HUSQVARNA AB

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 3, 2021

2021000393 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2021)

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.
16/092,131 10/08/2018 Johannes Gungl 738004/00150/P3228US00 4719
148434 7590 05/03/2021
Burr Forman McNair
Husqvarna
Bank of America Plaza
101 South Tryon Street, Suite 2610
Charlotte, NC 28280
EXAMINER
DUNN, DARRIN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2117
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2021 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):
mcnairip@mcnair.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOHANNES GUNGL, FLORIAN SOOR, HORST SCHNURLE,
and PHILIPP BOLLIGER
____________________

Appeal 2021-000393
Application 16/092,131
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, ERIC S. FRAHM, and CARL L. SILVERMAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellant’s invention is a watering system including sensors disposed
on a parcel of land, watering equipment disposed on the parcel and
configured to selectively apply water to the parcel, and a gateway configured

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Husqvarna
AB. Appeal Br. 1.

Appeal 2021-000393
Application 16/092,131

2
to provide for communication with the sensors and the watering equipment.
The watering equipment may include a watering pump operably coupled to a
water source and a water line to alternately couple the water source.
Processing circuitry is configured to determine an operational mode of the
watering pump and direct the watering pump to operate in accordance with
the operational mode. Spec., Abstr.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A system comprising:
sensor equipment including one or more sensors disposed
on a parcel of land;
watering equipment disposed on the parcel and
configured to selectively apply water to the parcel;
a user terminal; and
a gateway configured to communicate with the sensor
equipment, the watering equipment,
and the user terminal,
wherein the watering equipment includes a watering
pump, the watering pump being operably coupled to a water
source and a water line to alternately couple the water source to
and isolate the water source from the water line,
wherein the watering pump incorporates communication
circuitry including processing circuity for controlling the
watering pump and an antenna for enabling the water pump to
communicate with the gateway,
wherein the processing circuity of the watering pump is
configured to:
determine an operational mode of the watering pump;
and
direct the watering pump to operate in accordance with
the operational mode,
Appeal 2021-000393
Application 16/092,131

3
wherein the watering pump comprises memory to locally
store default settings or the last received instructions from a
user, and the processing circuitry is further configured to detect
a loss of connectivity to the gateway or the sensor,
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to
determine, based on the first instructions received from the
gateway, a volume mode of the watering pump,
wherein in response to the detection of the loss of
connectivity, the processing circuitry is configured to employ a
last determined operational mode and volume mode of the
watering pump or override the last received instructions from
the user regarding the selected operational or volume mode and
switch to the default settings.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Pagano et al. US 2002/0014539 A1 Feb. 7, 2002
Croft US 6,491,062 B1 Dec. 10, 2002
Ridolfo US 6,735,549 B2 May 11, 2004
Wetzer US 6,738,748 B2 May 18, 2004
Fekete US 2011/0190948 A1 Aug. 4, 2011
Arsac US 2011/0231317 A1 Sept. 22, 2011
Chen et al. US 2012/0265379 A1 Oct. 18, 2012
McKinney US 2015/0100169 A1 Apr. 9, 2015
Shani US 2016/0371007 A1 Dec. 22, 2016

Claims 1, 9, 14, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Fekete, Croft, and Chen.
Claims 2–5, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fekete, Croft, Chen, and Shani.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Fekete, Croft, Chen, Shani, and McKinney.
Appeal 2021-000393
Application 16/092,131

4
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fekete, Croft, Chen, Shani, and Ridolfo.
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fekete, Croft, Chen, Shani, and Wetzer.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Fekete, Croft, Chen, and Arsac.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Fekete, Croft, Chen, and Pagano.

Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed May 11, 2005), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Oct.
20, 2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Aug. 20, 2020) for
their respective details.
ISSUE
Is Chen reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The analogous-art test requires that the Board show that a
reference is either in the field of the applicant's endeavor or is
reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor
was concerned in order to rely on that reference as a basis for
rejection. References are selected as being reasonably pertinent
to the problem based on the judgment of a person having
ordinary skill in the art.
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986–87 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

