Ex Parte Kraimer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2019

14533259 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/533,259 11/05/2014
29673 7590 02/01/2019
STEVENS & SHOWALTER LLP
7019 CORPORATE WAY
DAYTON, OH 45459-4238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James V. Kraimer
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.
CRN 415NIA 3866
EXAMINER
KING, CURTIS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2019 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):
PTO@sspatlaw.com
ssllp@speakeasy.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES V. KRAIMER, JAY G. POLLACK, TIMOTHY A.
WELLMAN, LEWIS H. MANCI, VERNON W. SIEFRING,
MARKE. SCHUMACHER, MATTHEW M. GREEN,
and ANTHONY T. CASTANEDA
Appeal 2018-004118
Application 14/533,259
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Non-final Rejection of claims 1-20 and 22-33, which are all the claims
pending in this application. 2 We have jurisdiction over the pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Crown Equipment
Corporation. App. Br. 3.
2 Claim 21 has been cancelled previously.
Appeal 2018-004118
Application 14/533,259
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' Specification describes "a remote control device in
combination with a materials handling vehicle." Spec. 3:25-26. Exemplary
claims 1, 4, 9, and 17 under appeal read as follows:
1. A remote control device in combination with a
materials handling vehicle, the combination comprising:
a remote control device adapted to be worn by an
operator, the remote control device comprising:
a wireless transmitter; and
control structure in communication with the wireless
transmitter, the control structure adapted to be actuated by the
operator so as to cause the wireless transmitter to generate a
travel request signal; and
a materials handling vehicle comprising:
a traction control system for advancing the vehicle across
a floor surface;
a receiver for receiving travel request signals from the
wireless transmitter;
at least one sensor configured to detect the presence of an
object located at a position proximate to the vehicle or to detect
a person on a platform of the vehicle from which the vehicle
may be operated; and
a controller communicably coupled to the receiver, the at
least one sensor, and the traction control system, the controller
being responsive to receipt of the travel request signals from the
receiver and to decide whether to implement each travel request
signal, wherein the controller is configured to decide not to
cause the traction control system to advance the vehicle across
the floor surface in response to a travel request signal from the
receiver if the status from one or more of the at least one sensor
is indicative of the presence of either: an object located at a
position proximate to the vehicle; or a person on the platform,
and wherein the vehicle is configured to travel in response to
2
Appeal 2018-004118
Application 14/533,259
receiving a travel request signal for as long as the travel request
signal is received.
4. The combination of claim 1, wherein the control
structure must be double clicked by the operator at least under
certain circumstances to cause the controller to implement the
travel request signal.
9. The combination of claim 1, wherein the wireless
transmitter of the remote control device continues to send a
travel request signal for as long as the control structure is
actuated by the operator's finger or thumb.
1 7. The combination of claim 1, wherein the at least
one sensor comprises at least one object sensor configured to
detect the presence of objects in the path of travel of the
vehicle, and wherein the output of the at least one object sensor
is overridden while the operator is driving the truck on the
platform to allow the operator to navigate the vehicle in places
that might otherwise activate the at least one object sensor.
References and Rejections
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Gilliland (US 2005/0247508 Al; pub. Nov. 10, 2005),
Gross (US 2005/0017858 Al; pub. Jan. 27, 2005), and McRae
(US 2005/0052412 Al; pub. Mar. 10, 2005). Non-final Act. 2-9.
Claims 4, 9, 18-20, 22-31, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Gilliland, Gross, McRae, and Bloch
(US 6,481,525 Bl; iss. Nov. 19, 2002). Non-final Act. 10-19.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Gilliland, Gross, McRae, and Blakeslee (US 4,077,486; iss. Mar. 7,
1978). Non-final Act. 19-20.
3
Appeal 2018-004118
Application 14/533,259
Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gilliland, Gross, McRae, Bloch, and Blakeslee (US 2,931,117; issued
Apr. 5, 1960) ("Bosworth"). Non-final Act. 20-21.
Claim 1 stands provisionally rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claim 21
of U.S. Patent No. 8,970,363 (iss. Mar. 3, 2015) in view of Gilliland. Non-
final Act. 22-23.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Supreme Court has rejected the rigid requirement of
demonstrating a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the references to
show obviousness. See KSR Int'! Co., v. Teleflex Co., 550 U.S. 398, 415-16
(2007); see also In re Ethicon, Inc., 844 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
("KSR directs that an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the
references is not necessary to support a conclusion of obviousness.").
Further, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. See
In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments in Appellants' Appeal Brief that the Examiner has erred. We are
unpersuaded by Appellants' contentions and concur with the findings and
conclusions reached by the Examiner as explained below.
4
Appeal 2018-004118
Application 14/533,259
35 US.C. § 103 REJECTIONS
Independent Claim 1
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Gilliland as disclosing all
the elements of the recited system except for "the remote control devices is
adapted to be worn by an operator" and "in response to a travel request
signal to determine whether to advance the vehicle" according to "the status
from one or more of the at least one sensor is indicative of the presence of
either: an object located at a position proximate to the vehicle or a person on
the platform." Non-final Act. 2-5 (citing Gilliland Fig. 20, ,r,r 79, 80, 85, 86,
96-98, 102). The Examiner finds Gross discloses an obstacle detection
system of a vehicle that executes a movement signal based on a
determination of whether an object is near the vehicle and Gilliland also
discloses scanning the travelling path of the vehicle to detect obstacles.
Non-final Act. 5 (citing Gross Fig. 3, ,r 20; Gilliland ,r 97). The Examiner
further finds McRae discloses a remote control device worn by an operator
that includes a wireless transmitter for operating a support structure. Non-
final Act. 5---6 (citing McRae Fig. 14A, ,r 24). The Examiner concludes it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
teachings of Gilliland with Gross and McRae to stop the travel signal from
moving the vehicle if an obstacle is detected and to allow the operator not to
hold onto the portable vehicle. Id.
Appellants contend the recited "travel request signal" is not the same
as Gilliland's beacon signal which is sent by the operator and is sensed by
the truck to follow and to remain at a certain distance from the homing
beacon. App. Br. 9. Appellants assert the beacon signal is different from
the travel request signal that causes the vehicle "to travel in response to
5
Appeal 2018-004118
Application 14/533,259
receiving a travel request signal/or as long as the travel request signal is
receivetf' because the beacon signal lacks the control structure that may be
actuated by an operator. Id. Additionally, Appellants contend "Gilliland's
disclosure that the vehicle may not operate because the beacon signal is not
received or indicates that the operator is too far away from the vehicle is not
equivalent to the vehicle controller receiving a travel request signal .... "
App. Br. 10.
The Examiner responds that "the vehicle is configured to travel in
response to receiving a travel request signal for as long as the travel request
signal is received" may be interpreted as limiting the travelling of the
vehicle to "as long as the travel request signal is received." Ans. 5. The
Examiner finds Gilliland transmits a travel request signal which causes the
vehicle to move as instructed and be further controlled by the beacon
homing signal "involving manual operation (the turning ON and OFF) and
very analogous to the operator manually issued travel request signal (i.e.[,]
the voice command)." Ans. 6. Lastly, the Examiner finds one of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood the "the analogous beacon signal
operation" as providing an example of how the movement of the vehicle
takes place "for as long as the travel request signal is received," as recited in
claim 1. See Ans. 6-7.
We agree with the Examiner that Gilliland discloses a control
structure that wirelessly transmits a "travel request signal" actuated by an
operator, using either a remote control or voice activation, causing the
vehicle control structure to move the vehicle along the floor. See Gilliland
,r,r 79--80. The Examiner also correctly relies on the homing beacon signal
as a safeguard system for avoiding the vehicle movement when the operator
6
Appeal 2018-004118
Application 14/533,259
is too far from the vehicle. See Gilliland ,r,r 96-102. The reference provides
examples of the limiting elements to ensure the vehicle stops when an
obstacle is detected or if the operator is too far away, which can be
reasonable interpreted as the disputed limitation of "the vehicle is configured
to travel in response to receiving a travel request signal/or as long as the
travel request signal is received."
Contrary to Appellants' discussion of whether the disputed limitation
requires continuous transmission (see App. Br. 12) or relates to duration or
condition (see Reply Br. 2-3), Gilliland identifies the beacon signal, not as
the travel request signal by itself, but as an additional signal that is a part of
the travel request signal and safeguard the vehicle movement in situations
when the operator is too far away. We understand the Examiner's
characterization of the homing beacon signal not as the "travel request
signal," but as a part of it which, in combination with the control signal sent
by the operator, causes the vehicle to travel along the floor. That is, the
vehicle is configured to travel as long as the control signal and the beacon
homing signal, which is present only if the operator is within a certain
distance from the vehicle, are received by the vehicle.
We therefore are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments the proposed
combination of Gilliland with Gross and McRae does not render obvious the
subject matter of claim 1.
Dependent Claim 4
In rejecting claim 4, the Examiner further relies on Bloch as
disclosing a control structure that is activated by double clicking under a set
of circumstances that cause the controller to provide the travel request
signal. Non-final Act. 10. Appellants contend "the double clicking in Bloch
7
Appeal 2018-004118
Application 14/533,259
for altering the steering position of a wheel is not equivalent to double
clicking of a control structure to cause the controller to implement a travel
request signal to advance the vehicle across a floor surface as claimed by the
Appellant." App. Br. 13.
As explained by the Examiner, Appellants' arguments ignore the
Examiner's reliance on the combination of the references. That is,
"Gilliland discloses transmitting by a wireless controller to a material
handling vehicle a travel request signal for the vehicle move" and "Bloch
discloses it has been known to allow a command to be transmitted to a
material handling vehicle by double clicking on a button of the material
handling vehicle." Non-final Act. 10 (citing Bloch 1:52-59), Ans. 8. As
further explained by the Examiner, Bloch provides an alternate trigger
mechanism for sending a command to a control structure. Ans. 8.
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments the
proposed combination of Gilliland with Gross, McRae, and Bloch does not
render obvious the subject matter of claim 4.
