Ex Parte Fansler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 15, 2018

13538742 (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/538,742 06/29/2012
113085 7590
Hollingsworth Davis, LLC
8000 West 78th Street
Suite 450
Minneapolis, MN 55439
05/17/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas S. Fansler
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.
PPN.007.Ul 1966
EXAMINER
CHAMPAGNE, LUNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/1712018 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):
tdotter@hdpatlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte THOMAS S. FANSLER and
RONALD EDWARD KONEZNY
Appeal2017-003129
Application 13/538,742
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-21 and 23-35, which constitute all
the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). Claim 22 was cancelled.
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Trimble Navigation, Ltd.
App. Br. 1.
1
Appeal2017-003129
Application 13/538,742
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention authorizes a fuel purchase based on a vehicle's
current fuel tank capacity. See generally Abstract. In one embodiment, in
addition to the vehicle's current fuel tank capacity, the fuel purchase is not
authorized if the vehicle attempts to fuel at a fueling station not included in
an optimization route. Spec. 6:1-3; 19:30-20:1; 21:22-28; Fig. 8.
According to the Specification, the optimization route involves preferred
fueling stations that the vehicle's driver is expected to use. Id. at 20:1-3.
"These fueling facilities may be based on the distance driven, where an
anticipated fueling stop is planned for an area that may have better fuel
prices, an agreement for fuel discounts with the truck/fleet, fewer state fuel
taxes, bathing facilities, etc." Id. at 20:3-5.
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below:
1. A processor-implemented method comprising:
obtaining a current fuel tank capacity for a vehicle;
transmitting the current fuel tank capacity to an
authorization entity;
obtaining an authorization for dispensing a quantity of fuel
not exceeding the current fuel tank capacity;
determining whether the vehicle is traveling on a
predetermined route;
authorizing the vehicle to receive the authorized quantity
of fuel based on compliance with the predetermined route;
receiving an updated current fuel tank capacity for the
vehicle after the authorized quantity of fuel has been dispensed;
and
determining whether the updated current fuel tank
capacity substantially corresponds to a total fuel tank capacity
for the vehicle at least in part using a processor.
2
Appeal2017-003129
Application 13/538,742
REJECTIONS 2
Claims 1-14, 16, 18-21, 23, 24, and 26-33 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Christensen (US 8,433,471
B2; Apr. 30, 2013) and Derwent Acc. No. 2008-B85443 (English Abst. of
FR 2 902 219 Al; Dec. 14, 2007) ("Vuillemin"). Final Act. 2-9.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Christensen, Vuillemin, and Shah (US 7,899,591 B2;
Mar. 1, 2011 ). Final Act. 9-10.
Claims 17 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Christensen, Vuillemin, and Watkins (US 8,280,619 B2;
Oct. 2, 2012). Final Act. 10-11.
Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Christensen, Vuillemin, and Hartsell, Jr. (US 6,522,947
Bl; Feb. 18, 2003). Final Act. 11-12.
Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Christensen, Vuillemin, and Ezra (US 2011/0172816 Al;
July 14, 2011). Final Act. 12.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Christensen discloses many recited elements
of claim 1 including, among other things, obtaining an authorization for
dispensing a quantity of fuel not exceeding a vehicle's current fuel tank
capacity. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner acknowledges Christensen neither
2 All prior art rejections are under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. in effect
before the effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011
("pre-AIA"). See, e.g., Final Act 2.
3
Appeal2017-003129
Application 13/538,742
determines whether the vehicle is traveling on a predetermined route nor
authorizes the vehicle to receive the quantity of fuel based on compliance
with the predetermined route, the Examiner cites Vuillemin for teaching this
feature in concluding the claim would have been obvious. Id. at 4.
According to the Examiner, Vuillemin discloses "ensuring that the driver
complies [with] existing legislation on working time." Adv. Act. 2 (citing
Vuillemin (FR 2 902 219 Al; Dec. 14, 2007), translated in Patent Translate,
Powered by EPO and GOOGLEâ„¢ ("Vuillemin Translation")). The
Examiner further finds "certain paths are allowed and fuel may be purchased
on those paths based on existing legislation on working time." Id.
Appellants argue the proposed combination does not teach or suggest
authorizing fuel delivery based on compliance with a predetermined route.
App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 9-10. Specifically, Appellants assert Vuillemin
discloses determining a vehicle's path, and the determined vehicle's path
determines an average consumption of fuel to ensure compliance with hours
of service regulations. App. Br. 9-10. Appellants argue, in light of the
above assertions, "it is unreasonable to deduce that Vuillemin is considering
... authorizing the vehicle to receive the authorized quantity of fuel based
on compliance with the predetermined route." Id. at 10 (emphasis omitted).
On this record, we find the preponderance of the evidence supports
Appellants. Vuillemin is generally directed to authorizing fuel delivery to a
vehicle. Vuillemin, Abstract. Vuillemin' s receiving terminal authorizes the
fuel delivery to the vehicle based on information transmitted by the vehicle.
Id. Vuillemin' s information transmitted by the vehicle to the receiving
terminal including the vehicle's traveled path. Id. Thus, Vuillemin's
4
Appeal2017-003129
Application 13/538,742
receiving terminal authorizes fuel delivery to the vehicle based on the
vehicle's traveled path. But even assuming the vehicle's traveled path of
Vuillemin is a "predetermined route," as recited in claim 1, Vuillemin' s
receiving terminal authorizing fuel delivery based on the predetermined
route alone does not teach or suggest authorizing fuel delivery based on
compliance with the predetermined route.
Vuillemin's receiving terminal also authorizes fuel delivery based on
rules established by a management administrator. Id. For example,
Vuillemin determines the vehicle's average fuel consumption, based on the
vehicle's traveled distance and pause time, to ensure the driver complies
with existing legislation on working time. Vuillemin Translation. The
record before us does not support a conclusion that Vuillemin' s rules or
existing legislation on working time determine teach or suggest authorizing
the fuel delivery based on the compliance with the predetermined route.
Therefore, on this record, we find the Examiner has not provided clear
evidence that Vuillemin teaches or suggests authorizing a vehicle to receive
an authorized quantity of fuel based on compliance with a predetermined
route, within the meaning of each independent claim on appeal. For us to
sustain the Examiner's rejections, we would need to resort to speculation or
unfounded assumptions to cure the aforementioned deficiency in the factual
bases of the rejections. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA
1967).
Constrained by this record, Appellants have persuaded us the
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, as well as (1) independent
claims 26 and 31-33, which each recite a commensurate limitation, under
5
Appeal2017-003129
Application 13/538,742
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of the combined teachings of
Christensen and Vuillemin; and (2) independent claim 25, which recites a
commensurate limitation, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of the
combined teachings of Christensen, Vuillemin, and Watkins. Dependent
claims 2-21, 23, 24, 27-30, 34, and 35 ultimately depend from, and
incorporate the limitations recited in, one of independent claims 1, 25, 26,
and 31-33. Although the rejections of some of the dependent claims rely on
one or more additional references, the additional references were not relied
on to cure the deficiency with respect to authorizing a vehicle to receive an
authorized quantity of fuel based on compliance with a predetermined route.
Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed with respect to the independent
claims, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims
2-21, 23, 24, 27-30, 34, and 35 under§ 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision in rejecting claims 1-21 and 23-35 is
reversed.
REVERSED
6