Per Pelin et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 23, 20212021000330 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/795,013 10/26/2017 Per Pelin 511062 6929 53609 7590 06/23/2021 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. 2215 PERRYGREEN WAY ROCKFORD, IL 61107 EXAMINER LUU, TIFFANY KELLY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3669 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/23/2021 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): RockMail@reinhartlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte PER PELIN and PAUL SALMON Appeal 2021-000330 Application 15/795,013 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before BRUCE T. WIEDER, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2–14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Johnson Outdoors Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000330 Application 15/795,013 2 BACKGROUND The Specification discloses that the “invention generally relates to a system and method for marine navigation.” Spec. ¶ 2. In particular, the Specification discloses embodiments of a system that “can automatically create a navigable route along a specific underwater feature or depth contour line depicted on a navigational system display.” Id. at ¶ 9. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM Claim 2 is the only independent claim on appeal and recites: 2. A system for controlling a marine vessel, the system comprising: a sonar depth finder configured to display a topographical chart on a display, stored in memory, for a body of water, the topographical chart including one or more underwater feature contours that define boundaries of an underwater feature in the body of water, the sonar depth finder including a processor configured to create the topographical chart in real time, or to update the topographical chart in real time, based on sonar data provided by a sonar transducer assembly, the sonar data including information on the underwater feature countours [sic], the processor being configured to render the created or updated topographical chart on the display and to store the topographical chart in memory; wherein the sonar depth finder is programmed to allow a user to select from the one or more underwater feature contours indicated on the display, the sonar depth finder further configured to generate a route for the marine vessel, wherein the route includes a path through the body of water, the path being along the selected one or more underwater feature contours; and a vessel control device in communication with the sonar depth finder, the vessel control device configured to receive transmissions from the sonar depth finder, the transmissions including the route generated by the sonar depth finder, the Appeal 2021-000330 Application 15/795,013 3 vessel control device being further configured to automatically direct the marine vessel along the route; wherein the underwater feature is one of a weed and/or vegetation bed, sunken vessel, sandbar, shoal, reef, and varying degrees of hardness on a bottom surface under the body of water. Appeal Br., Claims App. 1. REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 2–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Salmon2 in view of Pelin.3 DISCUSSION With respect to claim 2, the Examiner finds that Salmon discloses a system for controlling a marine vessel including a sonar depth finder programmed to allow a user to select from one or more underwater feature contours and to generate a route for the vessel including a path along the selected underwater feature contour. Final Act. 6–7 (citing Salmon ¶¶ 16, 55–60; claim 1). The Examiner finds that Salmon also discloses a vessel control device as claimed. Id. at 7 (citing Salmon ¶ 116; claim 1). The Examiner acknowledges that Salmon does not teach that the sonar depth finder includes a processor to create or update, display, and store a topographical chart including the underwater features claimed or providing selection and navigation along the specific underwater features listed in the claim. Id. at 7. With regard to these claim elements, the Examiner relies on Pelin. Id. at 7–8 (citing Pelin ¶¶ 9, 38, 39, 48; claim 1; Fig. 7). The Examiner determines: 2 Salmon et al., US 2012/0232719 A1, pub. Sept. 13, 2012. 3 Pelin et al., US 2015/0285909 A1, pub. Oct. 8, 2015. Appeal 2021-000330 Application 15/795,013 4 It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for controlling a marine vessel as taught by Salmon with the underwater features in a topographical chart as taught by Pelin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have detailed knowledge of the topography for finding the optimal location for fishing and for more accurate navigation (Pelin: Para. 0005), and to generate real-time data when no topographical data is in memory (Pelin: Para. 0040). Id. at 8. Additionally, the Examiner notes that Salmon discloses not only that contour lines may “represent a portion of the bottom surface at the same depth below the surface,” but also “a transition between two differing areas of bottom composition, bottom hardness, weed growth or current flow,” and thus “Salmon does teach that contour lines can represent more than just the bottom of the body of water.” Adv. Act. 2 (mailed Feb. 21, 2020). The Examiner further explains: It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to modify the following of the contours as disclosed by Salmon with the contours representing the listed elements as taught by Pelin, in order to use additional topographical information to inform the user of the best fishing locations to choose (Pelin: [0005]), or to provide for example more detailed information about the roughness of the bottom of the sea floor or the objects on the bottom of the seafloor that may damage the vessel during navigation in shallow areas. Ans. 6. