VOLVO TRUCK CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 29, 2020

2019006713 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2020)

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.
14/346,832 03/24/2014 William Jason Spence 3100-039-US 7988
27820 7590 07/29/2020
WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C.
106 Pinedale Springs Way
Cary, NC 27511
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CUONG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2020 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):
patents@wt-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM JASON SPENCE
Appeal 2019-006713
Application 14/346,832
Technology Center 3600
Before KEVIN F. TURNER, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–16. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

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 Volvo Group
North America, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006713
Application 14/346,832
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to a system and method for
controlling a refuse vehicle. Spec. 1:5–6.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A control system for a refuse vehicle provided with a work
tool, comprising:
at least one refuse container location sensor;
at least one vehicle speed control; and
one or more electronics that:
receive and process signals from the at least one refuse
container location sensor; and
output a control signal to the at least one speed control to
stop the refuse vehicle at a predetermined location whereat the
work tool may pick up the refuse container.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Breed US 2005/0134440 A1 June 23, 2005
Kurple US 2006/0061481 A1 Mar. 23, 2006

REJECTION
Claims 1–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kurple and Breed.

Appeal 2019-006713
Application 14/346,832
3
OPINION
Kurple and Breed
The Examiner finds that Kurple discloses many of the elements
recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose outputting a control signal to a speed
control to stop the refuse vehicle at a predetermined location at which the
work tool may pick up a refuse container. Non-Final Act. 3–4. To address
this deficiency in the teachings of Kurple, the Examiner finds Breed
discloses “send[ing] a signal to control a vehicle speed (e.g., to brake a
vehicle) after receiving an RFID signal.” Id. at 4 (citing Breed ¶¶ 54, 694).
The Examiner states that claim 1 does not require that the control signal for
stopping the refuse truck be based on receipt of a sensed signal.2,3 Based on
the above-noted findings and claim interpretation, the Examiner determines
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art “to use a
refuse container location sensor in [Kurple’s] disclosure with Breed’s
application of using [an] RFID signal to stop a refuse truck to pick up a
receptacle within a preset proximity for an advantage of increasing accuracy
and . . . adding extra automation features.” Id.
Appellant argues that rather than providing control of the position of a
refuse vehicle (in the expectation of picking up a refuse container), Kurple
assists an operator with the positioning of a refuse container at a selected

2 The Examiner determines claims 7 and 14 recite this requirement. Non-
Final Act. 4.
3 The Examiner presents over a page of discussion of legal principles
governing the interpretation of contingent (conditional) limitations. See
Ans. 2–4 (discussing MPEP § 2111.04 II and Ex parte Schulhauser, No.
2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792 (PTAB 2016) (precedential)). Thus, the
Examiner appears to interpret claims 1 and 8 as reciting contingent
limitations. We do not understand either of claims 1 and 8 to recite
contingent limitations.
Appeal 2019-006713
Application 14/346,832
4
position (after the container has been picked up). See Appeal Br. 5–7; Reply
Br. 2–3 (citing Kurple ¶ 24). Based on this assertion, Appellant argues that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to
combine the teachings of Kurple and Breed in a manner that meets all the
requirements of claim 1. See Reply Br. 3.
Additionally, Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding that
Breed sends a control signal to apply brakes in a vehicle based upon the
receipt of an RFID signal. Appeal Br. 7–8.
“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The
Examiner does not direct us to findings of fact that provide such
underpinning. We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not recite that
the control signal employed to stop the refuse vehicle is based upon receipt
of any sensed signal. See Non-Final Act. 4. Nonetheless, the Examiner’s
rationale for implementing the teachings of Breed in the system disclosed by
Kurple appears to rely on a finding that Breed sends a signal to control a
vehicle speed (by applying the vehicle’s brakes) based upon the receipt of an
RFID4 signal. See Non-Final Act. 4. We agree with Appellant that the
paragraphs cited by the Examiner as evidence that Breed teaches the use of
an RFID signal as discussed above do not mention an RFID signal, much
less that it is used in this manner. See Breed ¶¶ 54, 694. Accordingly, the

4 RFID is an initialism for “radio-frequency identity (or identification),”
which one online dictionary defines as “a technology that uses tiny computer
chips to track items such as consumer commodities at a distance.”
www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/rfid.
Appeal 2019-006713
Application 14/346,832
5
Examiner’s reasoning for modifying the system disclosed by Kurple is based
on an unsupported finding of fact. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection
of claim 1, or claims 2–7 and 16 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over
Kurple and Breed. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967)
(holding that “[t]he legal conclusion of obviousness must be supported by
facts. Where the legal conclusion is not supported by facts it cannot
stand.”).
Independent claim 8 recites a method in which the recited
“electronics” perform the same steps discussed above regarding independent
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). As the Examiner relies on the
same unsupported findings of fact and reasoning to reject both of claims 1
and 8, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8, and claims 9–15 depending
therefrom, as unpatentable over Kurple and Breed.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

DECISION SUMMARY

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–16 103(a) Kurple, Breed 1–16
Overall
Outcome
1–16

REVERSED