Ex Parte Ballew et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 20, 2016

11801017 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111801,017 0510712007
112877 7590 04/22/2016
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Trimble Navigation Limited
Two Embarcadero Center
Eighth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3834
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul Ballew
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.
89730-032300US-0305848 1677
EXAMINER
AMSDELL, DANA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/22/2016 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
j lhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL BALLEW, DANIEL JOHN WALLACE, and
PAUL WALTON
Appeal2013-010749 1
Application 11/801,0172
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL W. KIM, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
May 28, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed September 16, 2013), and
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed August 16, 2013) and Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed January 31, 2013).
2 Appellants identify Trimble Navigation Limited as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2013-010749
Application 11/801,017
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to methods and systems for
asset management (Abstract).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim and
representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for integrating asset management
information, said method comprising:
receiving information from a first reporting source about
an asset, wherein said first reporting source comprises an
electronic device coupled with said asset, and wherein said
information from said first reporting source is received by an
asset management system;
receiving information from a second reporting source
about said asset, and wherein said second reporting source
comprises a second electronic device different from said first
reporting source, and wherein said information from said second
reporting source is received by said asset management system;
receiving inspection information from a first enabled
device about said asset, wherein said inspection information
comprises information input during the course of a human
inspection of said asset, wherein said first enabled device is a
handheld device and is different from said first reporting source
and said second reporting source, and wherein said inspection
information from said first enabled device is received
electronically by said asset management system; and
populating a database with said information from said first
reporting source, said information from said second reporting
source, and said inspection information from said first enabled
device, such that said information from said first reporting
source, said information from said second reporting source, and
said inspection information from said first enabled device can be
collected in an integrated manner from said database for use by
a client information system.
2
Appeal2013-010749
Application 11/801,017
REJECTION3
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Schick (US 2002/0059075 Al, pub. May 16, 2002) and Brinton
(US 2006/0081697 Al, pub. Apr. 20, 2006).
ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because neither Schick
nor Brinton, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests "receiving
information from a first reporting source about an asset, wherein said first
reporting source comprises an electronic device coupled with said asset" and
"receiving information from a second reporting source about said asset, and
wherein said second reporting source comprises a second electronic device
different from said first reporting source," as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 5-
9). Instead, we agree with, and adopt, the Examiner's response to
Appellants' argument as set forth at pages 3---6 of the Answer. We add the
following discussion for emphasis only.
Schick is directed to a method and system for managing a land-based
vehicle (Schick, Abstract), and discloses that the system includes a database
for storing predetermined data indicative of actual use of the vehicle, and
onboard sensors for monitoring at least one parameter relating to the use of
3 The Final Office Action does not include a rejection of claims 1-18 on the
ground of obviousness-type double patenting. See Ans. 6-7 ("For purposes
of appeal, examiner relies on the prior art rejection as submitted 1/31/2013.
Examiner acknowledges provisional double-patenting rejection in Office
action dated 8/14/2012, made to bring to light provisional issues of double
patenting within the extended family of related applications attached to this
application.").
3
Appeal2013-010749
Application 11/801,017
the vehicle (see, e.g., id. if 16). Schick discloses an exemplary embodiment,
with reference to Figure 1, in which the system is used for managing a fleet
of remote assets, e.g., a fleet of locomotives 12 or a fleet of trucks and/or
tractor trailers 26 (id. if 32). Schick describes that the vehicles may be
equipped with a plurality of sensors for monitoring a plurality of operating
parameters representative of the condition of the vehicle and the efficiency
of its operation (id.). Data regarding the operating parameters may be
transferred periodically or in real time to a data collection center (data
base 18 in Fig. 1) by a data link (20 in Fig. 1 ), such as a satellite system, cell
phone, optical or infrared system, hard-wired phone line, etc. (id.).
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner finds that
Schick's sensors are reporting sources, as called for in claim 1, i.e., the
sensors represent different devices coupled to an asset, report asset
information, and transmit the information to an asset management system
(Final Act. 3-5 (citing Schick iii! 16-18, 32, Fig. 7 (steps 204--208)).
Appellants argue that the Examiner's reliance on Schick's sensors as
"reporting sources" is misplaced because (1) the sensors "merely monitor
data and do not transfer or transmit it in the manner of a data link;" and
(2) Schick discloses only a single data link 20 per remote asset which is used
to transfer data from the various sensors (App. Br. 7). Yet Schick, by
Appellants' own admission, discloses that data from the various sensors are
transmitted to the data center. That the data may be transferred via a single
data link is irrelevant. Although claim 1 requires a first reporting source and
a second reporting source different from the first reporting source, there is
nothing in claim 1 that requires multiple data transmission modes
(see Ans. 5).
4
Appeal2013-010749
Application 11/801,017
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 2-18, which are not argued separately.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5