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and determination with respect to the rejection of claim 2. See Final Act. 6–8; see also Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 5–6. We are not persuaded of reversible error by Appellant’s arguments. Appeal 2021-000330 Application 15/795,013 5 Appellant argues: Salmon in view of Pelin fails to disclose, teach, or suggest a user- selectable path through a body of water along a selected underwater feature contour in which the underwater feature contour is “a weed and/or vegetation bed, sunken vessel, sandbar, shoal, reef, and varying degrees of hardness on a bottom surface under the body of water. Appeal Br. 5. In support, Appellant asserts that Salmon only discloses the function of following a contour depth and Pelin discloses creating a color- coded hardness map, and “[n]othing in the combined teachings of Salmon and Pelin discloses, teaches, or suggests the functionality of generating a route for a marine vessel that follows along the particular underwater feature contours recited in the claims.” Id. We disagree. Salmon discloses a system and method for automatically navigating a depth contour. See Salmon Abstract. More specifically, Salmon discloses a marine vessel that includes a sonar depth finder and allows a user to input a specific depth value for the vessel to follow, and a processor in the vessel creates a route based on the value selected. See id. ¶¶ 55–58. Salmon also discloses that the user may determine whether to use the entire depth contour selected or only part of it. Id. ¶ 59. Alternatively, the user may select a depth and direction of travel and the processor will select a route in the approximate heading and keeping to a depth that is at or about the depth selected. Id. ¶ 60. Thus, Salmon provides a system that allows for automatic navigation in or about a particular direction along contour lines that represent water depth. Further, Salmon discloses that contour lines may represent the depth below the surface of the water “or one or more lines depicting a transition between two Appeal 2021-000330 Application 15/795,013 6 differing areas of bottom composition, bottom hardness, weed growth or current flow.” Id. ¶ 45. We agree with the Examiner that Salmon provides a system in which a user may select a particular underwater feature and that the system provides a route along that selected feature, i.e., Salmon allows a user to select a depth and the vessel provides a route in a specific direction along contours lines at that depth. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that depth represents an underwater feature of a body of water. Although Salmon does not teach allowing the user to select contour lines representing other underwater features in order to create a route along those other features, Salmon teaches that contour lines may alternatively represent portions of the bottom surface at the same depth or portions of the bottom representing transitions between composition, hardness, weed growth, and current flow. Salmon ¶ 45. Thus, although Salmon teaches only navigation along depth contour lines, Salmon also teaches that contour lines may represent alternative underwater features, including certain features recited in claim 2. Pelin discloses a sonar mapping system that is configured to obtain and display a topographical chart of water in real time. See Pelin, Abstract. Pelin discloses that such a topographical chart may provide visual information regarding water depth, hardness, and other underwater features. See id. ¶¶ 8, 9, 48. Pelin also discloses that it is advantageous to anglers to have detailed charts of bodies of water to inform them of the best locations for catching particular types of fish. Id. ¶ 5. Thus, Pelin teaches charting underwater features, including those claimed, and explains why charting such features may provide a benefit to the user. Appeal 2021-000330 Application 15/795,013 7 Based on this disclosure in the prior art, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to modify Salmon’s system to include a charting system as disclosed by Pelin and to further allow the user to select underwater features represented by contour lines along which a navigation route is charted, including those claimed, in order to have detailed knowledge of the topography of the body of water to allow the user and vessel to find optimal locations for fishing by allowing for more accurate navigation around specific underwater features. See Final Act. 8. Thus, we are not persuaded that the art of record does not disclose, teach, or suggest the claim limitations. We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has made assumptions and speculations not supported by the art. Appellant first argues that the Examiner relies on Salmon as teaching that depth contours are representative of underwater features of the bottom of the water. Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner states that Salmon uses depth contours for generating a route and that “the depth contours represent the bottom of the body of water, therefore representing the underwater features of the bottom of the body of water.” Final Act. 2. We agree with the Examiner that the depth contour lines are representative of features on the bottom of the body of water, i.e., the depth of the body water is itself an underwater feature. Next, Appellant argues that “the Examiner erroneously implies that the navigable contours [in Salmon] may represent something other than just the depth of the body of water.” Appeal Br. 6. Yet, the Examiner specifically states that “Salmon does not explicitly disclose the contours representing the boundary of the underwater features.” Final Act. 3. We fail Appeal 2021-000330 Application 15/795,013 8 to see how this statement is misleading or includes an erroneous implication. Further, as discussed above, Salmon specifically discloses that contour lines may represent something other than depth, including certain features as claimed, such as changes in hardness and vegetation. Appellant also argues that “the Examiner makes statements that imply a broader disclosure than what is actually found in Pelin.” Appeal Br. 6. Specifically, Appellant takes issue with the Examiner’s statement that “Pelin also teaches having topographical charts display other underwater features, such as the outlines of debris or a sunken ship as shown in Fig. 7, where the ship’s path is shown to be around these features.” Id. (quoting Final Act. 3) (emphasis added by Appellant). Appellant says that the Examiner is characterizing the boat in Figure 7 as navigating a path around these features and that “Pelin does not disclose that the boat navigates around these features or that the displayed feature is ‘outlined’ on the display.” Appeal Br. 7. It is not clear to us how the Examiner’s statement is misleading or implies a broader disclosure. Pelin’s Figure 7 plainly shows a ship with a path that goes around features including a ship wreck and other features. See Pelin ¶ 48. The Examiner’s statement does not appear to include an inaccurate or exaggerated description of what is depicted in Figure 7. Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 2. Appellant does not present separate arguments with respect to the rejection of the dependent claims, and thus, we are also not persuaded of error in the rejection of the dependent claims for the same reasons. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 2–14. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 2–14. Appeal 2021-000330 Application 15/795,013 9 In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 2–14 103 Salmon, Pelin 2–14 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation