Ex Parte Banks et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 21, 201713242356 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. CXP-186 6972 EXAMINER SWINEHART, EDWIN L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3617 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 13/242,356 09/23/2011 22827 7590 09/22/2017 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. POST OFFICE BOX 1449 GREENVILLE, SC 29602-1449 David Banks 09/22/2017 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID BANKS, EMORY HODGES, and KENNETH A. KACZMARZ Appeal 2016-000890 Application 13/242,356 Technology Center 3600 Before JOHN C. KERINS, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE David Banks et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—15, 17—30, and 32—35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2016-000890 Application 13/242,356 THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to a propulsion control system for watercraft. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A propulsion control system for watercraft having a controllable engine, comprising: a throttle handle assembly movable among at least respective forward, neutral, and reverse positions thereof for controlling the RPM of an associated engine; a cam configured for rotation about an axis upon movement of said handle assembly, said cam including a central portion and at least one lobe extending from said central portion; a plurality of switches positioned proximate said cam for operation thereby upon contact by said at least one lobe, said plurality of switches configured to provide respective forward, neutral, and reverse signals when contacted by said at least one lobe; an actuator configured for rotation about an axis upon movement of said handle assembly; a sensor positioned proximate said actuator for operation thereby, said sensor configured to provide an output corresponding to the rotational angle of said actuator; and a manual override switch configured to inhibit said forward and reverse signals when said throttle handle assembly is moved from said neutral position thereof to allow increase in the RPM of an associated engine without engaging propulsion of an associated watercraft. 2 Appeal 2016-000890 Application 13/242,356 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects: (i) claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19-22, 25, 29, 30, 34, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harada (US 7,247,066 B2, issued July 24, 2007) in view of Barnes (US 3,919,510, issued Nov. 11, 1975); (ii) claims 8—10, 26—28, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harada in view of Barnes and Prince (US 4,090,598, issued May 23, 1978); (iii) claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harada in view of Barnes and Draxler (US 4,539,452, issued Sept. 3, 1985); (iv) claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harada in view of Barnes and Gai (US 8,128,443 B2, issued Mar. 6, 2012); and (v) claims 5, 6, 17, 18, 23, 24, 32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harada in view of Barnes and Burkenpas (US 4,739,236, issued Apr. 19, 1988). The Final Action includes an objection to the drawings under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a). Final Act. 2—3. Appellants’ Appeal Brief includes arguments as to why the objection is improper. Br. 7—8. The Examiner correctly notes in the Answer that the objection is not appealable, in that it is not within the jurisdiction of the Board. Ans. 3. Accordingly, we do not address the propriety of the objection. 3 Appeal 2016-000890 Application 13/242,356 ANALYSIS Rejection (i) Appellants argue these claims as a group, presenting no separate arguments for the patentability of any individual claims. Appeal Br. 2—14. We take claim 1 as representative of the group, and claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19-22, 25, 29, 30, 34, and 35 stand or fall with claim 1. The Examiner finds that Harada discloses a propulsion system for watercraft that meets all of the limitations set forth in claim 1, with the exception of the claimed manual override switch. Final Act. 3. The Examiner cites to Barnes as disclosing warm up switch 36 which provides a manual override that meets the limitations in claim 1 directed to the manual override switch. Id. at 3^4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Harada to include the manual override switch of Barnes, in order to facilitate warming up the engine controlled by Harada prior to propulsion engagement. Id. at 4. Appellants first argue that “it is not at all the intended functionality of the presently disclosed and claimed subject matter to use an override in the context contemplated by . . . Barnes.” Br. 12 (emphasis omitted). The argument is contradicted by the evidence. Appellants’ Specification states that an interlock circuit is provided to allow operation of the throttle of the watercraft in an override mode without engaging the transmission, the override mode being typically used for starting or warming up the engine without moving the watercraft. Spec., paras. 12, 61. The override in Barnes is described in terms of a warm-up switch actuated to permit throttle of the engine without shifting (transmission engagement) for purposes of engine starting and warm-up. Barnes, col. 5,11. 1—6. 4 Appeal 2016-000890 Application 13/242,356 Appellants next argue that, assertedly unlike the system in Harada, “the presently claimed subject matter has functionality independent of external control circuitry.” Br. 12 (emphasis omitted). As pointed out by the Examiner, Appellants points to nothing in claim 1 that calls for whatever independent functionality Appellants envision their system to have. Ans. 3. As such, the argument does not point to any difference between Harada and the limitations actually found in claim 1. Appellants’ next argument is to the effect that Harada does not include an override as set forth in claim 1. Br. 12. Appellants maintain that the forward and reverse outputs are on in Harada when in the forward and reverse positions, whereas the claimed override allows movement into the forward and reverse positons without turning on the forward and reverse outputs. Id. The argument is not commensurate with the rejection, which modifies Harada, in view of Barnes, to have an override that performs that very function. Appellants further maintain that claim 1 implicitly requires that the control system be in neutral before employing the override, whereas, allegedly in Barnes, override or warm-up mode can be activated even when not in neutral. Br. 13. Not only does claim 1 not explicitly nor implicitly include such a limitation, Barnes appears to contemplate activating the warm-up mode from a neutral position. Barnes, col. 5,11. 28—36 (latch means provides an interlock which holds the switch mechanism in the warm up position as throttle lever is moved from neutral to accelerating position). Appellants finally argue that certain features of the Barnes circuitry are different from Appellants’circuit approach. Br. 13—14. The arguments do not apprise us of error in the rejection, which does not rely on the features 5 Appeal 2016-000890 Application 13/242,356 of the circuit in Barnes discussed in those arguments. Further, the discussion that the Barnes design assertedly fails to “absolutely ensure that multiple active outputs do not occur” (Br. 14 (emphasis omitted)), not only does not relate to any limitations found in claim 1, but also, the Examiner points out that all of Barnes, Harada, and Appellants’ invention have forward and reverse signals selected by a movable lever, and thus, it is not possible to select forward and reverse at the same time. Ans. 4—5. In view of the foregoing, we are not apprised of error in the rejection of claim 1 over Harada and Barnes. The rejection of claim 1 is sustained. Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19—22, 25, 29, 30, 34, and 35 fall with claim 1. Rejections (ii)—(v) Appellants present no arguments specific to these grounds of rejection. We, therefore, assume that the arguments directed to the rejection of claim 1 are intended to apply to these rejections as well. For the reasons discussed above, we are not apprised of error in the rejections, and rejections (ii)—(v) are, therefore, sustained. DECISION The rejections of claims 1—15, 17—30, and 32—35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed. 6 Appeal 2016-000890 Application 13/242,356 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation