Ex Parte Henry et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 27, 2018

14609147 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/609,147 01/29/2015
71475 7590 08/29/2018
CNH Industrial America LLC
Intellectual Property Law Department
700 STATE STREET
RACINE, WI 53404
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James Wayne Henry
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.
50254 (CNHA:0282) 1029
EXAMINER
KONG, SZE-HON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2018 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):
napatent@cnhind.com
vannette.azarian@cnhind.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES WAYNE HENRY and JOEL JOHN OCTA VE GERVAIS
Appeal2018-000982
Application 14/609, 14 71
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and AMEE A. SHAH,
Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellants appeal from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Subject Matter on Appeal
The Appellants' invention "relates generally to agricultural implements, and
more specifically, to systems and methods for metering agricultural products."
1 According to the Appellants, "[t]he real party in interest is CNH Industrial
Canada Ltd." Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-000982
Application 14/609, 147
Spec. ,r 1. "Generally, agricultural implements ( e.g., seeders) are towed behind a
tractor or other work vehicle and deliver agricultural products (e.g., seed, fertilizer,
and/or other particulate material) to a field." Id. ,r 2. "[ A ]gricultural implements
may also be coupled to a product storage tank configured to store agricultural
products and having a meter configured to regulate a flow of the agricultural
products from the product storage tank to the implement." Id.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A controller, comprising:
a memory; and
a processor configured to:
access, in the memory, a first elapsed time relative to
activation of a first meter module of a metering subassembly when a
first pressure within a first header of an agricultural implement reaches
a first target pressure;
access, in the memory, a second elapsed time relative to
activation of a second meter module of the metering subassembly when
a second pressure within a second header of the agricultural implement
reaches a second target pressure, wherein the first pressure is measured
via a first pressure sensor at the first header, the second pressure is
measured via a second pressure sensor at the second header, and the
first and second meter modules are in fluid communication with the
first and second headers, respectively;
control a first actuator to activate the first meter module to
enable product flow from a product storage tank through the first header
based at least in part on the first time; and
control a second actuator to activate the second meter
module to enable product flow from the product storage tank through
the second header based at least in part on the second time.
2
Appeal2018-000982
Application 14/609, 147
Rejections
I. Claims 1-3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Flamme 2 and Needham3.
II. Claims 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Flamme, Needham, and Binsirawanich4•
III. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Flamme, Needham, Binsirawanich, and Kowalchuk5.
IV. Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Flamme, Needham, and Binsirawanich.
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Flamme teaches substantially all of the subject
matter of independent claim 1. Final Act. 3-5. The Examiner finds that Flamme
does not teach a first elapsed time or a second elapsed time as required by claim 1.
Id. at 5. With regard to the first and second elapsed times, claim 1 recites "a first
elapsed time relative to activation of a first meter module of a metering
subassembly when a first pressure within a first header of an agricultural
implement reaches a first target pressure" and "a second elapsed time relative to
activation of a second meter module of the metering subassembly when a second
2 Flamme et al. (US 6,003,455, iss. Dec. 21, 1999).
3 Needham et al. (US 2012/0228395 Al, pub. Sept. 13, 2012).
4 Binsirawanich et al. (US 2013/0061789 Al, pub. Mar. 14, 2013).
5 Kowalchuk (US 2011/0184551 Al, pub. July 28, 2011).
3
Appeal2018-000982
Application 14/609, 147
pressure within a second header of the agricultural implement reaches a second
target pressure." Appeal Br. 18.
The Examiner relies on Needham to teach the first and second elapsed times.
Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds, "Needham ... discloses accessing a first and
second elapsed time relative to activation of the meter modules when the first and
second pressure within the first and second header reaches their target pressures."
Final Act. 5. (citing Needham, Figs. 7, 34, 35, Abstract, ,r,r 6, 99, 100, 190, 195,
196, 213, 217-219). Thereafter, the Examiner concludes that:
Id.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art ... to
modify the invention of Flamme to access a respective elapsed time
relative to activation of the respective meter module when the pressure
within the header reaches their target pressures, taught by Needham to
improve the effectiveness and accuracy of controlling the dispensing of
products at respective headers.
However, we fail to understand how the cited portions of Needham support
the Examiner's finding and conclusion. See also Appeal Br. 9-10.
In the Answer, the Examiner's position is that Needham:
show[ s] the elapses of time or timing ( for example in Fig. 34) ... that
closely relate or tie to the rate or flow rate of agricultural product
(Paragraph 0006). Needham shows between [sic] the time and target
pressure and flow rate (Paragraph 0217, 0219). In fact, the elapsed time
[that] appears in the originally filed specification of the present
invention is relate[d] to the calibration time and product flow rate
(Paragraph 0039). Flamme discloses calibrating the product
application relate rate [sic] to the product flow rate, which is the rate of
time the product being properly applied (Col. 6, lines 21-25, 47-63).
Therefore, the teachings of Flamme and Needham disclose[] the first
and second elapsed time for metering the agricultural products from the
storage tank to the headers and onto the field.
Ans. 6.
4
Appeal2018-000982
Application 14/609, 147
In response, the Appellants argue that "Flamme and Needham, taken alone
or in combination, fail to teach the recited first and second elapsed times." Reply
Br. 3. The Appellants contend that the Examiner's reliance on Needham, "does
not sufficiently explain why the cited references would lead one of ordinary skill in
the art to modify Flamme in view of Needham, much less that the combination
teaches the claimed elements." Id. Also, the Appellants contend:
it remains unclear which portions of Needham are being relied upon
and how such portions could be used to modify Flamme to teach a first
elapsed time relative to activation of a first meter module of a metering
subassembly when a first pressure within the first header reaches a first
target pressure ... as recited in independent claim 1.
Id. We agree with the Appellants.
Although the Examiner suggests that there is a relationship between the
teachings of cited references concerning time, flow rate, and target pressure, we
fail to understand from the Examiner's position how the cited disclosure of
Needham and Flamme is being relied upon to result in the claimed subject matter.
On this record, we fail to understand how the Examiner's rejection is supported by
adequate reasoning with some rational underpinning.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and
the claims that depend therefrom as unpatentable over Flamme and Needham. The
remaining rejections of claims 4--7 based on Flamme and Needham rely on the
same inadequately supported reasoning as discussed above. As such, we do not
sustain the rejection of: claims 4, 5, and 7 as unpatentable over Flamme,
Needham, and Binsirawanich; and claim 6 as unpatentable over Flamme,
Needham, Binsirawanich, and Kowalchuk. The Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 11 and 16 also suffers from the same inadequately supported
reasoning as discussed above. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
5
Appeal2018-000982
Application 14/609, 147
independent claims 11 and 16 and the claims that depend therefrom as
unpatentable over Flamme, Needham, and Binsirawanich.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
REVERSED
6