HUSQVARNA ABDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 3, 20212021000393 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2021) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation