Ex Parte Sorby et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2017

12984739 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 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.
12/984,739 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