COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
Section 36 - Adjustable Fairlead Roller System
The system relates to a log skidder which uses a winch cable to drag logs,
and particularly to the adjustability of the fairlead roller or guide on
a logging arch. An amendment suggested by the Board was accepted by
the Applicant.
Final Action: Affirmed - Amendment accepted.
**********************
Patent application 222,731 (Class 254-107), was filed on March 21, 1975,
for an invention entitled "Adjustable Fairlead Roller System.". The invent-
or is Eugen J. Bexten, assignor to International Harvester Company of
Canada, Limited. The Examiner in charge of tae application took a Final
Action on October 17, 1978, refusing to allow it to proceed to patent.
In reviewing the rejection, the Patent Appeal Board held a Hearing on
April 16, 1980, at which the Applicant was represented by Mr. J. Singlehurst.
The invention relates to a log skidder which uses a winch cable to drag logs.
More particularly, it concerns the adjustability of the fairlead roller
on a logging arch. The fairlead roller is a device which acts as a guide
for the winch cable.
In the Final Action the Examiner refused the claims because, in his view,
they are indefinite and therefore fail to comply with Section 36 of the
Patent Act.
In response to the Final Action the Applicant argued that the refused claims were
not open to the objection made by the Examiner. As a result of this he asked
for a Review and a Hearing before the Patent Appeal Board.
The consideration before the Board is whether or not the claims satisfy
the requirements of Section 36(2) of the Patent Act.
At the Hearing, Mr. Singlehurst argued that, in his view, the claims satisfy
Section 36(2) of the Patent Act. He did, however, go on to say that he was
willing to amend the claims to more clearly define the invention if a suitable
amendment could be decided on without unduly restricting the invention de-
fined.
Following the Hearing an amendment to the claims was suggested by the Board
to Mr. Singlehurst. The amendment basically consists of adding to the
independent claims, the following: "... the spacing between said pivot aperture
and said at least one other aperture in each set of apertures in the logging
arch being equal to the spacing of the corresponding apertures in the fairlead
roller assembly...." Other minor amendments were made to coincide with the
wording of the above amendment.
The proposed amendments to the claims were taken into consideration by
Mr. Singlehurst and, after due deliberation, he advised the Board that the
amendments, with minor changes, would be acceptable.
Accordingly, on June 16, 1980, Mr. Singlehurst filed a voluntary amendment
cancelling all of the claims and replacing them with amended claims 1 to 13.
The amendments made to these claims removed any doubt of whether or not these
claims comply with Section 36(2) of the Patent Act.
Amended claim 1 reads (the added portions are underlined):
An adjustable fairlead roller system for a log skidder having a
frame and a power source mounted on the frame, said system
comprising:
- a logging arch having a pair of substantially vertical
walls rigidly attached to said frame and having at least one
set of apertures in said substantially vertical walls, each
set of apertures being in predetermined array including a
pivot aperture and at least one other aperture spaced from
said pivot aperture;
- a fairlead roller assembly having a pair of substantially
vertical walls and having at least one set of apertures in said
substantially vertical walls, each set of apertures being in a
predetermined array including a pivot aperture and at least one
other aperture spaced from said pivot aperture;
- the spacing between said pivot aperture and said at least
one other aperture in each set of apertures in the logging arch
being equal to the spacing of the corresponding apertures in the
fairlead roller assembly;
- attaching means for connecting said fairlead roller assembly
to said logging arch through aligned selected ones of said
respective pivot apertures and of said respective other apertures
in said fairlead roller assembly and said logging arch;
- one of said logging arch and fairlead roller assembly having
a plurality of said respective set of apertures, the spatial
relationship between adjacent sets of apertures of said plural-
ity of sets and the spatial relationship between each pivot
aperture and an associated at least one other aperture of
each set of said plurality of sets of apertures being such
that pivotal and walking substantially vertical position
adjustment of the fairlead roller assembly relative to said
logging arch is provided;
- the walking substantially vertical position adjustment being
effected upon selected aligned said other apertures of said
fairlead roller assembly and said logging arch being used
as secondary pivots in the vertical position adjustment from
the pivot aperture of one set of apertures to the pivot aperture
of an adjacent set of apertures in said plurality of sets of
apertures;
- adjusting means connecting the power source and said fairlead
roller assembly for providing power to selectively pivot said
fairlead roller assembly about attaching means in selected
aligned apertures to pivotally walk and adjust the vertical
position of said fairlead roller assembly relative to said log-
ging arch.
The amendments made to the new claims, as mentioned, clearly overcome the
objections raised in the Final Action. No further discussion is therefore
necessary.
We recommend to the Commissioner of Patents that the amended claims, referred
to above, be accepted.
J.F. Hughes
Assistant Chairman
Patent Appeal Board, Canada
I concur with the reasoning and findings of the Patent Appeal Board. The amend-
ed claims are acceptable. The application is now remanded to the Examiner to
resume prosecution in accordance with this decision.
J. A. Brown
Acting Commissioner of Patents Agent for Applicant
Meredith & Finlayson
77 Metcalfe St.
Ottawa, Ont.
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this 24th. day of July, 1980