Ex Parte Elston et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2016

12631007 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016)

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.
12/631,007 12/04/2009 Edwin R. Elston CRN 415 P2A 1885
29673 7590 12/30/2016
STEVENS & SHOWALTER LLP
7019 CORPORATE WAY
DAYTON, OH 45459-4238
EXAMINER
KHATIB, RAMI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2016 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):
PTO@sspatlaw.com
ssllp@speakeasy.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EDWIN R. ELSTON, VERNON W. SIEFRING, and
ERIC L. JENSEN
Appeal 2015-000195
Application 12/631,007
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, LISA M. GUIJT, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6—10,
52, 53, and 61—67. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Crown Equipment Corp. App. Br.
3.
Appeal 2015-000195
Application 12/631,007
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, exemplifies the claimed subject matter.
1. A materials handling vehicle having detection zone
control comprising:
a power unit for driving the vehicle;
a load handling assembly that extends from the power unit;
at least one contactless obstacle sensor on the vehicle
operable to define at least three detection zones, each detection
zone defining an area at least partially in front of a forward
traveling direction of the vehicle; and
a controller that is configured to control at least one aspect
of the vehicle, the controller further configured to receive
information obtained from the at least one obstacle sensor to:
perform a stop action if the vehicle is traveling and
an obstacle is detected in a first one of the detection zones
comprising a stop zone;
perform a first speed reduction action to reduce the
speed of the vehicle to a first predetermined speed if the
vehicle is traveling at a speed greater than the first
predetermined speed and an obstacle is detected in a
second one of the detection zones comprising a first speed
zone; and
perform a second speed reduction action to reduce
the speed of the vehicle to a second predetermined speed
different from the first predetermined speed if the vehicle
is traveling at a speed greater than the second
predetermined speed and an obstacle is detected in a third
one of the detection zones comprising a second speed
zone.
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 52—53, 61, 66, and 67 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Lanza et al. (US 5,938,710, issued Aug. 17,
1999) (hereinafter “Lanza”) and Sarangapani (US 6,173,215 Bl, issued Jan.
9, 2001). Final Act. 6—9; Advisory Action 2 (mailed Feb. 26, 2014)
2
Appeal 2015-000195
Application 12/631,007
(entering amendment to claim 61 and indicating the claims are rejected with
claim l).2
Claims 4 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lanza, Sarangapani, and Orzechowski (US 6,784,800 B2,
issued Aug. 31, 2004). Final Act. 9—10.
Claims 6, 8—10, and 62—65 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lanza, Sarangapani, and Foessel (US 7,266,477 B2,
issued Sept. 4, 2007). Final Act. 11—13; Advisory Act. 2 (mailed Feb. 26,
2014).3
ISSUE
The dispositive issue raised by Appellants’ contentions is whether the
Examiner errs in finding the combination of Lanza and Sarangapani teaches
the “predetermined” limitations of claim 1, including a controller configured
to “perform a first speed reduction action to reduce the speed of the vehicle
to a first predetermined speed if the vehicle is traveling at a speed greater
than the first predetermined speed” and “perform a second speed reduction
action to reduce the speed of the vehicle to a second predetermined speed
different from the first predetermined speed if the vehicle is traveling at a
speed greater than the second predetermined speed,” and similar limitations
recited in independent claim 61.
2 The Examiner’s Answer withdraws the previous rejection of claims 61, 66,
and 67 as anticipated by Lanza. Ans. 8.
3 The Examiner’s Answer withdraws the previous rejection of claims 62—65
as obvious over only Lanza and Foessel. Ans. 8.
3
Appeal 2015-000195
Application 12/631,007
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments. App. Br. 7—18; Reply Br. 2—13. We concur with Appellants’
argument that the Examiner has not shown the combination of Lanza and
Sarangapani teaches the “predetermined” limitations recited in claims 1 and
61. App. Br. 9-10, 14.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Lanza teaches performing a
first speed reduction of the vehicle to a first predetermined speed. Final Act.
7 (citing Lanza col. 6,11. 25—26). The Examiner also finds Sarangapani
teaches performing a second speed reduction action to reduce the speed of
the vehicle to a second predetermined speed different from the first
predetermined speed. Id. at 8 (citing Sarangapani col. 3,11. 38—52, Fig. 6,
col. 5,11. 57-62).
Appellants argue that even if Sarangapani teaches using two speed
zones, there is no teaching in Lanza or Sarangapani that “each speed zone
designates a different predetermined speed to which the speed of the
vehicle is reduced if an object is detected in the corresponding speed zone.”
App. Br. 14. Having reviewed the cited portions of Lanza and Sarangapani,
we agree with Appellants.
We interpret the claimed “predetermined speed” to be a specific value
set in the system as the maximum speed within a zone when an obstacle is
detected in that zone. Our interpretation is consistent with examples in the
Specification. See, e.g., Spec. 151. The Examiner does not address in the
Answer how the term “predetermined” is being interpreted, but it appears
from the rejection (see Final Act. 7) that the Examiner considers whatever
speed is reached after the speed reduction taught in Lanza to be the
4
Appeal 2015-000195
Application 12/631,007
“predetermined speed” recited in the claim. We conclude that this
interpretation is unreasonably broad. The claim does not state that a speed
reduction is predetermined or that the method for determining the speed or
reduction is predetermined, but rather that the speed is predetermined.
The cited portion of Lanza states that control system 4 in certain
circumstances “causes a speed reduction of the vehicle.” Lanza col. 6,11.
25—26. This portion of Lanza does not explain how the speed reduction is
determined. The cited portions of column 3 of Sarangapani discuss three
different zones and state that additional zones may be used. Column 5, lines
57—62, of Sarangapani describes the “alert zone” in which, if a moving
obstacle is determined to be in this zone, “control moves to a seventh control
block 620, where the mobile machine 102 reduces velocity.” Continuing in
columns 5 and 6, Sarangapani describes how the desired amount of
reduction in velocity is determined by analyzing the heading and velocity of
the moving obstacle, and reducing the velocity of the mobile machine 102
enough so that the moving obstacle and the mobile machine can continue in
their present headings without interfering with the travel paths of each other.
Id. at col. 5,1. 63 — col. 6,1. 3. It is evident from these passages in
Sarangapani that the reduction in speed is calculated in different situations
based on particular variables, but is not calculated based on a specific value
set in the system as the maximum speed within a zone when an obstacle is
detected in that zone.
In view of the foregoing, on the record before us, we do not sustain
the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lanza
and Sarangapani. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection
of claim 61, which similarly recites “a controller configured to receive
5
Appeal 2015-000195
Application 12/631,007
information obtained from the at least one obstacle sensor to limit the
vehicle speed to the predetermined maximum speed of a corresponding one
of the at least two speed zones.” Because the rejections of all claims on
appeal rely on the Examiner’s findings that Lanza and Sarangapani teach the
“predetermined” limitations of claims 1 and 61, we also do not sustain the
rejections of dependent claims 2, 4, 6—10, 52, 53, and 62—67.4
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 6—10, 52,
53, and 61—67.
REVERSED
4 Because this issue is dispositive as to all claims on appeal, we need not
reach additional issues raised by Appellants’ arguments.
6