Ex Parte Johnson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 3, 2017

13417267 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 2017)

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.
13/417,267 03/11/2012 Gerald R. Johnson A1144ATS 7142
88988 7590 01/05/2017
AGCO Corporation, IP Legal
Jeff Ellsworth
420 W. Lincoln Blvd.
Hesston, KS 67062
EXAMINER
WANG, JACK K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/05/2017 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 @ agcocorp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GERALD R. JOHNSON, GRANT L. GOOD, and
TIMOTHY DAN BUHLER
Appeal 2016-001456
Application 13/417,2671
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5—10, 13—18, 20, and 22—39, which are all of the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Technology
The application relates to a “remote query of weather conditions at an
agricultural machine,” such as a tractor. Spec. Abstract, 122.
Representative Claim
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below:
1 Appellants state the real party in interest is AGCO Corporation. Br. 4.
Appeal 2016-001456
Application 13/417,267
1. A system for remote querying, comprising:
a telemetry unit configured for bidirectional
communication, said telemetry unit configured for coupling to a
controller area network bus of an agricultural machine, the
agricultural machine being a tractor, combine harvester, sprayer
or windrower;
at least one sensor coupled to said controller area network
bus of said agricultural machine and configured to provide
weather characteristic data; and
wherein said telemetry unit is configured to receive
communication from a remote communication device, and in
response to said communication, transmit said data to said
communication device.
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 5—10, and 13—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over the combination of Knoblach et al. (US 2002/0072361 Al;
June 13, 2002) and Giles et al. (US 2008/0114497 Al; May 15, 2008). Final
Act. 2.
Claims 18, 20, and 22—39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Martin et al. (US 2012/0109387 Al; May
3, 2012) and Giles. Final Act. 6.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding a person of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention would have been motivated to combine Knoblach
and Giles as the Examiner sets forth for claim 1 ?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 5—10, and 13—17
Although we are not persuaded by Appellants arguing the references
individually rather than in combination (Br. 14—15), we are persuaded by
2
Appeal 2016-001456
Application 13/417,267
Appellants’ argument that the Examiner has not set forth with sufficient
specificity a motivation to combine Knoblach and Giles. Id. at 15—16.
Knoblach teaches using balloons in the Earth’s atmosphere to provide
communications services for pagers, voice communications, or other
applications. Knoblach 127, Fig. 3. Knoblach’s balloons are also capable
of providing wind information or other weather data during a balloon’s
initial ascent. See id. 113; Br. 11—12.
Giles teaches an agricultural sprayer with a controller area network
(CAN) bus connecting various components (such as spray nozzles) and
providing information to the operator of the sprayer of any nozzle
malfunction. Giles 119, Fig. 1. “An operator, typically in a cab of a tractor
of the networked delivery system, can monitor and control the nozzles via
the control area network.” Id. 119.
The Examiner contends that “one of ordinary skill in the art could
have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in
combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does
separately” and “[t]he results of the combination would have been
predictable.” Ans. 3 (emphasis added). Although we agree with the
Examiner that a person of ordinary skill would have been capable of making
the proposed combination, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has
not identified why a person of ordinary skill would do so. Br. 15—16.
As the Supreme Court has said, “a patent composed of several
elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its
elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR Int 7 Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
3
Appeal 2016-001456
Application 13/417,267
[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have
prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to
combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.
This is so because inventions in most, if not all, instances rely
upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed
discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in
some sense, is already known.
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418—19. For example, the Federal Circuit has held that
testimony “succumbed to hindsight bias” when it “primarily consisted of
conclusory references to her belief that one of ordinary skill in the art could
combine these references, not that they would have been motivated to do
so.” InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352
(Fed. Cir. 2014). Such is the case here where the Examiner has found a
person of ordinary skill could combine the references, but has not
sufficiently explained whether a person of ordinary skill would do so.
Absent such findings from the Examiner, we decline to do such an analysis
in the first instance.2
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1, and claims 2, 5—10, and 13—17, which recite commensurate
limitations.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments for
these claims.
2 The Examiner may also find it easier to identify a motivation to combine
for references more closely related to each other, such as US 6,185,990
(disclosing a combine harvester with a humidity sensor), US 5,699,244
(disclosing a PDA “that a farmer may readily carry . . . wherever he goes, in
the field, on a tractor, etc.” to collect and transmit weather data), or Martin
(disclosing transmitting weather data for crops and relied on by the
Examiner in rejecting claims 18, 20, and 22—39).
4
Appeal 2016-001456
Application 13/417,267
Claims 18, 20, and 22—29
“An appeal, when taken, is presumed to be taken from the rejection of
all claims under rejection unless cancelled by an amendment filed by the
applicant and entered by the Office.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c). Here, the
Examiner had a second rejection concluding that claims 18, 20, and 22—39
were obvious, yet Appellants have not presented any arguments addressing
that rejection. Arguments that Appellants could have made but chose not to
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Accordingly, we
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18, 20, and 22—39.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1, 2, 5—10, and 13—17.
We affirm the rejection of claims 18, 20, and 22—39.
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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
5