Ex Parte Drake et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 20, 2017

12371692 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 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. 12/371,692 02/16/2009 Benjamin D. Drake 08350.0536-00000 8179 58982 7590 03/22/2017 CATERPILLAR/FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, L.L.P. 901 New York Avenue, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413 EXAMINER KISWANTO, NICHOLAS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3669 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2017 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): regional-desk @ finnegan. com us_docket_clerk@cat.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BENJAMIN D. DRAKE and PHILIP F. LANGE Appeal 2015-006079 Application 12/371,692 Technology Center 3600 Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Benjamin D. Drake and Philip F. Lange (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1, 4—10, 13—16, and 19-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as anticipated by Prabhu (US 6,314,727 Bl, iss. Nov. 13, 2001).1,2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 The rejection of claims 10, 13—15, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 2. 2 In the Non-Final Action, the statement of the rejection refers to § 102; however, as noted by Appellants and subsequently corrected in the Answer, the rejection is based on § 103. See Appeal Br. 10; Ans. 2. Appeal 2015-006079 Application 12/371,692 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A control system for a machine having a power source configured to provide power, a number of implements including a work implement, configured to provide operations, and a number of power transmitting paths configurable to selectively make power available to the implements to perform operations, the control system including: a control arrangement configured to: regulate the power source to provide a first level of available power; configure a first power transmitting path to make a percentage A1 of said first level of power available to provide a first operation; configure a second power transmitting path to make a percentage A2 of said first level of power available to provide a second operation, at least the second operation being a work operation; increase said first level of available power of said power source to a second level of available power; configure the first power transmitting path to make a percentage B1 of said second level of available power available to provide said first operation, and configure the second power transmitting path to make a percentage B2 of said second level of power available to provide said second operation, such that the ratio B2/B1 is greater than the ratio A2/A1; wherein upon increasing said first level of available power, power that is made available to actuate the work implement is increased, and power that is made available to at least one other implement is kept substantially at the same level. 2 Appeal 2015-006079 Application 12/371,692 DISCUSSION Claims 1, 4—9, and 21 The Examiner determines that Prabhu discloses or suggests all of the limitations of independent claim 1. See Non-Final Act. 3—6. In particular, the Examiner finds that in Prabhu when the first level of available power is increased, “the power that is made available to actuate the work implement is increased, and the power that is made available to at least one other implement is kept substantially at the same level.” Id. at 5 (citing Prabhu 5:6-8). Appellants contend that “Prabhu fails to disclose that ‘upon increasing said first level of available power,. . . power that is made available to at least one of the other implements is kept substantially at the same level,’” because in “Prabhu in situations where there are multiple fluid systems (transmission fluid system 106A, implement fluid system 106B, and steering fluid system 106C), the power supplied to each fluid system is increased.” Appeal Br. 13. Responding to this argument, the Examiner reasons that This interpretation is erroneous because the power supplied to the fluid systems 106(A-C) of Prabhu are regulated by pumps 108(A-C), which enables an increase in the overall level of power supplied by the engine while maintaining a set level of power to a particular fluid system due to the pumps. Ans. 3. However, as noted by Appellants (Reply Br. 2), in Prabhu an increase in power is created by a power boost and Prabhu states: In one embodiment, a power boost may be described as a boost that enables increased energy to be delivered to the pump(s) 108 resulting in increased fluid flow. The increased fluid flow will enable the fluid systems 106 to meet the desired power 3 Appeal 2015-006079 Application 12/371,692 requirements. In the preferred embodiment, the techniques available for providing a power boost include disconnecting, or disabling, one or more of the parasitic loads 112 from the engine 104, and/or delivering a power boost command to the engine 104 that will enable the engine to increase the continuous duty power rating. Prabhu 5:6—15. Thus, Prabhu describes a system wherein an increase in power (i.e., power boost) increases the power to all fluid systems. The Examiner does not explain why one skilled in the art would modify Prabhu’s system to increase power to one fluid system while maintaining the power to another fluid system substantially the same. Rather, the Examiner simply concludes that this could be done. See, e.g., Ans. 4; see also Non-Final Act. 5. Moreover, the Examiner misreads Prabhu’s discussion of operator control. Although, as noted by the Examiner (Ans. 5), Prabhu discloses a system wherein “the power may be controlled by an operator input. That is, the operator may be able to provide an input that will control the allocation of power among the fluid systems in order to meet the operator[’]s current needs” (Prabhu 7:6—10), but Prabhu does not disclose a system where the operator directly controls the fluid systems (i.e., the pumps). Rather, the operator input in Prabhu is accomplished by sending a signal to the electronic controller 126. See id. 2:28—29. Prabhu’s electronic controller controls the engine 104. Id. at 7:35—36. In response to operator control of the engine, Prabhu’s system generates a power boost that increases power to all of the fluid systems. See, e.g., id. at 7:39-40, 43—54. Thus, Examiner’s finding is in error. For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1, and claims 4—9 and 21, which depend therefrom. 4 Appeal 2015-006079 Application 12/371,692 Claims 10, 13—15, and 22 Independent claim 10 is similar to claim 1, but requires “upon increasing said first level of available power, power that is made available to provide the work operation of a work implement is increased, and power that is made available to provide the work operation of at least one other implement is decreased.” Appeal Br. 24 (emphasis added). The Examiner rejects claim 10 with claim 1 and only addresses this distinction between the limitations of claim 1 and 10 by stating that “control of the power ratio and whether an implement’s available power is kept substantially level or decreased is simply a matter of operator control and not novelty.” Non-Final Act. 6. However, as discussed supra, Prabhu’s operator control does not provide for control of individual fluid systems. Thus, Prabhu fails to disclose or suggest the limitation at issue. We do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 10, and claims 13—15 and 22, which depend therefrom. Claims 16, 19, 20, and 23 Independent claim 16 is similar to claim 1 as it requires “upon increasing said first level of available power, power that is made available to actuate the work implement is increased, and power that is made available to at least one other implement is kept substantially at the same level.” Appeal Br. 26. Prabhu does not disclose or suggest this limitation for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1. We do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 16, and claims 19, 20 and 23, which depend therefrom. 5 Appeal 2015-006079 Application 12/371,692 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4—10, 13—16, and 19—23 is REVERSED. REVERSED 6