Ex Parte Bollapragada et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2019

14492226 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/492,226 09/22/2014 Srini vas Bollapragada
91959 7590 02/01/2019
GE GPO- Transportation- The Small Patent Law Group
225 S. Meramec, Suite 725
St. Louis, MO 63105
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
276666-1 (552-0259US) 6794
EXAMINER
MUSTAFA, IMRAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2019 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):
Docket@splglaw.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
john.kramerl@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SRINIV AS BOLLAPRAGADA, VINA YAK TILAK,
VINA YKANTH MUDIAM, and RAJEEV NAMBOOTHIRI
Appeal2018-002629 1
Application 14/492,226
Technology Center 3600
Before LISA M. GUIJT, LEE L. STEPINA, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 General Electric Company is the Appellant, and the Appeal Brief lists
General Electric Company as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 5.
Appeal2018-002629
Application 14/492,226
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a power assignment system and method for
forming vehicle systems. Claim 9, reproduced below with emphasis added,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
9. A system comprising:
one or more processors configured to determine a needed
amount of power for propelling a vehicle system along a route
during a trip from a first location to one or more destination
locations, the one or more processors also configured to identify
one or more propulsion-generating vehicles for inclusion in the
vehicle system based on power capabilities of the one or more
propulsion-generating vehicles, the power capabilities
representative of amounts of power that the one or more
propulsion-generating vehicles are calculated to be capable of
providing,
wherein the one or more processors also are configured to
determine handling parameters of the vehicle system having a
first group of the one or more propulsion-generating vehicles
generating propulsive force to move the vehicle system along the
route during the trip, and to repeat determining the handling
parameters of the vehicle system with the vehicle system having
one or more different groups of the one or more propulsion-
generating vehicles generating the propulsive force to move the
vehicle system along the route during the trip, and
wherein the one or more processors are configured to
select the one or more propulsion-generating vehicles in at least
one of the first group or the one or more different groups based
on the handling parameters, the one or more propulsion-
generating vehicles being selected for inclusion in the vehicle
system during actual travel of the vehicle system along the route
during the trip.
Appeal Br. 35 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2018-002629
Application 14/492,226
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Daum
Cooper
US 2010/0262321 Al
US 2013/0006451 Al
REJECTIONS
Oct. 14, 2010
Jan.3,2013
I. Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as anticipated by Cooper.
II. Claims 3---6, 8, 11-14, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Cooper and Daum.
OPINION
Rejection I, Cooper
Claims 9, 10, and 15
Appellant focuses its initial arguments on independent claim 9
(Appeal Br. 13-18), and we address our initial analysis to these arguments.
In determining that Cooper discloses all the elements recited in claim 9, the
Examiner finds that paragraph 52 and Figure 1 of Cooper teach that one or
more processors of the system in Cooper "are configured to select the one or
more propulsion-generating vehicles ... for inclusion in the vehicle system
during actual travel of the vehicle system along the route during the trip."
Non-Final Act. 8. Specifically, the Examiner finds "Cooper discloses an
energy management system that identifies which vehicles to power on and
which vehicles to power off." Id. at 3. Thus, the Examiner equates the
powering on or off of a vehicle with including or excluding the vehicle in
the vehicle system.
3
Appeal2018-002629
Application 14/492,226
Appellant contends that all of the vehicles that Cooper selects for
turning on or off are already in the system described by Cooper, and,
therefore, Cooper does not select vehicles for inclusion as recited. See Non-
Final Act. 16-17. In other words, according to Appellant, the function of
"selecting ... for inclusion in the system" in claim 9 is not met by the step
of selecting vehicles to be turned on or off. Instead, this limitation requires
the vehicles to be selected to be physically included, or not, in the system.
In response, the Examiner states, "the [E]xaminer interprets the
'inclusion' of vehicles to mean which vehicles to tum on/off (include) while
traversing a route." Ans. 4. The Examiner further states, "Applicant does
not claim that the consist[2J is in the process of being built and not already
built" and "[t]he concept of inclusion in the consist before the train even
takes off along the route is not mentioned in the claims." Id. at 5.
In reply, Appellant notes that claim 9 recites selecting ( or a processor
configured to select) vehicles for inclusion in the vehicle system during
actual travel of the vehicle system. Reply Br. 4---6. Thus, Appellant
reiterates, selecting vehicles to be turned on/off does not qualify as selecting
vehicles for inclusion. See id.
Appellant's argument is persuasive. We agree that the plain language
of claim 9 means that the one or more processors select (choose) vehicles for
physical inclusion to travel from the first location to the destination.
2 Cooper defines the term "consist" as follows: "[t]he remote powered units
may be organized in motive power groups referred to as consists." Cooper
,r 5. Appellant's Specification describes a "consist" as "two or more
propulsion-generating vehicles ... that are directly mechanically coupled to
each other, such as by couplers connected to the adjacent vehicles." Spec.
,r 36.
4
Appeal2018-002629
Application 14/492,226
Appellant's Specification is consistent with this interpretation. For example,
paragraph 14 of the Specification indicates that various vehicle yards may be
contacted to determine whether inbound propulsion-generating vehicles
"should be included in the vehicle system for the upcoming trip." The
implication of including the inbound vehicle in the vehicle system for the
upcoming trip is that the physical presence of the vehicle is the critical
characteristic. Paragraph 20 of the Specification implies the same thing,
stating, "after the vehicle system arrives at another vehicle yard during the
trip, the power assignment system 100 may identify one or more other
propulsion-generating vehicles to be included in the vehicle system, in place
of and/or in addition to the propulsion-generating vehicles in the vehicle
system."
Additionally, the Examiner's interpretation of the phrase "inclusion in
the vehicle system" as meaning "turning a vehicle on" would require that a
vehicle physically coupled to other vehicles (such as a locomotive coupled
to other train cars) would not be in the vehicle "system" if it were not turned
on. In other words, the Examiner's interpretation defines the system as only
the vehicles that are turned on. This interpretation is inconsistent with the
Specification, which states, "[ e ]mbodiments of the subject matter disclosed
herein relate to determining which propulsion-generating vehicles are to be
included in a vehicle system formed from one or more of the propulsion-
generating vehicles and optionally one or more non-propulsion-generating
vehicles." Spec. ,r 1 (emphasis added). As there is no indication that non-
propulsion-generating vehicles can be turned on, the Examiner's
interpretation of the phrase "being selected for inclusion in the vehicle
system" is unreasonably broad. This overly broad claim interpretation led
5
Appeal2018-002629
Application 14/492,226
the Examiner's incorrect finding that all the elements of claim 9 are taught
by Cooper. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9, and
claims 10 and 15 depending therefrom, as anticipated by Cooper.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 17, and 18
Independent claims 1 and 17 recite substantially similar requirements
to those discussed above regarding the rejection of claim 9 (see Appeal Br.
33, 37 (Claims App.)), and the Examiner relies on the same interpretation of
the phrase "for inclusion" in the rejection of these claims (see Non-Final
Act. 9). Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above regarding the
rejection of claim 9, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 17 and
associated dependent claims 2, 7, and 18.
Re} ection II, Cooper and Daum
The Examiner's unreasonably broad claim interpretation discussed
above regarding Rejection I is maintained in Rejection II. See Non-Final
Act. 12-14. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3-6, 8,
11-14, 16, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over Cooper and Daum.
DECISION
I. We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 15, 17, and 18
as anticipated by Cooper.
II. We reverse the rejection of claims 3---6, 8, 11-14, 16, 19, and 20
as unpatentable over Cooper and Daum.
REVERSED
6