Ex Parte Anderson

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 24, 2016

12427043 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/427,043 04/21/2009 78833 7590 05/26/2016 DUKEW, YEE YEE & ASSOCIATES P.C. P.O. BOX 802333 DALLAS, TX 75380 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Noel Wayne Anderson 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 18641-US 6194 EXAMINER ROTARU, OCTAVIAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3624 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/26/2016 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): ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com mgamez@yeeiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NOEL WAYNE ANDERSON Appeal2013-009783 1 Application 12/427 ,043 2 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. PETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-10 and 13-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Mar. 27, 2013) and Reply Brief("Reply Br.," filed July 31, 2013), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed June 5, 2013) and Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Oct. 26, 2012). 2 Appellant identifies Deere & Company as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2013-009783 Application 12/427,043 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant's claimed invention "relates generally to an irrigation control system and, more particularly, to a system and method for managing resource use in yards and gardens." Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method for managing resource use, the method compnsmg: identifying by one or more computers individual resource needs for each plant in a plurality of plants to form individual resource needs; identifying conditions in an environment in which the plurality of plants are located using a sensor system to form current conditions; calculating by the one or more computers a plurality of per plant prescriptions for the plurality of plants using the individual resource needs and the current conditions, wherein the plurality of per plant prescriptions for the plurality of plants are directed to individual plants in the plurality of plants, wherein each per plant prescription in the plurality of per plant prescriptions is specially formulated for a given individual plant in the plurality of plants; and dispensing a mobile utility vehicle to the each plant in the plurality of plants to automatically apply a resource to the each plant according to the each per plant prescription. 2 Appeal2013-009783 Application 12/427,043 REJECTION Claims 1-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kaprielian (US 2007 /0220808 Al, pub. Sept. 27, 2007) and Anderson (US 2007/0042803 Al, pub. Feb. 22, 2007). 3 ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) because none of the cited references discloses or suggests "calculating ... a plurality of per plant prescriptions for the plurality of plants[], wherein each per plant prescription in the plurality of per plant prescriptions is specially formulated for a given individual plant in the plurality of plants," as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 6-9. The Examiner relies on Kaprielian as disclosing the argued limitation. Final Act. 16 (citing Kaprielian i-fi-1107, 109, 111, 267, 268); see also Ans. 5-10 (citing Kaprielian, i1i189, 107, 109, 111, 123, 132, 134, 140- 142, 147, 149, 151, 162, 169, 171, 173, 184, 193, 195,205,214,216,234, 245, 267, and 268). Kaprielian describes a fertigation system for delivering water and nutrients to be delivered to a plant in a plant container. Kaprielian i1 39. Sensors measure: 1) an amount of water delivered to the plant; 2) a volume of excess water exiting the plant container; 3) a chemical content of the excess water; and 4) a total amount of water continuously available to the plant. Id. i188. A computer fertigation controller analyzes the sensor data 3 We treat the Examiner's identification of canceled claims 11 and 12 among the claims subject to rejection as inadvertent error. Final Act. 15. 3 Appeal2013-009783 Application 12/427,043 and determines a length of a next irrigation event. Id. if 107. Likewise, the computer fertigation controller analyzes the sensor data to determine the amount of nutrients to be used in the next irrigation event. Id. iii! 109-110. Desired levels of fertilizers and nutrients needed by the plants are injected into the distribution lines. Id. if 111. And drip emitters situated along the distribution or irrigation line (e.g., a pipe, hose, or conduit) deliver water and nutrients to the plants. Id. iii! 90, 113. For example, the drip emitter may be a small hole in the conduit through which liquid may slowly escape. Id. ir 113. The Examiner finds that Kaprielian at paragraph 111 describes the claimed "calculating ... a plurality of per plant prescriptions." Final Act. 16. However, we agree with Appellant that Kaprielian discloses calculating a single plant prescription based on sensor data, not a plurality of plant prescriptions. Appeal Br. 7-8. In response, the Examiner takes the position that the argued limitation does not distinguish over providing water and/or nutrients equally to a plurality of plants across a distribution line, because claim 1 does not recite that "each per plant prescription is different from one plant to another." See Ans. 5---6 (citing Kaprielian if 140). The difficulty with the Examiner's analysis is that calculating one plant prescription, as disclosed by Kaprielian, does not disclose or suggest calculating a plurality of per plant prescriptions, as recited by claim 1. The Examiner does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Kaprielian discloses or suggests calculating a plurality of per plant prescriptions. 4 Appeal2013-009783 Application 12/427,043 In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). Independent claims 13 and 15 and dependent claims 14 and 16--20 Independent claims 13 and 15 include language substantially similar to the language of claim 1 and stand rejected based on the same rationale applied in rejecting claim 1. Final Act. 27, 33-34. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 13 and 15 and dependent claims 14 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 5