Ex Parte Cameron

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

12211996 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/211,996 09/17/2008
112877 7590 03/02/2016
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Trimble Navigation Limited
Two Embarcadero Center
Eighth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3834
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John F. Cameron
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.
TRMB-1973 9515
EXAMINER
FE!, JORDAN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2016 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@wagnerblecher.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN F. CAMERON
Appeal2014-000281
Application 12/211,996
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
John F. Cameron (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-57. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM, but denominate the affirmance as NEW GROUNDS
OF REJECTION.
Appeal2014-000281
Application 12/211,996
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A method for monitoring a lifting device with respect to a
jobsite object comprising:
receiving location information from a first position
determiner module coupled to a first point of interest associated
with said lifting device;
determining an autonomous position of said first point of
interest based on said location information, said autonomous
position determined at said first point of interest;
accessing an autonomous position of a said jobsite object
proximate said lifting device; and
monitoring said lifting device based on comparing said
autonomous position of said first point of interest to said
autonomous position of said jobsite object.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 13, 14, 16-20, 22, 24, 30, 31, 34--38, 40, 41, 43--46,
51-53, and 57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Pahmeier (US 5,359,542, issued Oct. 25, 1994).
II. Claims 3, 8-12, 21, 25-29, 32, 39, 47--49, and 54 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pahmeier.
III. Claims 4, 6, 23, 42, 50, and 56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Pahmeier and Browne (US 6,658,336 B2, issued
Dec. 2, 2003).
IV. Claims 15 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pahmeier and O'Connor (US 2005/0242052 Al, issued
Nov. 3, 2005).
2
Appeal2014-000281
Application 12/211,996
V. Claim 55 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Pahmeier and Lesage (US 5,634,565, issued June 3, 1997).
DISCUSSION
Rejection I-Anticipation by Pahmeier
Appellant argues for patentability of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 13, 14, 16-20,
22, 24, 30, 31, 34--38, 40, 41, 43--46, 51-53, and 57 subject to this ground of
rejection as a group. Appeal Br. 6-9. We select claim 1 as representative of
this group, and the remaining claims in the group stand or fall with claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
The Examiner finds that Pahmeier discloses a method as called for in
claim 1. Final Act. 5; Ans. 6-7. In particular, the Examiner finds that
Pahmeier discloses receiving location information from a first position
determiner module coupled to a first point of interest associated with the
lifting device. Ans. 6 (citing Pahmeier, col. 3, 11. 47-55; col. 13, 11. 26-37).
The Examiner cites column 3, lines 47-53 and column 6, lines 41---65 as
disclosing determining an autonomous position of a first point of interest
based on said location information. Final Act. 5; Ans. 7. The Examiner
finds that Pahmeier discloses accessing an autonomous position of a jobsite
object proximate a lifting device, and monitoring said lifting device based on
comparing said autonomous position of said first point of interest to said
autonomous position of said jobsite object. Id. (citing Pahmeier, claim 1;
col. 2, 1. 55---col. 3, 1. 8; col. 14, 11. 25--40).
Appellant argues that the locations determined in Pahmeier are not
"autonomous," as called for in claim 1, because they "are determined
'relative to a known reference point' of the system of which Pahmeier is
3
Appeal2014-000281
Application 12/211,996
interested." Appeal Br. 6. Appellant contends that paragraph 21 of the
Specification defines the term "autonomous position." Reply Br. 2.
Paragraph 21 of the Specification states that "[f]or purposes of the present
invention, an autonomous position is the actual or physical location of the
point of interest in space." Appellant adds that "[b]eing the 'actual or
physical location,' the autonomous position is not dependent on the physical
interaction or relationship between components [of the lifting device] and is
an actual location in space, based on location information." Reply Br. 2-3.
