Ex Parte Addink et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 17, 2006

10344013 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 17, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
___

Ex parte JOHN ADDINK and KIRK BUHLER
____________

Appeal No. 2006-0516
Application No. 10/344,013
____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before FRANKFORT, OWENS and NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal is from a rejection of claims 1-13, which are all
of the pending claims.
THE INVENTION
The appellants claim a microprocessor programmed to apply
irrigation water in an automatically varied cycle amount which, on
watering days, falls between user controllable maximum and non-zero

Appeal No. 2006-0516
Application No. 10/344,013

2
minimum thresholds, wherein the thresholds are durations of time.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A microprocessor programmed to (a) calculate an
accumulated watering need for an irrigation zone, and (b) control
irrigation to the zone using an automatically varied frequency of
irrigation and an automatically varied cycle amount, wherein the
cycle amount on watering days falls between a user controllable
maximum threshold, and a user controllable non-zero minimum
threshold, and wherein the user sets both the minimum threshold and
the maximum threshold as a duration of time.
THE REFERENCES
Nielsen et al. (Nielsen) 5,251,153 Oct. 5, 1993
Oliver 5,696,671 Dec. 9, 1997
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1, 6-8 and 10-13
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Nielsen, and claims 2-5
and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Nielsen in view of
Oliver.
OPINION
Appeal No. 2006-0516
Application No. 10/344,013

3

We reverse the aforementioned rejections. We need to address
only claim 1, which is the sole independent claim.1

1 The examiner does not rely upon Oliver for any disclosure that remedies the deficiency in
Nielsen as to the independent claim.
The appellants’ claim 1 requires an automatically varied cycle
amount of irrigation water, and requires that the cycle amount on
watering days falls within user controllable maximum and non-zero
minimum thresholds, wherein the user sets both the maximum and
minimum thresholds as a duration of time.
Nielsen discloses:
Controller timing control of the irrigation valves
is from 1 minute to 240 minutes in one minute increments.
Thus one minute precision in starting or stopping
irrigation is combined with the ability to set watering
durations of up to 4 hours for each start time. [col. 9,
lines 33-37]

* * *

The AUTOSPLIT Set Up will meet the user’s needs for
most watering situations. The user can use this setup to
program multiple watering cycles by automatically
splitting the total (100%) watering duration (1 minute to
Appeal No. 2006-0516
Application No. 10/344,013

4
4 hours) that he/she sets into a number of short “Split
Cycles” for erosion control and better water penetration.
The controller automatically inserts the optimum length
of each split ON cycle (ranging from 1 minute to 60
minutes), and the minimum length of time that the water
is to remain OFF before the next split ON cycle for that
station (ranging from 0 minute to 60 minutes). These
maximum ON and minimum OFF times are determined from a
built-in lookup table (Table 1 of Section 1.4.1) that has
values calculated from the site information (soil type,
sprinkler type, and terrain) entered in SETUP SYSTEM.
The user can modify these maximum ON and minimum OFF
times if desired. [col. 29, lines 18-34]

The examiner argues (answer, page 9):
It is the Examiner[’]s position that only the “cycle
amount” is defined as when watering is occurring. A user
controllable maximum threshold irrigation value and a
user controllable non-zero minimum threshold irrigation
value, as written and defined in the claims, only have to
be “user controllable” and “a duration of time”. Nowhere
in the claims is it defined that that [sic] the maximum
threshold irrigation value and the minimum threshold
irrigation value are tied to or related to the cycle
amount of time, simply that they are user set and they
are irrigation values which are durations of time. The
maximum on time of Nielsen et al is user set, is a
duration of time and is an irrigation value. The minimum
off time of Nielsen et al is user set, is a duration of
time and is an irrigation value, not a water on value but
an irrigation value just the same. Examples of
irrigation values also include items such as soak time,
temperature, Evapotranspiration, cycle time, moisture,
etc. Nowhere in the claims does it state that the
minimum threshold irrigation value is the minimum amount
of time that the varied cycle amount is to apply water,
it simply states “the cycle amount ... falls between a
... maximum threshold[”] irrigation value [“]and a user
Appeal No. 2006-0516
Application No. 10/344,013

5
controllable non-zero minimum threshold[”] irrigation
value.

The examiner’s argument that the maximum and minimum
thresholds are not related to the cycle amount is incorrect because
the cycle amount is automatically varied to be between the maximum
and minimum thresholds.

The examiner’s argument that the minimum threshold is not the
minimum amount of time that the varied cycle amount is to be
applied is incorrect because the cycle amount is automatically
varied such that on watering days, the cycle amount is at least the
user controllable non-zero minimum threshold.
The examiner argues that if Nielsen applies water twice and
each application is followed by an off time, the second application
is between a user controllable maximum threshold, which is the
first application, and a user controllable non-zero minimum
threshold, which is the second off time (answer, page 10). The
appellants’ claim 1, however, requires that the cycle amount on
watering days is automatically varied such that it falls between
user controllable maximum and non-zero minimum thresholds expressed
Appeal No. 2006-0516
Application No. 10/344,013

6
as durations of time, not that the cycle applications take place in
time between those thresholds.
For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
anticipation or obviousness of the appellants’ claimed invention.

DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 6-8 and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) over Nielsen, and claims 2-5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Nielsen in view of Oliver, are reversed.
REVERSED

CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
TERRY J. OWENS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
Appeal No. 2006-0516
Application No. 10/344,013

7
)
)
ROBERT E. NAPPI )
Administrative Patent Judge )

TJO/ki
Comment [jvn1]: Type address
Appeal No. 2006-0516
Application No. 10/344,013

8
Robert D. Fish
Rutan & Tucker, LLP
611 Anton Blvd., 14th Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1931