Ex Parte Fansler et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 15, 201813538742 (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/538,742 06/29/2012 113085 7590 Hollingsworth Davis, LLC 8000 West 78th Street Suite 450 Minneapolis, MN 55439 05/17/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Thomas S. Fansler 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. PPN.007.Ul 1966 EXAMINER CHAMPAGNE, LUNA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3627 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/1712018 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): tdotter@hdpatlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte THOMAS S. FANSLER and RONALD EDWARD KONEZNY Appeal2017-003129 Application 13/538,742 Technology Center 3600 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-21 and 23-35, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). Claim 22 was cancelled. We reverse. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Trimble Navigation, Ltd. App. Br. 1. 1 Appeal2017-003129 Application 13/538,742 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants' invention authorizes a fuel purchase based on a vehicle's current fuel tank capacity. See generally Abstract. In one embodiment, in addition to the vehicle's current fuel tank capacity, the fuel purchase is not authorized if the vehicle attempts to fuel at a fueling station not included in an optimization route. Spec. 6:1-3; 19:30-20:1; 21:22-28; Fig. 8. According to the Specification, the optimization route involves preferred fueling stations that the vehicle's driver is expected to use. Id. at 20:1-3. "These fueling facilities may be based on the distance driven, where an anticipated fueling stop is planned for an area that may have better fuel prices, an agreement for fuel discounts with the truck/fleet, fewer state fuel taxes, bathing facilities, etc." Id. at 20:3-5. Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below: 1. A processor-implemented method comprising: obtaining a current fuel tank capacity for a vehicle; transmitting the current fuel tank capacity to an authorization entity; obtaining an authorization for dispensing a quantity of fuel not exceeding the current fuel tank capacity; determining whether the vehicle is traveling on a predetermined route; authorizing the vehicle to receive the authorized quantity of fuel based on compliance with the predetermined route; receiving an updated current fuel tank capacity for the vehicle after the authorized quantity of fuel has been dispensed; and determining whether the updated current fuel tank capacity substantially corresponds to a total fuel tank capacity for the vehicle at least in part using a processor. 2 Appeal2017-003129 Application 13/538,742 REJECTIONS 2 Claims 1-14, 16, 18-21, 23, 24, and 26-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Christensen (US 8,433,471 B2; Apr. 30, 2013) and Derwent Acc. No. 2008-B85443 (English Abst. of FR 2 902 219 Al; Dec. 14, 2007) ("Vuillemin"). Final Act. 2-9. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Christensen, Vuillemin, and Shah (US 7,899,591 B2; Mar. 1, 2011 ). Final Act. 9-10. Claims 17 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Christensen, Vuillemin, and Watkins (US 8,280,619 B2; Oct. 2, 2012). Final Act. 10-11. Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Christensen, Vuillemin, and Hartsell, Jr. (US 6,522,947 Bl; Feb. 18, 2003). Final Act. 11-12. Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Christensen, Vuillemin, and Ezra (US 2011/0172816 Al; July 14, 2011). Final Act. 12. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Christensen discloses many recited elements of claim 1 including, among other things, obtaining an authorization for dispensing a quantity of fuel not exceeding a vehicle's current fuel tank capacity. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner acknowledges Christensen neither 2 All prior art rejections are under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. in effect before the effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 ("pre-AIA"). See, e.g., Final Act 2. 3 Appeal2017-003129 Application 13/538,742 determines whether the vehicle is traveling on a predetermined route nor authorizes the vehicle to receive the quantity of fuel based on compliance with the predetermined route, the Examiner cites Vuillemin for teaching this feature in concluding the claim would have been obvious. Id. at 4. According to the Examiner, Vuillemin discloses "ensuring that the driver complies [with] existing legislation on working time." Adv. Act. 2 (citing Vuillemin (FR 2 902 219 Al; Dec. 14, 2007), translated in Patent Translate, Powered by EPO and GOOGLE™ ("Vuillemin Translation")). The Examiner further finds "certain paths are allowed and fuel may be purchased on those paths based on existing legislation on working time." Id. Appellants argue the proposed combination does not teach or suggest authorizing fuel delivery based on compliance with a predetermined route. App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 9-10. Specifically, Appellants assert Vuillemin discloses determining a vehicle's path, and the determined vehicle's path determines an average consumption of fuel to ensure compliance with hours of service regulations. App. Br. 9-10. Appellants argue, in light of the above assertions, "it is unreasonable to deduce that Vuillemin is considering ... authorizing the vehicle to receive the authorized quantity of fuel based on compliance with the predetermined route." Id. at 10 (emphasis omitted). On this record, we find the preponderance of the evidence supports Appellants. Vuillemin is generally directed to authorizing fuel delivery to a vehicle. Vuillemin, Abstract. Vuillemin' s receiving terminal authorizes the fuel delivery to the vehicle based on information transmitted by the vehicle. Id. Vuillemin' s information transmitted by the vehicle to the receiving terminal including the vehicle's traveled path. Id. Thus, Vuillemin's 4 Appeal2017-003129 Application 13/538,742 receiving terminal authorizes fuel delivery to the vehicle based on the vehicle's traveled path. But even assuming the vehicle's traveled path of Vuillemin is a "predetermined route," as recited in claim 1, Vuillemin' s receiving terminal authorizing fuel delivery based on the predetermined route alone does not teach or suggest authorizing fuel delivery based on compliance with the predetermined route. Vuillemin's receiving terminal also authorizes fuel delivery based on rules established by a management administrator. Id. For example, Vuillemin determines the vehicle's average fuel consumption, based on the vehicle's traveled distance and pause time, to ensure the driver complies with existing legislation on working time. Vuillemin Translation. The record before us does not support a conclusion that Vuillemin' s rules or existing legislation on working time determine teach or suggest authorizing the fuel delivery based on the compliance with the predetermined route. Therefore, on this record, we find the Examiner has not provided clear evidence that Vuillemin teaches or suggests authorizing a vehicle to receive an authorized quantity of fuel based on compliance with a predetermined route, within the meaning of each independent claim on appeal. For us to sustain the Examiner's rejections, we would need to resort to speculation or unfounded assumptions to cure the aforementioned deficiency in the factual bases of the rejections. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). Constrained by this record, Appellants have persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, as well as (1) independent claims 26 and 31-33, which each recite a commensurate limitation, under 5 Appeal2017-003129 Application 13/538,742 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of the combined teachings of Christensen and Vuillemin; and (2) independent claim 25, which recites a commensurate limitation, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of the combined teachings of Christensen, Vuillemin, and Watkins. Dependent claims 2-21, 23, 24, 27-30, 34, and 35 ultimately depend from, and incorporate the limitations recited in, one of independent claims 1, 25, 26, and 31-33. Although the rejections of some of the dependent claims rely on one or more additional references, the additional references were not relied on to cure the deficiency with respect to authorizing a vehicle to receive an authorized quantity of fuel based on compliance with a predetermined route. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed with respect to the independent claims, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 2-21, 23, 24, 27-30, 34, and 35 under§ 103(a). DECISION The Examiner's decision in rejecting claims 1-21 and 23-35 is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation