Ex Parte Medwin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 13, 201613487789 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/487,789 06/04/2012 26710 7590 09/15/2016 QUARLES & BRADYLLP Attn: IP Docket 411 E. WISCONSIN A VENUE SUITE 2350 MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-4426 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Steve Medwin 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. 780139.00417 2643 EXAMINER MITCHELL, JOEL F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3671 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/15/2016 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): pat-dept@quarles.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEVE MED WIN and PAUL P. McCABE Appeal 2014-006834 1,2 Application 13/487,789 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. PETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 6-12, 14--21, 25, and 26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Our decision references Appellants' Specification ("Spec.," filed June 4, 2012), Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Sept. 16, 2013), and Reply Brief "Reply Br.' filed May 23, 2014), as well as the Final Office Action ("Final Action," mailed July 19, 2013) and the Examiner's Answer ("Answer," mailed April 16, 2014). 2 Appellants identify the Raymond Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2014-006834 Application 13/487,789 According to Appellants, their invention relates "to a system for sensing performance characteristics of an industrial vehicle[,] and using those characteristics to manage the operation of the vehicle." Spec. i-f 2. Independent claims 1 and 16 are the only independent claims under appeal. See Appeal Br., Claims App. We reproduce independent claim 1, below, as representative of the appealed claims. Id. 1. A method for controlling an industrial vehicle that carries a plurality of loads on which indicators have been placed, said method comprising: creating a computer implemented database that designates load identifiers which are associated with loads that are fragile; electronically reading a given indicator on a load being carried by the industrial vehicle to obtain a given load identifier; employing the given load identifier to obtain data from the database wherein that data indicates whether the load being carried requires delicate handling; and in response to data obtained from the database, restricting operation of the industrial vehicle to provide delicate handling of the load. REJECTION AND PRIOR ART3 The Examiner rejects claims 1--4, 6-12, 14--21, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Manthey (US 2007/0007080 Al, pub. Jan. 11, 2007) and Horwitz (US 6,496,806 B 1, iss. Dec. 17, 2002). See Final Action 2-9. 3 In an Advisory Action mailed September 11, 2013, the Examiner withdraws the indefiniteness rejection included on page 2 of the Final Action. 2 Appeal2014-006834 Application 13/487,789 ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 based on a combination of Manthey and Horwitz. See Final Action 2-3. Appellants argue that the rejection is in error because "Horwitz is non-analogous to the present invention and to the Manthey system." Appeal Br. 6; see also id. at 6-8; see also Reply Br. 1-2. Based on our review of the record, we determine that Appellants fail to persuade us that Horwitz is non-analogous art. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if either (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem), or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See In re Bigio, 381F.3d1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Consistent with the preamble of claim 1, the claimed field of endeavor appears to be "[a] method for controlling an industrial vehicle that carries a plurality of loads on which indicators have been placed." Appeal Br., Claims App. While the Examiner's determination that "in this case, the field of endeavor is data management" may be unduly broad, we determine that Horwitz describes controlling an industrial vehicle that carries a plurality of loads on which indicators have been placed, such that Horwitz is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Answer 3. Thus, we are not persuaded of error by this argument. Appellants further argue that "even combining the Manthey and Horwitz teachings does not suggest the claimed method." Appeal Br. 6; see also id. at 8-11; see also Reply Br. 1-2. We disagree with Appellants. The Examiner's combination relies on findings that Manthey discloses almost every limitation of claim 1, except Manthey employs an identifier to obtain 3 Appeal2014-006834 Application 13/487,789 data from an RFID transponder, rather than a database as claimed. See Final Action 3. The Examiner finds that Horwitz discloses a similar arrangement as Manthey, and employs an identifier to obtain data from a database. See id. The Examiner concludes that "[i]t would have been obvious ... to provide the method of Manthey with the database means as taught by Horwitz in order to locate data centrally." Id. Each of the Examiner's findings and conclusion is reasonable. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the claim is obvious. Appellants' specific arguments do not persuade us of error. See Appeal Br. 8-11. For example, we are not persuaded of error by Appellants' argument that "[Horwitz's] database does not store data about physical characteristics of the objects or specifically that an item is delicate requiring special handling," inasmuch as the Examiner's proposed combination of references would store Manthey's information in Horwitz's database. See Appeal Br. 8; see Final Action 3. Similarly, we are not persuaded of error by Appellants' argument that the information retrieved from the Horwitz database is only used by the warehouse order tracking computer and is not communicated back to the vehicle. Note in particular that the device 118 on the forklift is referred to only as transmitter, not a receiver or transceiver as would be required in order to have the database information sent to the forklift. In other words, just like the ID tag interrogators 126 along the conveyor belts 124 in this reference, information about the items being transported is only sent one way[-]to the database computer. Item related information is not sent from the database to the forklift. That is consistent with the essence of the Horwitz system[-]tracking the location and the processing of items in the warehouse Appeal Br. 9. As the Examiner finds, Horwitz discloses two-way communication. See Answer 4--5. 4 Appeal2014-006834 Application 13/487,789 For the above reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Inasmuch as Appellants argue claims 1 and 16 together and not under separate headings, claim 16 falls with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(l)(iv). Further, Appellants do not separately argue dependent claims 2--4, 6-8, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 17-21. Thus, these dependent claims also fall with claims 1 and 16, and, thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 2--4, 6-8, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 17-21. Appellants separately argue the patentability of claims 9, 10, 25, and 26. See Appeal Br. 11. Specifically, Appellants argue that [c]laims 9, 10, 25[,] and 26 recite electrically detecting when the given load is no longer being carried by the vehicle and then terminating the restricted operation of the vehicle. Claims 10 and 26 further state that detecting when the given load is no longer being carried comprises sensing a force applied to a component of the industrial vehicle. Nothing in Manthey describes how its reduced operation is terminated, much less that termination is in response to sensing a force. The final rejection of claims 9 and 25 cited paragraph 0023 in Manthey; which merely describes how the communication device 15 that reads the RFID transponders can be activated and deactivated based on changes in the weight of the load. This merely indicates how reading the load data can be turned on and off, but does not in the least suggest how the restricted operation of the vehicle can be terminated. Furthermore, nothing in Horwitz restricts operation of the vehicle. Appeal Br. 11. We agree with the Examiner, however, that Appellants' argument exceeds the scope of the claim---claim 9 recites, for example, "electrically detecting when the given load no longer is being carried by the industrial vehicle; and terminating the restricting operation of the industrial vehicle." Appeal Br., Claims App. Importantly, claim 9 does not require terminating operation in response to "electrically detecting when the given 5 Appeal2014-006834 Application 13/487,789 load no longer is being carried." We determine that the Examiner's further findings and conclusions with respect to at least claim 9 are reasonable. See Answer 6; see Final Action 5. Further, inasmuch as Appellants argue all of these claims together and not under separate headings, claims 10, 25, and 26 fall with claim 9. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(l)(iv). DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1--4, 6- 12, 14--21, 25, and 26. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation