Per Pelin et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 23, 2021

2021000330 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2021)

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