Mark Whalley

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 12, 2019

15186769 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 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.
15/186,769 06/20/2016 MARK WHALLEY 16006-US 5357
131256 7590 09/12/2019
Trimble Navigation Limited, c/o MARSH FISCHMANN &
BREYFOGLE LLP
8055 E. TUFTS AVE.
SUITE 450
DENVER, CO 80237
EXAMINER
VALVIS, ALEXANDER M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2019 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):
PTOMAIL@MFBLAW.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARK WHALLEY
____________

Appeal 2019-002466
Application 15/186,7691
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4–11, and 34–37. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 The Appellant identifies Trimble Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002466
Application 15/186,769

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Subject Matter on Appeal
The Appellant’s invention generally relates to a system for controlling
operation of a centrally anchored sprinkler arm that moves in a circular pattern.
See Spec. ¶¶ 1, 3.
Claims 1 and 34 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A center pivot irrigation system, comprising:
a sprinkler arm comprising one or more pipe segments each
including a plurality of spaced apart nozzles;
a plurality of towers supporting the sprinkler arm, wherein a
drive motor is provided on each of the towers to drive wheels on the
tower to rotate the sprinkler arm about a center pivot axis at a rotation
speed;
a water supply providing input water to the sprinkler arm;
a plurality of control valves each provided on the sprinkler arm
upstream of a subset of the plurality of spaced apart nozzles;
a controller comprising memory and a processor running
software code or programs stored in the memory to provide a valve
operation that, for each of a plurality of sequential valve duty cycles,
includes generating a valve pattern defining a group of the plurality of
spaced apart nozzles to discharge the input water from the sprinkler
arm, wherein the controller is communicatively linked to the control
valves and transmits control signals to the control valves causing the
control valves associated with the group of the plurality of spaced
apart nozzles to open; and
a location monitor on the sprinkler arm determining a current
geographic location of the sprinkler arm,
wherein the controller generates the valve pattern based on both
the current geographic location and an irrigation plan defining a first
irrigation zone and a second irrigation zone, the first irrigation zone
being assigned a first application depth and the second irrigation zone
Appeal 2019-002466
Application 15/186,769

3
being assigned a second application depth differing from the first
application depth,
wherein the sprinkler arm is positioned by rotation about the
center pivot axis to concurrently extend over the first and second
irrigation zones for a plurality of the valve duty cycles, and
wherein the group of nozzles defined by the valve pattern
differs for each sequential pair of the valve duty cycles.

Rejection
Claims 1, 4–11, and 34–37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over McCann (US 5,246,164, issued Sept. 21, 1993).

ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 4–11
The Examiner finds that “McCann fails to specifically disclose wherein the
group of nozzles defined by the valve pattern differs for each sequential pair of the
valve duty cycles,” but, otherwise, teaches the center pivot irrigation as called for
by claim 1. Final Act. 2–3. The subject matter not taught by McCann concerns the
claimed “controller,” which includes:
a processor running software code or programs stored in the memory
to provide a valve operation that, for each of a plurality of sequential
valve duty cycles, includes generating a valve pattern defining a group
of the plurality of spaced apart nozzles to discharge the input water
from the sprinkler arm . . .
wherein the group of nozzles defined by the valve pattern differs
for each sequential pair of the valve duty cycles.
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.) (emphases added). The Examiner explains that “the
essential difference between the claim language and the disclosure of the McCann
reference is that the computer program is programmed with a different pattern
Appeal 2019-002466
Application 15/186,769

4
every X seconds.” Ans. 4. The Examiner does not offer further evidence to
remedy the deficiency in McCann’s teachings. Rather, the Examiner reasons:
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify the process taught by Mc[C]ann (essentially an irregular map,
wherein each valve/nozzle group is individually controlled . . . ) to
change the output for each sequential pair of duty cycles as a matter of
obvious design choice.
Final Act. 3. The Examiner’s reasoning is based on a definition of the term “valve
duty cycles” as one of zone-based or time-based and an explanation of how one of
ordinary skill in the art may change McCann’s system to correspond to the claimed
system. See id. at 3, 6; Ans. 3–7. More specifically, the Examiner explains:
dividing McCann’s map of [F]igure 6 into quarters with an inner and
outer zone and defining the duty cycle as each quarter/time to traverse
a quarter, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that planting
four different groups in each quarter of land defined by a duty cycle,
and having different watering requirements for each area, would have
been wholly capable and obvious to the system of McCann.
Final Act. 3 (emphasis added).
The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proffered meaning of the term
“valve duty cycles” is improper and the Examiner’s reasoning is based on
impermissible hindsight. See Appeal Br. 9–13; Reply Br. 2–7. As for the latter,
the Appellant specifically argues that the reasoning is improperly based on
teachings from the Specification of the present application and the capability of
McCann’s controller to be programmed as claimed. See Appeal Br. 13. The
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive.
First, one of ordinary skill in the art would view the claim term “valve duty
cycle,” in light of the Specification, as time-based, i.e., a set time period pertaining
to the open/closed state of a valve. Indeed, the term “valve duty cycle” is
described in the Specification in every instance as time-based, e.g., paragraph 42:
Appeal 2019-002466
Application 15/186,769

5
The operating period may be labeled a “valve duty cycle” and stored
as shown at 178 in the memory 160. The valve duty cycle 178 may be
varied to implement the irrigation system 100 with a time period in
the range of 20 to 120 seconds typically being useful and with a 30
second time period being used in some of the examples provided
herein.
See also Spec. ¶¶ 9 (“[For example], each valve duty cycle such as a time period in
the range of 20 to 90 seconds or the like.”), 103 (“For example, 30 seconds may be
used as a duty cycle.”). The Specification does not support the notion that one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “valve duty cycle” as zone-
based. And, the Examiner fails to adequately explain how one of ordinary skill in
the art, upon reading the Specification, would understand the term “valve duty
cycle” as anything other than time-based.
Second, the Examiner’s rationale is supported by applying sections to
McCann’s zonal irrigation map (e.g., sequential quadrants) (Ans. 7), but fails to
adequately explain on the record how each quadrant corresponds to a “valve duty
cycle” as properly construed, i.e., a set time period pertaining to the open/closed
state of a valve. Accordingly, we determine that the Examiner’s rationale fails to
account for the controller as called for in claim 1.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and
claims 4–11, which depend therefrom, as unpatentable over McCann.

Independent Claim 34 and Dependent Claims 35–37
Identical to claim 1, claim 34 recites:
a processor running software code or programs stored in the memory
to provide a valve operation that, for each of a plurality of sequential
valve duty cycles, includes generating a valve pattern defining a group
Appeal 2019-002466
Application 15/186,769

6
of the plurality of spaced apart nozzles to discharge the input water
from the sprinkler arm . . . .
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.) (emphases added). Claim 34 also recites “wherein
the controller retrieves hysteresis for each of the valves and generates the valve
pattern based on the hysteresis, and wherein the hysteresis provides an on and off
history of each of the valves for a predefined number of the valve duty cycles.” Id.
The Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 34 relies on McCann to teach
the claimed controller. See Final Act. 5. However, the Examiner fails to explain
how McCann’s controller teaches a plurality of sequential valve duty cycles as part
of its control scheme. To the extent that the Examiner may have relied on
reasoning provided for rejection 1 for the rejection of claim 34 such has not been
stated on the record.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 34
and claims 35–37, which depend therefrom, as unpatentable over McCann.

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4–11, and 34–37.

REVERSED