Ex Parte Johnson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 26, 201613111500 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/111,500 05/19/2011 78833 7590 05/31/2016 DUKEW, YEE YEE & ASSOCIATES P.C. P.O. BOX 802333 DALLAS, TX 75380 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR David August Johnson 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. 17979-US 5647 EXAMINER BOUSONO, ORLANDO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2685 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2016 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): ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com mgamez@yeeiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID AUGUST JOHNSON, JULIAN SANCHEZ, ERIC R. ANDERSON, and MARK P. SAHLIN Appeal2014-006734 Application 13/111,500 Technology Center 2600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, KAMRAN JIVANI, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-25, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Deere & Company. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-006734 Application 13/111,500 INVENTION Appellants' invention relates to collaborative vehicle control using both human operator and automated controller input. Abstract. Claim 9 is illustrative and reads as follows: 9. An apparatus, comprising: a human operator controller configured to receive manual input from a human operator to control a vehicle, wherein the human operator controller is configured to provide a first control input relative to the manual input; a number of sensors mounted on the vehicle, wherein the number of sensors are configured to generate a number of sensor inputs and wherein the number of sensor inputs indicate a state of the vehicle; and a processor unit coupled to the human operator controller and to the number of sensors and configured to: generate a second control input using the number of sensor inputs, determine a relationship between the first control input and the second control input, select one of the first control input and the second control input based on the determined relationship between the first control input and the second control input, generate first control signals to control the vehicle using the manual input provided by the human operator responsive to selecting the first control input, and generate the first control signals to control the vehicle using the second control input responsive to selecting the second control input. 2 Appeal2014-006734 Application 13/111,500 REJECTIONS Claims 1-3, 7-11, and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Johnson et al. (US 2008/0234902 Al; published Sept. 25, 2008). Claims 18-20, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Johnson. Claims 4, 12, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Johnson and Rocke (US 2001/0056319 Al; published Dec. 27, 2001). Claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Johnson and Daveze et al. (US 2010/0045486 Al; published Feb. 25, 2010). ANALYSIS With respect to claim 9, Appellants contend the cited portions of Johnson do not describe a processor unit configured to "select one of the first control input and the second control input based on the determined relationship between the first control input and the second control input," as recited in claim 9. App. Br. 9-10. Appellants argue that Johnson does not teach selecting one of two input control signals because Johnson "describes an unconditional use by a controller of detected torque data and reference torque data." Reply Br. 3 (citing Johnson i-f 23); see also App. Br. 10. Appellants further argue that Johnson does not describe determining a relationship between the first control input and the second control input. See Reply Br. at 4--5. 3 Appeal2014-006734 Application 13/111,500 We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not clearly identified teachings in Johnson that describe the disputed claim limitations. See Ans. 3-5. A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claims is found, either expressly or inherently described in a single prior art reference, and arranged as required by the claim. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil. Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The Examiner, however, has not clearly identified where Johnson teaches determining a relationship between the identified control inputs relative to each other. Spec. 16. Moreover, rather than selecting one of control data from user interface 21 (which the Examiner maps to "first control input") and torque data from torque detector 10 (which the Examiner maps to "second control input") based on the relationship between them, as claim 9 requires, Johnson's controller 18 uses torque data from torque detector 10 and reference torque level data 30 to determine appropriate control signals. Johnson i-f 23; see Final Act. 3 (citing Johnson i-f 23). We do not agree with the Examiner that the determination of a control signals based on torque level threshold criteria in Johnson is sufficient to teach the disputed claim limitations. See Answer 3--4 (citing Johnson i-f 26). Johnson teaches that the controller is programmed to send a first control signal if the first torque level exceeds a first threshold and to send a second control signal if the detected second torque level meets or exceeds a second torque level. Johnson i-f 26; see also Ans. 3--4. The Examiner has not identified where Johnson describes determining a relationship between the two torque levels relative to each other and selecting between them based on that relationship. 4 Appeal2014-006734 Application 13/111,500 For at least these reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner errs in finding that Johnson teaches the limitations of claim 9. Each of independent claims 1 and 18 recites limitations similar to the "determine" and "select" limitations of claim 9. App. Br. 18-24. Accordingly, on the record before us, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 18, or of claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 15-17, dependent thereon. Because the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 4---6, 12-14, and 18-25 do not identify any modifications to Johnson or any teachings in the other applied prior art to overcome the deficiencies of Johnson, we also do not sustain those rejections. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-25 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation