Ex Parte Birnie

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 12, 2017

11363839 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 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.
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