Dependent Claim 9
Appellants contend the Examiner's citation of Bloch's disclosure of
changing the steering for as long as the direction key is pressed is not
sufficient to show "the wireless transmitter of the remote control device
continues to send a travel request signal for as long as the control structure is
actuated." App. Br. 14. The Examiner finds, Bloch, with respect to
transmitting a command to the vehicle, teaches continuous transmission of
the command "as long as a button is pressed by a user." Non-final Act. 11
(citing Bloch 5:7-11), Ans. 9.
8
Appeal 2018-004118
Application 14/533,259
As explained by the Examiner, the rejection is based on the
combination of the references, with each reference teaching different
features of the claim. Ans. 9 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA
1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). We also
agree with the Examiner that although "the commands are different
commands, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the claimed invention that the manner in which the commands
are delivered can be via pressing of the button or holding down of the button
as taught by the combination of Gilliland and Bloch." Ans. 10.
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments the
proposed combination of Gilliland with Gross, McRae, and Bloch does not
render obvious the subject matter of claim 9.
Independent Claim 18
Similar to the arguments made for claims 1 and 4, Appellants contend
the Examiner's citation of Bloch's double clicking does not teach or suggest
the recited limitations of claim 18. App. Br. 14--16. The Examiner finds,
Bloch, with respect to transmitting a command to the vehicle, teaches
continuous transmission of the command "as long as a button is pressed by a
user." Non-final Act. 11 (citing Bloch 5:7-11), Ans. 9.
As explained by the Examiner, Appellants' arguments are against the
references individually whereas the rejection is based on the combination of
the references. Ans. 11 (citing Keller, 642 F.2d 413; Merck, 800 F.2d 1091).
We also agree with the Examiner's finding that "Gilliland transmits a signal
to command the vehicle to move and Bloch transmits a command signal for
the vehicle wheel to steer in a certain direction which may or may not
coincide with vehicle forward motoring" and therefore, "the combination of
9
Appeal 2018-004118
Application 14/533,259
Gilliland and Bloch discloses double clicking of a control structure to cause
the controller to implement a travel request signal to advance the vehicle
across a floor surface." Id.
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments the
proposed combination of Gilliland with Gross, McRae, and Bloch does not
render obvious the subject matter of claim 18.
Dependent Claim 17
Claim 1 7 depends from claim 1 and further requires "at least one
sensor comprises at least one object sensor configured to detect the presence
of objects in the path of travel of the vehicle, and wherein the output of the
at least one object sensor is overridden while the operator is driving the truck
on the platform to allow the operator to navigate the vehicle in places that
might otherwise activate the at least one object sensor." App. Br. 23. The
Examiner finds, in addition to Gilliland, Gross and McRae, Blakeslee
discloses an automatic sensor/override mode that may be selected by an
operator. Non-final Act. 19-20. Appellants contend Blakeslee relates to an
override mode in a self-powered vehicle, whereas claim 1 7 requires "the
output from at least one object sensor is overridden, wherein such output
from the at least one sensor would otherwise cause the vehicle controller to
refuse to implement a travel request signal if the output was indicative of an
object in the path of travel of the vehicle," when an operator is driving the
truck on the platform. App. Br. 18.
As explained by the Examiner, Gilliland was relied on as disclosing
that a sensor guides the material handling vehicle and an obstacle detection
system stops the vehicle when an obstacle is detected in the path of the
vehicle, which may be in a manual or automatic mode of operation. Ans. 15
10
Appeal 2018-004118
Application 14/533,259
( citing Gilliland ,r,r 97, 100, 102). As further explained by the Examiner,
Blakeslee discloses using a sensor "in guiding the vehicle in a warehouse
system to tum off the sensors when the vehicle is switched from automatic
mode to manual mode." Ans. 16 (citing 6:41---63). The Examiner further
explains that such combination would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art "to determine whether an object is in the truck path to be
turned off too, to allow the user to use his/her human senses (i.e., sight) to
determine whether the truck should be stopped." Id.
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments the
proposed combination of Gilliland with Gross, McRae, and Blakeslee does
not render obvious the subject matter of claim 17.
Remaining Claims
Appellants contend the rejections of these claims are in error based on
reasons similar to those presented for claims 1, 4, 9, 17, and 18. See App.
Br. 12-20. Based on the analysis above and for similar reasons stated for
claims 1, 4, 9, 17, and 18, we are not persuaded of Examiner error and agree
with the Examiner's findings and analysis with respect to the teachings of
Gilliland with Gross, McRae, Bloch, and Blakeslee. See Non-final Act. 6-
21.
NON-STATUTORY OBVIOUSNESS-TYPE DOUBLE
PATENTING REJECTION
Appellants state that the cited rejection over claim 21 ofU.S. Patent
No. 8,970,363 in view of Gilliland is in error because claim 21 does not
disclose "the vehicle is configured to travel in response to receiving a travel
request signal for as long as the travel request signal is received" and
11
Appeal 2018-004118
Application 14/533,259
Gilliland fails to cure this deficiency. App. Br. 20. Based on the
Examiner's findings and our analysis of Gilliland above, we are unpersuaded
of the Examiner's error in claim 1 's nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting over claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 8,970,363 in view of
Gilliland.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 and 22-33 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a).
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
12