Appellant fails to cogently explain why the determination of the
position of a point of interest relative to a known reference point of a
coordinate system, such as the hangar X, Y, Z coordinate system of
Pahmeier, is not the determination of the actual or physical location (i.e., the
autonomous position) of that point of interest in space. Notably, neither
claim 1 nor the definition of "autonomous position" in paragraph 21 of the
Specification specifies a coordinate system or reference (origin) point in
space relative to which the "autonomous position" is defined. Thus, claim 1
does not preclude the "autonomous position" from being determined relative
to the origin of Pahmeier's hanger coordinate system, rather than relative to
a different coordinate origin, for example, the Earth's center (i.e., the
coordinate origin of Global Navigation Satellite Service (GNSS) systems,
such as the Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) system). See Pahmeier, col.
5, 11. 56-59 (alluding to determination of offset position of aircraft "relative
to an absolute origin of an X, Y, Z coordinate system within the space of the
hangar"); id., col. 12, 11. 45-52 (discussing determining the X, Y locations of
portions of the cranes with reference to the hangar coordinate system); Spec.
4
Appeal2014-000281
Application 12/211,996
if 25 (disclosing one embodiment using GNSS data, such as GPS data, to
determine the autonomous position of interest on a crane).
Appellant points out that, unlike Pahmeier, which determines the
location of the airplane relative to the known reference point (i.e., the origin
of the hangar coordinate system) by determining the location of a point of
intersection of lines through collinear points positioned along the leading
edges of the wings, Appellant's "invention does not rely on a 'point of
intersection of lines through collinear points' to determine position." Appeal
Br. 6-7. However, Appellant's reliance on this distinction with regard to the
manner in which the position is determined is unavailing to distinguish
claim 1 over the prior art. Notably, the airplane in Pahmeier corresponds to
the "jobsite object" of claim 1. Claim 1 does not specify how the position of
the jobsite object is determined; indeed, claim 1 does not even positively
recite a step of determining the position of the jobsite object. See Appeal Br.
18 (Claims App.) (reciting, "accessing an autonomous position of said
jobsite object proximate said lifting device"). Pahmeier uses scanners to
ascertain directly the actual locations of two points on the leading edge of
each of the wings of the airplane and then determines the point of
intersection 52 of the lines passing through the two points on the leading
edge of each wing to locate one point along the longitudinal axis of the
airplane, and uses a sight gauge to determine the height or Z value of the
airplane. Pahmeier, Fig. 3; col. 2, 1. 64---col. 3, 1. 21; col. 8, 11. 1-39; col. 8, 1.
61---col. 9, 1. 6. In doing so, Pahmeier determines the X, Y, and Z values of
the airplane relative to the hangar coordinate system. These X, Y, and Z
values represent the actual or physical location of the airplane within the
space of the coordinate system, and, thus, the "autonomous position" of the
5
Appeal2014-000281
Application 12/211,996
airplane (i.e., ajobsite object). Further, Pahmeier uses (i.e., accesses) this
airplane positional data, along with the X, Y, and Z position of the crane
platform, to set software limits on the motion of the crane. See Pahmeier,
claim 1 ("said setting means employing the stored set of data from said
scanning means"); see also id., col. 3, 11. 22-53.
Likewise, Pahmeier discloses using a plurality of encoders to
determine the X, Y, and Z positions of each crane (lifting device).
See col. 3, 11. 47-53; col. 13, 1. 26-col. 14, 1. 11. These encoders provide
information on the distance the crane platform travels in the X, Y, and Z
directions. As such, the information provided by these encoders is not
sufficient, by itself, to determine the actual or physical location of the
platform in the hangar coordinate system, and, thus, does not determine an
autonomous position of a first point of interest, as the Examiner's rejection
suggests. See Final Act. 5 (citing Pahmeier, col. 3, 11. 47-53). However, the
actual or physical location (i.e., the autonomous position) of the lifting
platform of the crane is determined from the encoder information and from
the home position of the crane, which is known relative to the hangar
coordinate system. See Pahmeier, col. 12, 11. 45-52.
Appellant argues that the autonomous position of Appellant's
invention takes into account bending and stretching of the lifting device
components in determining the position, such that the autonomous position
"is 'not dependent on physical interaction and/or relationships between
components of the lifting device' in determining the position." Appeal Br.
7. According to Appellant, this distinguishes Appellant's invention "from
the cited references that [sic] known physical relationships between objects
to determine position." Id. This argument does not apprise us of error. As
6
Appeal2014-000281
Application 12/211,996
the Examiner points out, paragraph 60 of Appellant's Specification discloses
using a measured distance between the autonomous position of the trolley
and another component to determine the autonomous position of another
component of the lifting device, such as the hook block. See Ans. 5. Thus,
the term "autonomous position" cannot be read, consistent with Appellant's
Specification, as excluding an autonomous position of a point of interest
determined in part by measuring the distance between a component of the
lifting device whose autonomous position is already known, and the point of
interest.
Like the autonomous position of Appellant's hook block, the position
of Pahmeier' s platform, determined from the direct distance measurements
of the encoders and the home position of the crane, which is known relative
to the hangar coordinate system, is an actual or physical location (i.e.,
autonomous position) within the space of Pahmeier's hangar coordinate
system. Likewise, as already discussed above, the location of Pahmeier' s
airplane is determined from actual or physical locations of points on the
leading edges of Pahmeier' s airplane, and is not dependent on physical
interactions and/or relationships between components of the lifting device.
Thus, Appellant's argument fails to show that the X, Y, and Z values of the
airplane determined by Pahmeier do not represent an autonomous position of
the airplane.
Appellants argue that Pahmeier's "specific examples of 'ultrasonic
sensors[]' [and] 'infrared sensors[,]' merely 'detect' objects and do not
generate an 'autonomous position,' as claimed." Appeal Br. 8. We agree
with Appellant that the ultrasonic and infrared sensors of Pahmeier' s "other
collision detection and/or anti-collision mechanisms" disclosed for use in
7
Appeal2014-000281
Application 12/211,996
combination with Pahmeier' s software limits do not detect or determine
autonomous positions of the airplane. See Pahmeier, col. 4, 11. 1-19; col. 14,
11. 25--40. Thus, any reliance on these sensors by the Examiner (see Final
Act. 5; Ans. 7) is unavailing for purposes of showing determination of an
autonomous position of either the lifting device or a jobsite object, or
monitoring by comparing such autonomous positions. However, as
discussed above, we find that the positions of the platform and the airplane
determined for use in setting the software limits are autonomous positions,
as called for in claim 1.
Finally, Appellant argues that "the Examiner has not sufficiently
showed [sic] that Pahmeier teaches 'accessing an autonomous position of
said jobsite object proximate said lifting device,' as claimed." Appeal Br. 8;
see also Reply Br. 4 (stating, "The Examiner provides Claim 1 and column
2, line 55-colunm 3, line 8 as teaching this feature, but Appellant[]
disagree[s] that Pahmeier shows this claimed feature."). Appellant does not
elaborate, with any specificity, on why the disclosure of Pahmeier relied on
by the Examiner is deficient vis-a-vis the "accessing an autonomous position
... " limitation of claim 1. For the reasons discussed above, Pahmeier uses
the locations of two points on the leading edge of each wing detected by
scanners to ascertain the autonomous position of the airplane within the
space of the hangar coordinate system. See Pahmeier, col. 2, 1. 55----col. 3,
1. 8; see also id., col. 8, 11. 1-39; col. 8, 1. 61---col. 9, 1. 6 (disclosing same in
more detail). Further, Pahmeier uses (i.e., accesses) this airplane positional
data, along with the X, Y, and Z position of the crane platform, to set
software limits on the motion of the crane. See Pahmeier, claim 1 ("said
8
Appeal2014-000281
Application 12/211,996
setting means employing the stored set of data from said scanning means");
see also id., col. 3, 11. 22-53.
For the above reasons, Appellant fails to show that the Examiner erred
in finding that Pahmeier anticipates the subject matter of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2, 5, 7, 13, 14,
16-20, 22, 24, 30, 31, 34--38, 40, 41, 43--46, 51-53, and 57, which fall with
claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Pahmeier. However,
because our analysis in affirming this rejection elaborates on, and
supplements, the findings and reasoning articulated by the Examiner, and
relies on portions of Pahmeier not cited by the Examiner, we designate our
affirmance as a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) to
provide Appellant with an opportunity to respond thereto.
Rejection II-Obviousness based on Pahmeier
In contesting this rejection, Appellant reiterates the argument "that
Pahmeier fails to show determining autonomous positions at a point of
interest" and "point out that this would not be an obvious modification to
Pahmeier because it would significantly change the principal mode of
operation of Pahmeier." Appeal Br. 10; see also id. at 11-13 (repeating this
argument). According to Appellant, "the principle mode of operation of
Pahmeier is to use a known position and intersecting lines and extrapolating
[sic] a position of interest based on a known relationship between locations
to determine relational positioning." Id. at 10.
Appellant's argument fails to apprise us of error in the rejection. The
Examiner does not propose to modify Pahmeier to change the manner in
which the position of the airplane is determined. The Examiner finds, and
we agree, as discussed above, that Pahmeier's manner of ascertaining the
9
Appeal2014-000281
Application 12/211,996
position of the crane platform determines an autonomous position at a point
of interest, and Pahmeier' s manner of ascertaining the position of the
airplane determines an autonomous position of the airplane (i.e., jobsite
object).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 3, 8-12, 21, 25-29,
32, 39, 47--49, and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Pahmeier. Because our affirmance of this rejection incorporates the analysis
articulated, supra, in sustaining the rejection of claim 1, including findings
and reasoning supplementing that articulated by the Examiner, we designate
our affirmance as a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
to provide Appellant with an opportunity to respond thereto.
Rejection III-Obviousness based on Pahmeier and Browne
In contesting this rejection, Appellant argues that Pahmeier does not
teach or suggest determining an autonomous position at a point of interest
and that modifying Pahmeier to do so would significantly change the
principal mode of operation of Pahmeier and, thus, would not have been
obvious. Appeal Br. 14. This argument is unavailing in contesting the
rejection of claims 4 and 42 because it does not address the rejection of
claims 4 and 42 as articulated by the Examiner. See Final Act. 12
(proposing to modify Pahmeier to include a position determiner physically
coupled to the object as taught by Brown to transmit data about the nature of
the object as well as location information which can be relevant to avoiding
a collision with the object). The Examiner finds, and we agree, as discussed
above, that Pahmeier determines an autonomous position of the lifting
device at a point of interest. The Examiner does not propose modifying
10
Appeal2014-000281
Application 12/211,996
Pahmeier to change the manner in which this autonomous position is
determined.
Appellant adds that Browne does not teach or suggest determining an
autonomous position at a point of interest to avoid collisions, and, thus, fails
to remedy the deficiencies of Pahmeier. Appeal Br. 14. This argument also
fails to apprise us of error in the rejection of claims 4 and 42 because, as
discussed above, Pahmeier determines an autonomous position at a point of
interest to avoid collisions. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims
4 and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pahmeier and
Browne. Because our affirmance of this rejection incorporates the analysis
articulated, supra, in sustaining the rejection of claim 1, including findings
and reasoning supplementing that articulated by the Examiner, we designate
our affirmance as a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
to provide Appellant with an opportunity to respond thereto.
In addition to the aforementioned arguments, Appellant also submits
"that Browne fails to show how a GNS S position determiner can be used
with a system that relies upon using relative positions, as with Pahmeier."
