Ex Parte Sorby et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 30, 201712984739 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 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. 12/984,739 01/05/2011 Mitchell L. SORBY 19417 2905 15755 7590 02/01/2017 CNH INDUSTRIAL AMERICA LLC 700 State STreet Racine, WI 53404 EXAMINER HAN, CHARLES J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3662 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/01/2017 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): napatent @ cnhind. com vannette.azarian @ cnhind.com sue @ southernplainsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MITCHELL L. SORBY and TIM A. NEWLIN Appeal 2015-0039331 Application 12/984,7392 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. FETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1, 3—12, 14—19, and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Our decision references Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed Jan. 5, 2011), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Oct. 8, 2014), and Reply Brief (“Reply Brief,” filed Feb. 4, 2015), as well as the Final Office Action (“Final Action,” mailed Apr. 8, 2014) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Dec. 4, 2014). 2 Appellants indicate that CNH Industrial America LLC is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2015-003933 Application 12/984,739 According to Appellants, the invention relates “to safety systems for work vehicles having operator cabs.” Spec. 11. Claims 1, 14, and 21 are the only independent claims. See Appeal Br., Claims App. We reproduce claim 1, below, as representative of the appealed claims. 1. A work vehicle comprising: a motor associated with selectable movement of a frame by operator controls; and the frame structurally carrying a cab structure and a first manipulating structure associated with a first implement for performing work, the first manipulating structure selectably movable by the operator controls located in the cab structure, the cab structure including a transparent member coupled to a sensor, wherein the sensor is configured to be communicatively coupled to a source of electrical power and to detect a partial structural failure of the transparent member; wherein in response to detection of the partial structural failure by the sensor, the first manipulating structure is no longer selectably movable by the operator controls, while the operator controls continuously permit selectable movement of the frame by the motor to enable relocation of the work vehicle to repair the transparent member. Id. REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3—8, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wherley (US 7,080,708 B2, iss. July 25, 2006) and Jessup (US 6, 794,882 B2, iss. Sept. 21, 2004). The Examiner rejects claims 9—11 and 14—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wherley, Jessup, and Heyne (US 6,226,902 Bl, iss. May 8, 2001). 2 Appeal 2015-003933 Application 12/984,739 The Examiner rejects claims 12 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wherley, Jessup, Heyne, and Gage (US 4,809,586, iss. Mar. 7, 1989). Final Action 6—21; see also Answer 3. ANALYSIS Based on our review of the record, for the reasons discussed below, Appellants do not persuade us that the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of the claims are in error. Thus, we sustain the rejections. With respect to the rejection of independent claims 1 and 21, and claims 3—8 depending from claim 1, Appellants argue that “there is no basis, other than impermissible hindsight analysis, for the [Ejxaminer to suggest that movement of the loader lift arms of Wherley may be stopped upon detection of a ruptured windshield.” Appeal Br. 10; see also id. at 8—10; see also Reply Br. 2—3. We disagree, however. As found by the Examiner, “Wherley teaches disabling the loader lift arms in response to an unsafe vehicle operating condition .... Jessup teaches detecting a rupture condition of a window because a ruptured window is . . . [a] safety hazard.” Answer 4. The Examiner also determines that [fjinally, the motivation to combine these references explicitly comes from . . . Jessup itself, reciting: “If a failure or rupture of a windshield assembly is detected early enough, the vehicle can be brought to a safe condition in a quicker manner or, alternatively, this early detection allows for early mitigation, thus increasing vehicle safety” (see Jessup at col. 1, Ins. 46—50). Thus it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Wherley and Jessup such that when a failure or rupture of a windshield assembly is detected, the vehicle can be 3 Appeal 2015-003933 Application 12/984,739 brought to a safe condition (i.e. disablement of the loader lift arms) in a quick manner, so as to increase vehicle safety as explicitly expressed by Jessup. Id. at 4—5 (emphasis omitted). Appellants do not argue persuasively that such a motivation from Jessup is inadequate to support the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Reply Br. 2. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3—8, and 21. Although Appellants separately argue against the rejections of claims 9-12 and 14—19, the arguments are based on the alleged failure of additional references to teach or suggest the above discussed limitations. See Appeal Br. 11—12; see also Reply Br. 3^4. Thus, because we determine that the Examiner properly combines Wherley and Jessup to teach the above limitations, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive, and, we sustain the rejections of claims 9—12 and 14—19. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1, 3— 12, 14—19, and 21. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation