Ex Parte BirnieDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 12, 201711363839 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 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. 11/363,839 02/27/2006 Denis Allan Birnie TRMB-1644 8288 112877 7590 05/16/2017 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Trimble Navigation Limited Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 EXAMINER KONG, SZE-HON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3661 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/16/2017 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 KT S Docketing2 @ kilpatrick. foundationip .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DENIS ALLAN BIRNIE Appeal 2015-005930 Application 11/363,839 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and SCOTT A. DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judges. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1—6, 8—12, and 14—19 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gray (US 6,907,336 B2, iss. June 14, 2005), Marsden (US 4,736,811, iss. Apr. 12, 1988), Durkos (US 2007/0198159 Al, pub. Aug. 23, 2007), and Hara (US 7,007,769 B2, Mar. 7, 2006).1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant’s Application was previously before the Board in Appeal No. 2011-012168. See Ex parte Birnie, 2013 WL 5937945 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2013). Appeal 2015-005930 Application 11/363,839 THE INVENTION Appellant’s invention relates to automated steering and navigation for agricultural vehicles. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for planning a path for an agricultural vehicle, said method comprising: accessing an output of a steering controller coupled with said agricultural vehicle; determining a single type of steering component that is coupled with said agricultural vehicle, based on said output from said steering controller; accessing a recorded path plan, said recorded path plan comprising navigation information recorded during a previous path passage of said agricultural vehicle through a work area using a navigation device; determining a first point of a first planned path accessed from said recorded path plan; determining a second point of a second planned path accessed from said recorded path plan; automatically generating a revised path plan connecting said first point and said second point, said revised path plan generated from said recorded path plan; and generating a steering command which is formatted for controlling the detected steering component to cause said agricultural vehicle to follow said revised path plan. OPINION Appellant argues claims 1—6, 8—12, and 14—19 as a group. Appeal Br. 6—8. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we select claim 1 as representative. The Examiner finds that the combination of Gray, Marsden. Durkos, and Hara discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Final Action 4—6. The 2 Appeal 2015-005930 Application 11/363,839 Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Gray to generate steering commands as taught by Marsden. Id. at 6. The Examiner relies on Durkos as teaching the recording of navigational paths. Id. The Examiner relies on Hara as disclosing steering to accurately repeat and revise reference paths. Id. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of the references to operate a dual steering system, to generate proper steering commands, to repeat reference paths in a work area, and to adjust and correct for steering deviations. Id. Appellant traverses the Examiner’s rejection by arguing that that the claimed invention is intended to be a “standalone” system that can be added to assist in the functionality of a vehicle. Appeal Br. 6. In that regard, Appellant states that determining the type of steering component that a vehicle uses is an “important step” in controlling the vehicle. Id. In response, the Examiner points out that the feature of the intended system being a “standalone” system is not captured in the claims. Ans. 2. In reply, Appellant reiterates that the claimed invention is intended to be a standalone system that determines the type of vehicle steering so that steering commands suited for that particular type of steering can be generated. Reply Br. 2. Appellant argues that the cited references fail to teach or suggest such a system. There is no limitation that we can discern from claim 1 that limits the claimed invention to being a “standalone” system. By this, we understand that a “standalone” system is a steering control system that is retrofit onto existing agricultural vehicles that do not come equipped with a factory installed automated steering control system from the manufacturer. 3 Appeal 2015-005930 Application 11/363,839 Appellant’s “standalone” system argument does not apprise us of Examiner error as the argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Appellant next argues that Marsden fails to “determine” which type of steering component (i.e., hydraulic or electrical) is coupled with the vehicle because in Marsden “both types of systems are already coupled.” Appeal Br. 7. In response, the Examiner reasons that it is obvious that one type or another of Marsden’s steering components is coupled to the vehicle, otherwise, the vehicle would not have any steering function. Ans. 3. The Examiner directs our attention to column 4, lines 1—41 of Marsden as evidentiary support for the Examiner’s position. Id. In reply, Appellant argues that Marsden merely discusses that it can provide electrical steering as a primary steering means and hydraulic steering as a back-up steering means. Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues that “nothing in Marsden discusses detection of which steering component is being used to actuate the steering mechanism of Marsden, only that both can and that the primary actuation is electrical and the backup is hydraulic.” Id, bolding omitted. Appellant argues that Marsden’s system is not the same as “automatically detecting which steering component is used to actuate the steering mechanism of an agricultural vehicle.” Reply Br. 3, italics added. Appellant’s Specification teaches that steering component 230 may comprise an electric steering component 231, or a hydraulic steering component 232. Spec. 20. In embodiments of the present invention, steering component 230 may comprise an electric steering component 231, or a hydraulic steering component 232. Thus, as shown in Figure 2A, steering controller 220 comprises a first output 221 for coupling [the] steering controller 220 with [an] electric steering component 231, and a second output 222 for coupling steering 4 Appeal 2015-005930 Application 11/363,839 controller 220 with hydraulic steering component 232. Because coupling 115 may be compliant with the CAN protocol, plug and play functionality is facilitated in system 200. Therefore, in embodiments of the present invention, steering controller can determine which steering component it is coupled with depending upon which output of steering controller 220 is used. Id. 20-21 (emphasis added). Thus, during installation of Appellant’s system on an agricultural vehicle, it is incumbent on installation personnel to know the type of steering system installed on the vehicle and then connect (couple) the steering component to the correct output of Appellant’s steering controller. In other words, if the vehicle has electrical steering, the installer must connect the electrical steering component to the electrical steering output of the steering controller. Similarly, if the vehicle has hydraulic steering, the installer must connect the hydraulic steering component to the hydraulic steering output of the steering controller. Appellant’s Specification explains that embodiments may provide “plug and play” functionality. Id. at 21. