Justus Dahlén et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 9, 2019

13990980 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2019)

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.
13/990,980 05/31/2013 Justus Dahlén 0837-0325PUS1 1501
127226 7590 09/09/2019
BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
8110 Gatehouse Road
Suite 100 East
Falls Church, VA 22042-1248
EXAMINER
SCHWENNING, LYNN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/09/2019 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):
mailroom@bskb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JUSTUS DAHLÉN and HANNU LINDFORS1
___________

Appeal 2018-000525
Application 13/990,980
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is KONECRANES GLOBAL CORPORATION.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-000525
Application 13/990,980

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Justus Dahlén and Hannu Lindfors (collectively, Appellant) seek our
review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1–15. Claim
16 has been canceled.
An oral hearing was held on August 20, 2019.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF DECISION2
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method for positioning a load and fetching a positioned load
or stacking loads with a crane having location measurement
arranged thereto, the method comprising:
taking a load to a selected position;
detecting the unloading of the load by detecting
detachment of the load;
storing the required coordinate information of the position
of the load in a memory of the crane or its control;
when fetching a positioned load or adding loads to a stack,
activating, at a first time instant, by pressing a positioning switch,

2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Apr. 27, 2017), the Appellant’s Reply Brief (“Reply Br.” filed
Oct. 23, 2017), the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Nov. 29, 2016),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Aug. 24, 2017).

Appeal 2018-000525
Application 13/990,980

3
which is a pressable switch, arranged in the crane and connected
to the memory, whereby the coordinates of the positioned load
or a stack most advantageously located relative to the movement
of the crane are selected from the memory, after which the crane
begins to move to these coordinates; and then
lifting or lowering the load at the selected coordinates, and
deleting, at a second time instant, from the memory
previous coordinate information associated with the lifted load.

THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Burk
Zakula
Jung
US 4,796,209
US 7,344,037 B1
US 7,547,173 B2
Jan. 3, 1989
Mar. 18, 2008
Jun. 16, 2009
Dahlén3
Schneider
US 8,977,384 B2
US 2011/0062104 A1
Mar. 10, 2015
Mar. 17, 2011

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected the claims as follows:
claims 1–3, 5–12, 14, and 15 as unpatenable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Zakula, Jung, and Burk;

3 Like the Examiner we refer to this reference as “Dahlen.” See Final Act.
11.
Appeal 2018-000525
Application 13/990,980

4
claims 4 and 13 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Zakula, Jung, Burk4, and Schneider;
claims 1–3, 5–12, 14, and 15 as unpatentable on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting over claim 1 of Dahlen, Zakula, and Burk; and
claims 4 and 13 as unpatentable on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting over claim 1 of Dahlen, Zakula, Burk, and Schneider.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–3, 5–12, 14, and 15 as unpatentable over Zakula, Jung, and Burk
The Appellant disputes whether the combination of Zakula and Jung5
teaches “when fetching a positioned load or adding loads to a stack, . . .
whereby the coordinates of the positioned load or a stack most
advantageously located relative to the movement of the crane are selected
from the memory, after which the crane begins to move to these coordinates”
as recited by claim 1 (App. Br., Claim Appendix) (emphasis added). See
App. Br. 5–6; Ans. 6–7; Reply Br. 1–2; see also Final Act. 5–6.
The Examiner relies upon Zakula to teach “lifting and lowering the
load at the selected coordinates” but states that “Zakula fails to teach
selecting the most advantageously located coordinates of a load or stack.”
Final Act. 5. The Examiner applies Jung to teach that “the coordinates of a

4 The omission of Burk in the statement of the grounds in the rejection is
considered a typographical error. See Final Act. 9; Ans. 11; Appeal Br. 8.
5 The Examiner does not rely upon Burk to teach this limitation. See Ans. 5
(“Burk was included in the 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection for the sole purpose of
teaching a step that involved pressing a ‘pressable positioning switch’”), 7–8
(“the rejection relies on Burk for the sole reason of teaching the claimed
‘pressable switch’”).
Appeal 2018-000525
Application 13/990,980