Appeal 2021-000393
Application 16/092,131

5
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 9, 14, 15, and 17
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims
because Chen is nonanalogous art. Appellant first asserts that Chen (directed
to the operation of a rail vehicle) is not from the same field of endeavor as
the invention (monitoring and maintaining yard conditions). Appeal Br. 5.
The Examiner does not contest that Chen is not from the same field of
endeavor. Ans. 4. Appellant then further asserts that Chen is not reasonably
pertinent to the problem faced in the claimed invention. Appellant
characterizes this problem as “control and operation of a water pump for
watering a parcel of land.” Appeal Br. 6–7.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, that Chen is reasonably pertinent to the problem of implementing a
default setting in response to a loss of communications. Ans. 5. Appellant
discloses that “if the C/C [i.e., communication circuitry] loses connectivity
to the gateway 40, the C/C 160 may continue to employ the last received
instructions regarding the operational or volume mode of the watering pump
120.” Spec. ¶ 42. Alternatively, “if the C/C 160 of the watering pump 120
determines that connectivity has been lost for longer than a pre-determined
time interval, the C/C 160 may be configured to override the previously
provided operational and volume mode to operate on the default setting.”
Spec. ¶ 54. The invention of Chen is clearly directed, at least in part, to
maintaining control in response to a loss of communications. Chen discloses
maintaining the “last known operational settings” of remote powered units
prior to a “loss of communication between the lead powered unit 102 and the
remote powered units.” Chen ¶ 43. Chen further discloses that, during a
Appeal 2021-000393
Application 16/092,131

6
communication gap, “prior to the operational setting differences 416
exceeding the threshold 500, the control module may automatically control
the operational settings of the traction motors 202 and/or the brakes 206.”
Chen ¶ 46. Should the management module 214 “determine[] that the
operational setting difference 416 exceeds the threshold . . ., then the
management module 214 may direct the control module 220 to switch from
automatic control to manual control.” Id.
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that Chen is reasonably
pertinent, because Chen and its teaching concerning maintaining control
system operation despite a loss of communication would have logically
commended itself to the inventor’s attention in considering his problem.
Ans. 7; In re ICON Health and Fitness Inc., 496 F.3d 1397, 1379–80 (Fed.
Cir. 2007).
Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s mention of Cardinal (US
Patent No. 7,596,429) “bolsters” the grounds of rejection, or even constitutes
a new ground of rejection, is not persuasive. Reply Br. 3–4. We find that the
Examiner mentions Cardinal only as a demonstration of the state of the
irrigation art, in which the ordinarily skilled artisan would know to consider
operation of devices in the event of a connection failure. Ans. 8.
Appellant further asserts that Chen is not properly combinable with
Fekete and Croft. Appeal Br. 7. In fact, this further argument is grounded in
the same contention addressed supra that Chen is nonanalogous art, and
consequently that a person having ordinary skilled in the art would not have
combined Chen with Fekete and Croft. Because we are not persuaded that
Chen is nonanalogous art, we also conclude that the Examiner did not err in
Appeal 2021-000393
Application 16/092,131

7
combining the Fekete, Croft, and Chen references to obtain the invention
under appeal.
Claims 2–8, 10–13, 16, and 18
Appellant argues that these claims are patentable for the reasons urged
with respect to claim 1, and that Shani, McKinney, Ridolfo, Wetzer, Arsac,
Pagano fail to cure the deficiencies of the combination of Fekete, Croft, and
Chen. Because we are not persuaded that such deficiencies exist, we sustain
the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 2–5, 7, and 8 over Fekete, Croft,
Chen, and Shani; of claim 6 over Fekete, Croft, Chen, Shani, and McKinney;
of claims 10 and 11 over Fekete Croft, Chen, Shani, and Ridolfo; of claims
12 and 13 over Fekete, Croft, Chen, Shani, and Wetzer; of claim 16 over
Fekete, Croft, Chen, and Arsac; and of claim 18 over Fekete, Croft, Chen,
and Pagano, for the same reasons expressed supra with respect to the
rejection of claim 1.

CONCLUSION
Chen is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.

Appeal 2021-000393
Application 16/092,131

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 9, 14, 15,
17
103 Fekete, Croft,
Chen
1, 9, 14, 15,
17

2–5, 7, 8 103 Fekete, Croft,
Chen, Shani
2–5, 7, 8
6 103 Fekete, Croft,
Chen, Shani,
McKinney
6
10, 11 103 Fekete, Croft,
Chen, Shani,
Ridolfo
10, 11
12, 13 103 Fekete, Croft,
Chen, Shani,
Wetzer
12, 13
16 103 Fekete, Croft,
Chen, Arsac
16
18 103 Fekete, Croft,
Chen, Pagano
18
Overall
Outcome

1–18

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18 is affirmed.
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)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED