Ex Parte Nichols et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

11594142 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 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.
11/594,142 11/08/2006 Mark Edward Nichols TRB 0035 PA 4218
112760 7590 03/02/2017
Dirwmnre & Shnhl T T P EXAMINER
Fifth Third Center KONG, SZE-HON
One South Main Street
Dayton, OH 45402-2023 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
denise.suter@dinsmore.com
CTCT_IP@Trimble.com
daytonipdocket@dinsmore.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK EDWARD NICHOLS, ADAM JOHN GUDAT, and
RICHARD PIEKUTOWSKI
Appeal 2014—000171
Application 11/594,1421
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Mark Edward Nichols et al (Appellants) seek our review under 35
U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 1 and 5—12 as unpatentable over Korver (US 5,928,309, iss. July 27,
1999) and Zachman (US 6,112,145, Aug. 29, 2000); and of claims 2-4 and
13—21 as unpatentable over Korver, Zachman, Henderson (US 5,764,511, iss.
June 9, 1998), and Teach (US 5,375,663, iss. Dec. 27, 1994). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Caterpillar Trimble
Control Technologies, LLC. Br. 2.
Appeal 2014-000171
Application 11/594,142
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 12 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below and
illustrates the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations emphasized.
1. A system for automatically adjusting an implement with
respect to a machine upon which the implement is carried,
comprising:
an inertial navigation system configured to output first
position information representing a position of the implement;
a processor configured to compare the first position
information with a desired position and generate a comparison
signal in response thereto;
a valve controller configured to adjust the implement with
respect to the machine upon which the implement is carried
based upon the comparison signal; and
a plurality of measuring devices coupled to the inertial
navigation system, at least one measuring device configured to
output second position information to the inertial navigation
system;
wherein the inertial navigation system is periodically re­
set from the measuring device to modify the first position
information based upon an error estimate generated as a function
of the first position information and the second position
information.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness of Claims 1 and 5—12 over Korver and Zachman
Without referring to any recited limitations of claim 1, Appellants first
contend that “[Appellants teach] an ‘inertial navigation system’ comprising
three rate gyroscopes and linear accelerometers for determining position and
attitude,” that [Appellants’] inertial navigation does not use external
references to determine position,” and that “[a]ny external references used
by [Appellants] are used to correct errors in the inertial navigation system
and not as primary guidance functions,” concluding that “Korver does not
2
Appeal 2014-000171
Application 11/594,142
teach a true inertial navigation system even though the term is used over and
over again throughout.” Br. 8—9.
However, Appellants’ contentions are unavailing as they are not
commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which merely recites an inertial
navigation system without any of the limitations argued by Appellants. See
Br. 13, Claims App. As we are instructed by our reviewing court,
“limitations are not to be read into the claims from the [Specification.” In
re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In reZletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Furthermore, the Examiner explains, “the
inertial navigation system [recited by claim 1 ] is the same well-known
inertial navigation system that is also taught in Korver.” Ans. 7. Appellants
have not apprised us of any error in the Examiner’s findings or conclusions,
and we find none.
Appellants also contend that because “FIG. 1 of Korver illustrates the
components of the ‘inertial system’ which includes: a GPS antenna, rate
gyros, accelerometers, magnetic heading compass, and a Doppler radar,”
that “Korver does not teach or suggest an inertial navigation system as
taught by [Appellants].” Br. 9. However, the Examiner explains that
“[e]ven if Korver does label the entire system [of Fig. 1] [as] an inertial
system, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize which
devices/components in the entire/integrated system performs the inertial
measuring function and which devices/components performs the GPS
function.” Ans. 7—8. Furthermore, the presence of additional structure in
Korver, such as a GPS antenna, does not undermine a rejection where the
claim uses an open-ended transition “comprising.” See Exergen Corp. v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 575 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The claim
3
Appeal 2014-000171
Application 11/594,142
uses the term ‘comprising,’ which is well understood in patent law to mean
‘including but not limited to.’” (quoting CIAS, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming
Corp., 504 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007))).
Appellants also contend that because “[t]he gyros and accelerometers
of Zachman are not used for navigation but for blade orientation in relation
to the frame of the motorgrader”, that “Zachman does not teach or suggest
an intertial (sp) navigation system.” Br. 9—10. However, Appellants are
simply attacking Zachman in isolation for lacking support for findings not
relied upon by the Examiner, rather than addressing the Examiner’s
combination of Korver and Zachman. Nonobviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually when the rejection is
predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As the Examiner explains, even
though “the inertial devices of Zachman [] navigate the implement and the
machine, providing accurate position information,” that “Zachman was
[only] used for showing the known position measuring devices mounted on
the implement of the vehicle.” Ans. 8. Again, Appellants have not apprised
us of any error in the Examiner’s findings or conclusions, and we find none.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1 and 5—12 over Korver and Zachman.
Obviousness of Claims 2—4 and 13—21 over Korver, Zachman,
Henderson, and Teach
Appellants first observe that “neither Henderson nor Teach cure the
deficiencies of Korver and Zachman in teaching an inertial navigation
system”, (Br. 11). However, we understand Appellants’ appeal of the
4
Appeal 2014-000171
Application 11/594,142
rejection of claims 2—\ and 13—21 to rest on the arguments presented against
the rejection of claims 1 and 12, which we found not demonstrative of error
in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 5—12 over Korver and Zachman,
as set forth supra. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability
rejection of claims 2-4 and 13—21 over Korver, Zachman, Henderson, and
Teach.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections.
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.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5