Ex Parte Gudat et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2016

12772035 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121772,035 05/19/2010 Adam J. GUDAT
58982 7590 09/22/2016
CATERPILLAR/FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, L.L.P.
901 New York A venue, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
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.
08350.9510-00000 2964
EXAMINER
CHOY, PANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2016 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):
regional-desk@finnegan.com
us_docket_clerk@cat.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADAM J. GUDAT, JAMES D. HUMPHREY,
PETER W. ANDERTON, DAVID C. ORR, KENNETH L. STRATTON,
CRAIG L. KOEHRSEN, CLAUDE W. KEEFER, and
MICHAEL D. BRAUNSTEIN
Appeal2014-002814
Application 12/772,035
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
ivIOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1-26 which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-002814
Application 12/772,035
THE INVENTION
The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to controlling fluid
delivery on a site (Spec., para. 7). Claim 1, reproduced below with the
numbering in brackets added, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method for controlling fluid delivery on a site using at least
one fluid delivery machine, the method performed by a worksite
computing system and comprising:
[l] identifying, by a processor associated with a controller, at
least one path on the site based on map information associated with
the site;
[2] calculating, by the processor, a fluid delivery requirement of
the at least one path based on environmental information associated
with the site and a desired fluid level of the at least one path; and
[3] dispatching, by the processor, a fluid delivery machine on a
mission to treat the at least one path with fluid based on the fluid
delivery requirement.
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 2, 5-10, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Carter (US 2005/0060127 Al published March 17,
2005) and Barash US 4,209, 131 issued June 24, 19 80).
2. Claims 3, 11-14, and 16-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Carter, Barash, and Owens (US 8,079,245 Bl
issued December 20, 2011.
3. Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Carter, Barash, Owens, and Mogi (Mogi et al., US
5, 177 ,521 issued January 5, 1993).
2
Appeal2014-002814
Application 12/772,035
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence1•
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
the prior art does not show or suggest elements of claim limitation [2]
identified above (App. Br. 12-15, Reply Br. 2).
In contrast the Examiner has determined that the cited claim limitation
[2] is found in Carter, Jr. at paragraphs 32, and 36-39 (Ans. 5-7, Final
Act. 6).
We agree with the Appellants. Claim limitation [2] requires:
[2] calculating, by the processor, a fluid delivery requirement of the at
least one path based on environmental information associated with the
site and a desired fluid level of the at least one path.
(Claim 1, emphasis added). In claim 1, following the above calculation of
the fluid delivery requirement for the path, the fluid delivery machine is
dispatched. In the Specification at Figure 4 "PATH ID" is shown as
including a "SEGMENT ID" which includes a "start point" and "end point".
Here the cited claim limitation requires "calculating .. . a fluid delivery
requirement of the at least one path based on environmental information
associated with the site and a desired fluid level of the at least one path".
1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal2014-002814
Application 12/772,035
The Specification at paragraph 71 refers to a "path segment" as the
"lengthwise portion of a path." Thus we determine that one of ordinary skill
in the art would construe the term "path" in light of the Specification to
include more than a mere point or single location, but rather to include the
distance between two points or length in some manner. In contrast, Carter at
the above citations does not disclose calculating the fluid delivery
requirement prior to dispatch along a path, but rather only at rather discrete
"work locations." For example, Carter at para. 3 7 discloses calculating if
there is sufficient water to treat dust conditions at separate work locations 14
but not along a path as claimed. Carter at para. 38 does disclose traveling to
multiple work locations on a route for fluid delivery to the work locations,
but the calculation of the fluid requirement is only disclosed for discrete
locations and not specifically for the route before dispatch. Carter at para.
39 does disclose treating an discrete intermediate work location 14 en route
to a high priority location 14a but this is only after the machine has already
been dispatched. In contrast, in claim 1 the "dispatching" is done based on
the prior calculation of the fluid delivery requirement along the path.
For these above reasons the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent
claims is not sustained. The remaining claims contain a similar limitation
and the rejection of these claims is not sustained for the same reasons given
above.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejections section above.
4
Appeal2014-002814
Application 12/772,035
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-26 is reversed.
REVERSED
5