Ex Parte Kah

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 15, 2017

13271784 (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 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.
13/271,784 10/12/2011 Carl L.C. Kah JR. P/3426-260 CON (V21011) 1026
2352 7590 05/15/2017
OSTROLENK FABER LLP
1180 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
NEW YORK, NY 10036-8403
EXAMINER
GAMI, TEJAL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2126
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/15/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex Parte CARL L.C. KAH JR.
Appeal 2017-002292
Application 13/271,7841
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. EVANS, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1—12. App. Br. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies the inventor Carl L.C. Kah Jr., as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 1.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Apr. 28, 2016, “App. Br.”), the Reply Brief
(filed Dec. 5, 2016, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Oct. 4,
2016, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed Sept. 24, 2015, “Final Act.”), and
the Specification (filed Oct. 12, 2011, “Spec.”) for their respective details.
Appeal 2017-002292
Application 13/271,784
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a controller for an irrigation system. See
Abstract.
Invention
Claims 1,11, and 12 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of Claim 1, which is reproduced
below with some formatting added:
1. A controller for use in controlling an irrigation system
comprises:
a selector configured to select desired functionality of the
controller; and
a display for displaying information;
the selector including a program content display position,
the program content display position providing for displaying
information regarding all parameters related to just a selected
program of operation of the controller on the display at the
same time.
2
Appeal 2017-002292
Application 13/271,784
Reference and Rejection
Claims 1—123 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated
by Froman (Froman, et al., US 2006/0184284 Al, filed Nov. 14, 2003).
Final Act. 5—9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1—14 in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We are persuaded of error.
Claims 1-10: Anticipation by Froman
Appellant argues these claims as a group in view of the limitations of
Claim 1. App. Br. 5.
Independent Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “[a] selector including a
program content display position, the program content display position
providing for displaying information regarding all parameters related to just
a selected program of operation of the controller on the display at the same
time.”
The Examiner finds Froman discloses such a selector. Final Act. 5
(citing Froman, || 45, 53—57).
Appellant contends Froman discloses a virtual dial that indicates
which program is currently active, either being programmed or actually
running. App. Br. 4. Appellant argues Froman fails to disclose the dial
3 Claims 1—12 were also rejected under the judicial doctrine of non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting over Claims 1—12 of Application
11/496,112. The ‘112 Application has gone abandoned, thus mooting the
rejection and withdrawing our jurisdiction over that ground of rejection.
3
Appeal 2017-002292
Application 13/271,784
displays information relating to all of the parameters of the selected program
at the same time. Id.
The Examiner finds Froman discloses displaying information
regarding “more than one parameters” of the selected program. Ans. 10
(citing Froman || 33, 41, Figs. 1, 10).
Appellant replies Froman fails to disclose displaying information
regarding all parameters related to a selected program “at the same time.”
Reply Br. 2.
The passages cited by the Examiner discloses “[the irrigation
controller] has a front face that contains an FCD panel 106 displaying
various information on the operation of the controller (time, day, station
timing, etc.).” Froman 133; see also id. at 141 (stating various information
such as “numerical info, dates, and other operational data” are “integrated
onto on FCD”. However, “various information” does not disclose the
claimed “all parameters.”
Independent Claims 11 and 12 recite commensurate limitations. On
the Record before us, we cannot find that Froman anticipates each limitation
recited in the Independent Claims. Therefore, we decline to sustain the
rejection of independent Claims 1,11, and 12. In view of the foregoing
discussion, we decline to sustain the rejection of the dependent claims. See
Trintec Industries, Inc. v. Top-US.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1296 (Fed. Cir.
2002) (noting that if an independent claim is not anticipated by prior art,
then its dependent claims, which necessarily include the limitations of the
independent claim, are not anticipated either).
4
Appeal 2017-002292
Application 13/271,784
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1—12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
5