VOLVO TRUCK CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 29, 2020

14346832 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2020)

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. 14/346,832 03/24/2014 William Jason Spence 3100-039-US 7988 27820 7590 07/29/2020 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. 106 Pinedale Springs Way Cary, NC 27511 EXAMINER NGUYEN, CUONG H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3662 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/29/2020 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): patents@wt-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WILLIAM JASON SPENCE Appeal 2019-006713 Application 14/346,832 Technology Center 3600 Before KEVIN F. TURNER, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPINA, 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 1–16. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Volvo Group North America, LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-006713 Application 14/346,832 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosure is directed to a system and method for controlling a refuse vehicle. Spec. 1:5–6. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A control system for a refuse vehicle provided with a work tool, comprising: at least one refuse container location sensor; at least one vehicle speed control; and one or more electronics that: receive and process signals from the at least one refuse container location sensor; and output a control signal to the at least one speed control to stop the refuse vehicle at a predetermined location whereat the work tool may pick up the refuse container. Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Breed US 2005/0134440 A1 June 23, 2005 Kurple US 2006/0061481 A1 Mar. 23, 2006 REJECTION Claims 1–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kurple and Breed. Appeal 2019-006713 Application 14/346,832 3 OPINION Kurple and Breed The Examiner finds that Kurple discloses many of the elements recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose outputting a control signal to a speed control to stop the refuse vehicle at a predetermined location at which the work tool may pick up a refuse container. Non-Final Act. 3–4. To address this deficiency in the teachings of Kurple, the Examiner finds Breed discloses “send[ing] a signal to control a vehicle speed (e.g., to brake a vehicle) after receiving an RFID signal.” Id. at 4 (citing Breed ¶¶ 54, 694). The Examiner states that claim 1 does not require that the control signal for stopping the refuse truck be based on receipt of a sensed signal.2,3 Based on the above-noted findings and claim interpretation, the Examiner determines it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art “to use a refuse container location sensor in [Kurple’s] disclosure with Breed’s application of using [an] RFID signal to stop a refuse truck to pick up a receptacle within a preset proximity for an advantage of increasing accuracy and . . . adding extra automation features.” Id. Appellant argues that rather than providing control of the position of a refuse vehicle (in the expectation of picking up a refuse container), Kurple assists an operator with the positioning of a refuse container at a selected 2 The Examiner determines claims 7 and 14 recite this requirement. Non- Final Act. 4. 3 The Examiner presents over a page of discussion of legal principles governing the interpretation of contingent (conditional) limitations. See Ans. 2–4 (discussing MPEP § 2111.04 II and Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792 (PTAB 2016) (precedential)). Thus, the Examiner appears to interpret claims 1 and 8 as reciting contingent limitations. We do not understand either of claims 1 and 8 to recite contingent limitations. Appeal 2019-006713 Application 14/346,832 4 position (after the container has been picked up). See Appeal Br. 5–7; Reply Br. 2–3 (citing Kurple ¶ 24). Based on this assertion, Appellant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Kurple and Breed in a manner that meets all the requirements of claim 1. See Reply Br. 3. Additionally, Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding that Breed sends a control signal to apply brakes in a vehicle based upon the receipt of an RFID signal. Appeal Br. 7–8. “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Examiner does not direct us to findings of fact that provide such underpinning. We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not recite that the control signal employed to stop the refuse vehicle is based upon receipt of any sensed signal. See Non-Final Act. 4. Nonetheless, the Examiner’s rationale for implementing the teachings of Breed in the system disclosed by Kurple appears to rely on a finding that Breed sends a signal to control a vehicle speed (by applying the vehicle’s brakes) based upon the receipt of an RFID4 signal. See Non-Final Act. 4. We agree with Appellant that the paragraphs cited by the Examiner as evidence that Breed teaches the use of an RFID signal as discussed above do not mention an RFID signal, much less that it is used in this manner. See Breed ¶¶ 54, 694. Accordingly, the 4 RFID is an initialism for “radio-frequency identity (or identification),” which one online dictionary defines as “a technology that uses tiny computer chips to track items such as consumer commodities at a distance.” www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/rfid. Appeal 2019-006713 Application 14/346,832 5 Examiner’s reasoning for modifying the system disclosed by Kurple is based on an unsupported finding of fact. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or claims 2–7 and 16 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Kurple and Breed. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (holding that “[t]he legal conclusion of obviousness must be supported by facts. Where the legal conclusion is not supported by facts it cannot stand.”). Independent claim 8 recites a method in which the recited “electronics” perform the same steps discussed above regarding independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). As the Examiner relies on the same unsupported findings of fact and reasoning to reject both of claims 1 and 8, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8, and claims 9–15 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Kurple and Breed. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–16 103(a) Kurple, Breed 1–16 Overall Outcome 1–16 REVERSED