5
load or a stack most advantageously located relative to the movement of the
load moving device (32) are selected from the memory.” Id. at 5–6 (citing
Jung Fig.1, step S5, 12:14–67, 16:43–51); see also Ans. 6–7 (citing Jung
13:14–20). The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious . . . to modify Zakula’s crane
similarly to Jung’s load moving devices (32) so that Zakula’s
crane is moved based on the most advantageously located load
or stack relative to the crane (i.e., the closest load that is reach
quickly or with the least energy consumption of the load
moving device) because it would provide an efficient way of
moving the load quickly, smoothly and stably, as taught by
Jung (C2, L14 – C3, L25).
Final Act. 6.
Appellant disagrees because, contrary to the Examiner’s finding, Jung
does not teach selecting coordinates of the positioned load or a stack most
advantageously located relative to the movement of the crane from the
memory. App. Br. 5–6; Reply Br. 1–2.
We agree with Appellant. Jung’s Figure 1 and disclosures cited by
the Examiner relate to a method of unloading containers from a ship to a
position on a stacking unit. See e.g., Jung 11:28–41. The method includes
“a stacking position-selecting step (S4) for selecting a position on a stacking
unit where the containers are to be stacked.” Id. at 11:35–37. In this step, a
central controlling unit selects the position on the stacking unit based on
container information, such as container length or time of removal. Id. at
12:45–62, 13:38–47, 16:39–57. Jung does not disclose the central
controlling unit selecting the position by selecting the coordinates of a load
or a stack most advantageously located relative to the movement of the load
moving device.
Appeal 2018-000525
Application 13/990,980

6
The cited method of Jung also includes “[a] shortest route-selecting
step (S5).” See e.g., Jung 12:14–21. In this step, the central controlling unit
selects the shortest route between the stacking position and the
loading/unloading unit. Id. 11:35–39; 12:14–19. Selecting the shortest
route is not the same as selecting the position by selecting the coordinates of
a load or a stack most advantageously located relative to the movement of
the load moving device.
Additionally, we note that Jung also discloses a method of loading a
container from a stacked position onto the container ship. Id. at 13:58–14:3,
Fig. 4. The method includes a “container position-identifying step (S20)” in
which the central controlling unit supplies the position of the container in the
stacking unit. Id. at 14:15–18. This also does not disclose the central
controlling unit selecting the position by selecting the coordinates of a load
or a stack most advantageously located relative to the movement of the load
moving device. See id.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the same
reason, we also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 5–12,
14, and 15. Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
(“dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which
they depend are nonobvious”).

Claims 4 and 13 as unpatentable over Zakula, Jung, Burk, and Schneider
Claims 4 and 13 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. For the
same reason discussed above with respect to claim 1, we also do not sustain
the rejection of dependent claims 4 and 13. Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d at
Appeal 2018-000525
Application 13/990,980

7
1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The additional cited reference, Schneider, does not
cure the deficiency discussed above.

Claims 1–3, 5–12, 14, and 15 as unpatentable on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting over claim 1 of Dahlen, Zakula, and Burk and claims 4 and
13 as unpatentable on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over
claims 1 of Dahlen, Zakula, Burk, and Schneider
Unlike the obviousness rejection, the nonstatutory double patenting
rejections do not include Jung to teach claim 1’s limitation that “the
coordinates of the positioned load or a stack most advantageously located
relative to the movement of the crane are selected from the memory.” See
Final Act. 11–12; see also Ans. 11. Dahlen’s claim 1 does not include a
similar limitation (see Dahlen 3:22–4:30), the Examiner states that “Zakula
fails to teach selecting the most advantageously located coordinates of a load
or stack” (Final Act. 5), and the Examiner also does not rely upon Burk to
teach this limitation (see id. at 5, 7–8, 11–12). The nonstatutory double
patenting rejections, thus, do not explicitly address this limitation. Id. at 11–
12.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 for failing to
make out a prima facie showing in the first instance. For the same reason,
we also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 5–12, 14, and
15. Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d at1266. The addition of Schneider for the
rejection of claims 4 and 13 does not cure the deficiency discussed above.

Appeal 2018-000525
Application 13/990,980

8
DECISION
We do not sustain the following rejections:
claims 1–3, 5–12, 14, and 15 as unpatenable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Zakula, Jung, and Burk;
claims 4 and 13 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Zakula, Jung, Burk, and Schneider;
claims 1–3, 5–12, 14, and 15 as unpatentable on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting over claim 1 of Dahlen, Zakula, and Burk; and
claims 4 and 13 as unpatentable on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting over claim 1 of Dahlen, Zakula, Burk, and Schneider.

REVERSED