General Electric Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2022

2021004197 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2022)

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. 16/170,741 10/25/2018 Joseph Forrest Noffsinger WABP11102USDIV10 (216US4) 2521 91959 7590 03/30/2022 The Small Patent Law Group, LLC 1423 Strassner Dr. Suite 100 Brentwood, MO 63144 EXAMINER WHITTINGTON, JESS G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3669 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2022 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): Docket@splglaw.com GBL_IP_Patent_Comm@wabtec.com john.kramer@wabtec.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOSEPH FORREST NOFFSINGER, AJITH KUTTANNAIR KUMAR, YURI ALEXEYEVICH PLOTNIKOV, JEFFREY MICHAEL FRIES, and STEVEN JOSEPH EHRET Appeal 2021-004197 Application 16/170,741 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, and 16-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies that the “real party in interest in this appeal is Transportation IP Holdings LLC by way of name change from assignee GE Appeal 2021-004197 Application 16/170,741 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims relate to examining routes traveled by vehicles for damage to the routes. Spec. ¶ 2. The Specification describes that “tracks on which rail vehicles travel may become damaged and/or broken,” which has led to a need “to examine rail tracks to identify where the damaged and/or broken portions of the track are located.” Id. ¶ 3. The claimed invention thus provides a system for “examining a route being traveled upon by a vehicle system in order to identify potential sections of the route that are damaged or broken.” Id. ¶ 25. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system comprising: first and second application devices configured to be disposed onboard a vehicle system traveling along a route having plural conductive rails, the first and second application devices each configured to be at least one of conductively or inductively coupled with the conductive rails at spaced apart locations along a length of the vehicle system, the first and second application devices configured to electrically inject a first examination signal and a second examination signal, respectively, into at least one of the conductive rails; a detection unit configured to be disposed onboard the vehicle system, the detection unit configured to monitor one or more electrical characteristics of the conductive rails in response to the first and second examination signals being injected into the at least one of the conductive rails; and an identification unit including one or more processors configured to determine that a section of the route includes an electrical short responsive to the one or more electrical characteristics indicating receipt by the detection unit of only one of the first and second examination signals. Global Sourcing LLC. Transportation IP Holdings LLC is a subsidiary of Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation d/b/a Wabtec Corporation.” Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2021-004197 Application 16/170,741 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Turner US 2005/0076716 Al Apr. 14, 2005 Karg US 2008/0105791 Al May 8, 2008 Polivka2 US 2013/0284859 Al Oct. 31, 2013 Nagashima JP 2002294609 A Oct. 9, 2002 REJECTIONS Claims 1-4, 6, 11-14, 16, and 18-20 stand rejected as unpatentable over Karg and Polivka. Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected as unpatentable over Karg, Polivka, and Turner. Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected as unpatentable over Karg, Polivka, and Nagashima. OPINION Rejection over Karg and Polivka Appellant contends that “Karg does not describe or suggest multiple transmitters on a vehicle system that inject multiple signals into the rail(s), where a short is detected when only one of these signals is received by the receiver.” Appeal Br. 14. This, according to Appellant, is because “[t]here is no logic or process in Karg that identifies a short when only one of two signals is received.” Id. Therefore, Appellant argues, “Karg does not describe or suggest a system having . . . an identification unit configured to determine that a section of the route includes an electrical short responsive to the one or more electrical characteristics indicating receipt by the 2 We refer to Polivka et al. only by the first named inventor, Polivka. Appeal 2021-004197 Application 16/170,741 4 detection unit of only one of the first and second examination signals, as recited.” Id. at 15. The Examiner responds that Karg discloses “two distinct circuits (Figure 3),” where “the locomotive 24 can survey[] the railway track 26 for possible breaks.” Answer 7 (citing Karg ¶ 0028). The Examiner continues, “[t]herefore there is a circuit in front of the vehicle system and behind the vehicle system, and if there is a break, for example, in front of the vehicle system, only one of the two signals (front and back) will return to the vehicle system, the back signal.” Id. On this reasoning alone, the Examiner finds in Karg the recited “identification unit.” Id. (“Thus ‘an identification unit’”). Appellant has the stronger position. In the rejection, the Examiner finds the claimed “identification unit” in Karg at Figure 4 and paragraphs 25-28 and 32-36. Final Act. 14, 18. However, the Examiner does not specifically identify what structure in the cited sections corresponds to the claimed “identification unit.” See id. at 14, 18. After reviewing the cited sections, we find “locomotives,” “transmitters,” and “receivers,” with the transmitters appearing to correspond to the claimed “application devices,” and the receivers appearing to correspond to multiples of the claimed “detection unit.” There is also a “monitoring entity 22” disclosed in paragraph 34 of Karg, however it does not appear to satisfy the claimed “identification unit.” For example, “monitoring entity 22 is operative for detecting a broken rail in the railway track 26 at least in part on the basis of signals received from the locomotives 24 travelling on the railway track 26.” Karg ¶ 23. “The surveying [by the locomotives] is performed by monitoring a track signal that is circulating in the railway track 26.” Id. Appeal 2021-004197 Application 16/170,741 5 We find no device or unit in Karg that functions “to determine that a section of the route includes an electrical short responsive to the one or more electrical characteristics indicating receipt by the detection unit of only one of the first and second examination signals,” as required by the claims. The Examiner further postulates that: Karg discloses that there are two circuits, in front and behind the train, and that receipt of the signals means no breaks in the track, and non-receipt of a signal, would mean a break. So if the Karg locomotive system was traveling on the tracks, and monitoring the front and back of the track circuit, as disclosed, when no signal is received in the front circuit, would this be a break in the front circuit, and then the only signal being received, as required by the claimed subject matter, would be the rear signal, thus one of the two signals is received. Ans. 8. What is missing from the rejection, and the Examiner’s postulation in response to Appellant’s arguments, is the identification of a specific “identification unit,” such as one that uses the logic the Examiner articulates. The Specification, for example, describes that: The identification unit 816 is configured to examine the one or more electrical characteristics of the conductive tracks 808 monitored by the detection units 814A, 814B in order to determine whether a section of the route 804 traversed by the vehicle 802 is potentially damaged based on the one or more electrical characteristics. Spec. ¶ 120 (cited at Appeal Br. 8); see also id. ¶ 56 (describing an identification unit working with a single detection unit). We also note that Karg discloses a pair of receivers working with a pair of transmitters, but the Examiner has not identified operation with a single “detection unit,” that Appeal 2021-004197 Application 16/170,741 6 monitors signals introduced by two “application devices,” as further required by the claims. Accordingly, the Examiner erred by failing to identify a disclosure of the claimed identifying unit that is configured to operate as claimed. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 11-14, 16, and 18-20. Rejections over Turner and Nagashima The Examiner has not established on the record that either of Turner or Nagashima remedy the shortcomings in Karg discussed above. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 7-9 and 17. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-4, 6, 11-14, 16, 18-20 103 Karg, Polivka 1-4, 6, 11- 14, 16, 18-20 7, 17 103 Karg, Polivka, Turner 7, 17 8, 9 103 Karg, Polivka, Nagashima 8, 9 Overall Outcome 1-4, 6-9, 11- 14, 16-20 REVERSED