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the Specification would understand that such “plug and play” functionality is entirely dependent on connection of the proper steering controller output(s) to the appropriate steering component, during installation. Appellant’s Specification further explains that: Steering controller 220 then generates a message, based upon the steering component with which it is coupled, which causes the steering component to actuate the steering mechanism of mobile machine 105. For example, if steering controller 220 determines that output 221 is being used, it generates a steering command which is formatted for controlling electric steering component 231. If steering controller 220 determines that output 222 is being used, it generates a steering command 5 Appeal 2015-005930 Application 11/363,839 which is formatted for controlling hydraulic steering component 232. Id. at 21. Once again, however, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that proper generation of control signals (i.e., electrical signals to electrical steering component and hydraulic signals to hydraulic steering component) is predicated, in the first instance, on correct installation of the controller outputs to the corresponding steering component, a step that is performed manually. Marsden is directed to a dual steering control system that uses electronics as the primary control and hydraulics as a backup control. Marsden, col. 1,11. 6—10, Marsden observes that manual steering systems are not suitable for backup systems on large earthmoving, construction or industrial vehicles due to massive size and/or steering geometry. Id. col. 1, 11. 38-45. Due to perceived reluctance by customers to purchase a vehicle in which steering is solely dependent on electronics, Marsden provides an electronic steering system with a backup hydraulic steering system. Id. col. 1,1. 45 — col. 2,1. 20. To accomplish its objective, Marsden provides a means for disabling its hydraulic circuit when the electrical controlled steering circuit is active. Id. col. 2,11. 7—9. The steering control system of the present invention has an electrically controlled circuit as the primary control of a main steering control valve and a hydraulic circuit as a backup control of the same main steering control valve. The hydraulic circuit is disabled when the electronically controlled circuit is active. However, the hydraulic circuit is disabled in a manner that the hydraulic signal generating means remains operational even when the electrically controlled circuit is active so that the hydraulic circuit is always available on demand when needed. 6 Appeal 2015-005930 Application 11/363,839 Id. col. 2,11. 10-20. In operation, the vehicle driver activates the electrically controlled circuit by manually closing a switch that connects a control box to a battery. Id. col. 4,11. 10-13. This energizes a shunt valve so as to effectively disable the hydraulic circuit. Id. col. 4,11. 13—18. Should it become necessary for the driver to use hydraulic steering, the driver manually opens an electrical switch to interrupt electrical power to the control box. Id. col. 5,11. 1—16. Moving the switch 53 to the open position to deactivate the electrically controlled circuit 28 causes the shunt valve 58 to move to the blocking position and the valves 70, 71 to move to the open position. The hydraulic circuit 32 then becomes active for controlling the steering valve 1. Id. col. 5,11. 32-37. The foregoing disclosure in Marsden is sufficient to satisfy the following limitation in claim 1. determining a single type of steering component that is coupled with said agricultural vehicle, based on said output from said steering controller. Claim 1, Claims App. Appellant argues that “with Marsden, there is no determining which type of component is coupled with the vehicle, since both types of systems are already coupled.” Appeal Br. 7. However, as shown above, in Marsden, the selection of either the electrical steering system or hydraulic steering system is made by the vehicle operator (driver) by means of operating switch 53. We discern no patentable distinction between manual operation of switch 53 in Marsden and Appellant’s manual method of connecting either the electrical or hydraulic output of the steering controller to the corresponding electrical or hydraulic steering component of the vehicle. 7 Appeal 2015-005930 Application 11/363,839 Appellant argues that the invention has a “claimed feature” of “automatically detecting which steering component is used”. Reply Br. 3. However, no such feature, recited as such, appears in claim 1. See Claims App., claim 1 (the term “automatic” does not appear in the claim). Claim 1 has a limitation that involves “a single type of steering component.” The claim later recites “the detected steering component,” for which “a single type of steering component” serves as antecedent basis. Id. However, because Appellant’s invention is predicated, in the first instance, on the correct manual installation of a steering controller output to a corresponding steering component, we do not construe “detection” for the “detected” steering component in a manner that precludes operation of Marsden’s switch 53 by a human operator. Once switch 53 has been positioned as desired by Marsden’s operator, Marsden’s system automatically routes hydraulic steering signals to the hydraulic steering component, or alternatively, electrical steering signals to the electrical steering component. Thus, we discern no patentable distinction between Marsden and Appellant’s invention with respect to “determining a single type of steering component that is coupled with said agricultural vehicle, based on said output from said steering controller.” Claims App. claim 1. Next, Appellant argues that Marsden fails to teach generating a steering command. Appeal Br. 7. In response, the Examiner observes that if Marsden did not generate a steering command that is properly formatted for the selected steering component, the vehicle would not able to steer. Ans. 4. The Examiner states the correct position. Marsden contains a detailed disclosure from column 2, line 30, through column 5, line 37, that explains the configuration and operation of the system, including both electrical 8 Appeal 2015-005930 Application 11/363,839 steering, hydraulic steering, and a means to select between the two steering systems. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Marsden’s steering commands for the electrical steering system are formatted for the electrical steering system and that the steering commands for the hydraulic steering system are formatted for the hydraulic steering system. In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine the Examiner's findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that the Examiner's legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-founded. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of claims 1—6, 8—12, and 14—19. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—6, 8—12, and 14—19 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 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation