Ex Parte Banks et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2017

13242356 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2017)

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