Ex Parte Baig et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 22, 2010

11094006 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 22, 2010)

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.
11/094,006 03/30/2005 Mirza Aref Ahmed Baig 20-LC-5025CON (441) 9229
29391 7590 10/22/2010
BEUSSE WOLTER SANKS MORA & MAIRE, P. A.
390 NORTH ORANGE AVENUE
SUITE 2500
ORLANDO, FL 32801
EXAMINER
MANCHO, RONNIE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/22/2010 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MIRZA AREF AHMED BAIG, RICHARD L. EVANS,
SCOTT SEXAUER, CHRISTOPHER E. PALLO, NING ZHANG,
STEVEN ANDREW KELLNER, LEONARD HILL,
BRUCE M. SWEELEY, and JAMES GLEN CORRY
____________

Appeal 2009-008369
Application 11/094,006
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and KEN B.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-008369
Application 11/094,006

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Mirza Aref Ahmed Baig et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 (2002) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Stewart (US 6,401,015, iss. Jun. 4,
2002). The Examiner has withdrawn claims 1-19, which are the only other
claims pending in the application, from consideration. We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (2002).
The Invention
Appellants’ invention is directed to locomotive controllers for
selectively limiting tractive effort in locomotives. Spec. 1, para. [002].
Claim 20, reproduced below, is the only claim involved in this appeal.
20. A method for controlling a level of tractive effort in a train
having a first locomotive constituting a command locomotive,
operable through a range of engine power settings, and a second
locomotive positioned in the train at a spaced location from the
command locomotive, said second locomotive constituting a
command-follower locomotive, operable through a range of
engine power settings, with at least one railcar being positioned
between the command and command-follower locomotives, a
communication link between the command and command-
follower locomotives for transmitting and receiving engine
power control signals for controlling locomotive engine power
settings and tractive effort control signals for controlling the
level of tractive effort, and at least one of the locomotives being
configured to selectively operate in either of two modes of
operation comprising a first mode in which said at least one
locomotive generates a different tractive effort than when said
at least one locomotive is in a second mode of operation, the
method comprising;
at the command locomotive selecting between the two
modes of operation for producing a level of tractive effort
appropriate for conditions as the train moves along a length of
track;
Appeal 2009-008369
Application 11/094,006

3
transmitting a tractive effort control signal indicative of
the selected mode of operation;
receiving the tractive effort control signal at another of
said locomotives; and
controlling the tractive effort generated at said at least
one locomotive so as to develop a differential in the tractive
effort generated by the command and command-follower
locomotives, with the tractive effort generated at the command
locomotive being different than that generated at the command-
follower locomotive, in one of the two modes of operation,
whereby with the command and command-follower
locomotives under power to operate in engine power settings to
move the train in a given direction of travel, the differential in
the tractive effort generated by the command and command-
follower locomotives is selected to avoid an occurrence of a
derailment condition that otherwise can develop in a railcar
between the command and command-follower locomotives.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

OPINION
Issue
Appellants argue that Stewart fails to describe a method comprising
the controlling step called for in the last paragraph of claim 20. App. Br. 4-
8. The Examiner found that Stewart describes this controlling step at col. 4,
ll. 45-67; col. 6, ll. 43-65; col. 10, ll. 55-67; col. 12, ll. 37-44; col. 21, ll. 55-
67; and col. 22, ll. 1-11. Ans. 5. Accordingly the dispositive issue raised in
this appeal is whether the cited portions of Stewart describe the controlling
step of claim 20, more particularly, a step of controlling at least one
locomotive so as to develop a differential between the tractive effort
Appeal 2009-008369
Application 11/094,006

4
generated by the command locomotive and the tractive effort generated by
the command-follower locomotive, with the differential in the tractive effort
generated by the command and command-follower locomotives being
selected to avoid an occurrence of a derailment condition that otherwise can
develop in a railcar between the command locomotive and the command-
follower locomotive.
Discussion
We agree with Appellants’ summary (App. Br. 4-8) of the teachings
of the portions of Stewart cited by the Examiner as describing the
controlling step of claim 20. We cannot find by a preponderance of the
evidence, and the Examiner has not cogently demonstrated, that these
portions of Stewart describe the controlling step called for in claim 20.
The Examiner’s reasoning that a differential is developed between the
different locomotives on the train because the two tractive efforts are
produced by different locomotives (Ans. 5) is not well founded. The fact
that different locomotives on the train have the capability to produce tractive
efforts which are different from each other does not satisfy a step of actually
controlling those locomotives so as to produce tractive efforts which are
different from one another. The Examiner additionally makes reference to
tractive efforts of different direction or magnitude in a cut out mode (Ans. 5,
7), but does not specifically identify any portion of Stewart that describes
controlling the lead and remote (follower) locomotives so as to generate
different tractive efforts in a cut out mode.
The Examiner’s explanation (see id.) as to how Stewart satisfies the
limitation of claim 20 that the differential is selected to avoid the occurrence
of a derailment condition that otherwise can develop is also unconvincing.
Appeal 2009-008369
Application 11/094,006

5
The Examiner’s finding that in a cut out mode, the tendency of the train to
derail is reduced because the train size has been reduced (id.), even if
factually accurate, does not explain how Stewart describes selecting a
differential between the tractive efforts of the command and command-
follower locomotives to avoid occurrence of a derailment condition. Finally,
we do not agree with the Examiner (see id.) that Stewart’s description of
running the locomotives in a Run mode, or at a reduced speed of 12 mph,
describes a positive step of controlling the locomotives to avoid an
occurrence of a derailment condition, as called for in claim 20.
For the above reasons, we cannot find by a preponderance of the
evidence that the cited portions of Stewart describe the controlling step of
claim 20, more particularly, a step of controlling at least one locomotive so
as to develop a differential between the tractive effort generated by the
command locomotive and the tractive effort generated by the command-
follower locomotive, with the differential in the tractive effort generated by
the command and command-follower locomotives being selected to avoid an
occurrence of a derailment condition that otherwise can develop in a railcar
between the command locomotive and the command-follower locomotive.
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.

REVERSED

Appeal 2009-008369
Application 11/094,006

6

mls

BEUSSE WOLTER SANKS MORA & MAIRE, P. A.
390 NORTH ORANGE AVENUE
SUITE 2500
ORLANDO, FL 32801