Id. This argument, which is directed to claims 6, 23, 50, and 56, is not
convincing because, as discussed above, we find that Pahmeier, in fact,
determines actual or physical locations of the crane platform and the airplane
within the space of the hangar coordinate system, and uses those positions to
set software limits for rotation of the crane in order to avoid collisions with
the airplane.
Browne teaches that a collision avoidance system may include a GPS
device attachable to the subject vehicle, in addition to other collision-
avoidance sensors, for obtaining real time subject vehicle position, which is
11
Appeal2014-000281
Application 12/211,996
then compared with real time position data for objects to identify predicted
and imminent collisions. Browne, col. 2, 1. 63----col. 3, 1. 3; id., col. 10,
1. 33----col. 11, 1. 5. As the Examiner explains, Browne teaches avoiding
collisions between a vehicle and an object by determining the autonomous
positions of each, and also teaches using a GPS device to determine the
position of the subject vehicle. Ans. 8. The Examiner reasons that it would
have been obvious to modify Pahmeier, which discloses avoiding collisions
between a crane and objects, to include a position determiner that is
substantially compatible with a GNSS device as taught by Browne to allow
the position determiner to use GPS data when determining the first point of
interest location or object location. Id. Appellant does not point out error in
the Examiner's reasoning.
The modification proposed by the Examiner would simply adapt
Pahmeier' s system to accept GPS position data, in addition to or instead of
position data referenced to Pahmeier's hangar coordinate system, to
determine crane and airplane positions in order to set software limits on
crane rotation to avoid collisions. In light of the teachings of Pahmeier and
Browne, such a modification would not be unduly challenging for one
skilled in the art and would not change the principal mode of operation of
Pahmeier.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claims 6, 23, 50, and 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pahmeier and Browne. Because our affirmance of this
rejection incorporates the analysis articulated, supra, in sustaining the
rejection of claim 1, including findings and reasoning supplementing that
articulated by the Examiner, we designate our affirmance as a new ground of
12
Appeal2014-000281
Application 12/211,996
rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) to provide Appellant with an
opportunity to respond thereto.
Rejection IV-Obviousness based on Pahmeier and 0 'Connor
In contesting this rejection, Appellant reiterates the arguments that
Pahmeier does not teach or suggest determining an autonomous position at a
point of interest; that modifying Pahmeier to do so would change the
principal mode of operation of Pahmeier and, thus, would not have been
obvious; and that Lesage1 does not remedy the deficiencies of Pahmeier in
this regard. Appeal Br. 15. This line of argument does not apprise us of
error, for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection
of claims 15 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pahmeier
and O'Connor. Because our affirmance of this rejection incorporates the
analysis articulated, supra, in sustaining the rejection of claim 1, including
findings and reasoning supplementing that articulated by the Examiner, we
designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b) to provide Appellant with an opportunity to respond thereto.
Rejection V-Obviousness based on Pahmeier and Lesage
In contesting this rejection, Appellant reiterates the arguments that
Pahmeier does not teach or suggest determining an autonomous position at a
point of interest; that modifying Pahmeier to do so would change the
principal mode of operation of Pahmeier and, thus, would not have been
obvious; and that Lesage does not remedy the deficiencies of Pahmeier in
this regard. Appeal Br. 16. This line of argument does not apprise us of
error, for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection
1 We assume that Appellant intended to refer to O'Connor, and not Lesage,
and interpret Appellant's argument as such.
13
Appeal2014-000281
Application 12/211,996
of claim 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pahmeier and
Lesage. Because our affirmance of this rejection incorporates the analysis
articulated, supra, in sustaining the rejection of claim 1, including findings
and reasoning supplementing that articulated by the Examiner, we designate
our affirmance as a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
to provide Appellant with an opportunity to respond thereto.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-57 is affirmed.
FINALITY OF DECISION
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review."
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding
will be remanded to the examiner. ...
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record ....
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
14
Appeal2014-000281
Application 12/211,996
AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
15