, paragraph 2 of
the disclosure, these elements and their respective position relative to one
another are known in grain harvesting equipment. Certainly the additional
duct of Angus corresponds to the applicants "return" duct and the other ducts
are also part of this citation. It is our view that claim 1 is not directed
to a patentable advance in the art and should be refused.
Claims 2 to 6 depend on claim 1 and they add features of adjustable opening,
multiple ducts, and removing the return duct. These added features do not
make these claims patentable over refused claim 1.
Independent claim 7 specifies an outlet duct, a fixture fitted to the collector
screen and a plate which is adjustable to control air flow. The basic compo-
nents of this claim are also found in the Angus citation. Granted the
adjustable air flow control in Angus utilizes a rotational movement as compared
to the applicants movable panel opening 20, but this is not patentably
significant. Therefore, claim 7, and claim 8 which depends on it, are refused.
In the Final Action the examiner indicated that he would allow a claim or
claims which "sets forth the member 21 in its two positions 21, 21' above the
upper end extremity of the assembly adjustably mounted by way of arcuate slots."
We agree with the examiner that this added feature would clear the cited art.
We are satisfied that the claims are not directed to any patentable
improvement over the prior art and recommend that the Final Action rejecting
the claims be affirmed.
J.F. Hughes
Acting Chairman
Patent Appeal Board,Canada
I have studied the prosecution of this application and reviewed the recom-
mendations of the Patent Appeal Board. In the circumstances I have decided
to refuse claims 1 to 8. I will however, accept claims when amended as
indicated by the Board. The applicant has six (6) months within which to
delete claims 1 to 8, submit the suggested amended claims, or appeal this
decision under the provisions of Section 44 of the Patent Act.
J.H.A. Gari‚py
Commissioner of Patents
Agent for Applicant
Fetherstonhaugh & Co.
70 Gloucester Street
Ottawa 4, Canada
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this 3rd. day of May, 1977