Ex Parte 6,426,600 et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 23, 201495001471 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2014) 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. 95/001,471 10/19/2010 6,426,600 113057.000001 2241 79804 7590 09/23/2014 Valenti, Hanley & Robinson, PLLC One Riverfront Plaza 401 W. Main Street Louisville, KY 40202 EXAMINER WHITTINGTON, KENNETH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/23/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ PG DRIVES TECHNOLOGY, INC. Requester v. LAUTZENHISER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC Patent Owner and Appellant ____________ Appeal 2014-001755 Reexamination Control No. 95/001,471 Patent 6,426,600 B1 Technology Center 3900 ____________ Before STEPHEN C. SIU, DAVID M. KOHUT, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2014-001755 Reexamination Control No. 95/001,471 Patent 6,426,600 B1 2 Patent Owner, Lautzenhiser Technologies, LLC appeals under U.S.C. §§ 134 and 315 (2002) the Examiner’s decision to adopt Requester’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11-15, 22, 28-30, and 321 under certain grounds, as discussed below. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 315 (2002). STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding arose from a request by PG Drives Technology, Inc. for an inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent 6,426,600 B1, titled “Proportional Actuator Control of Apparatus,” and issued to Lautzenhiser et al. on July 30, 2002 (the “’600 patent”). The ’600 patent describes a method and apparatus for proportionally controlling actuators using transducers. Claim 1, on appeal, was not amended during reexamination and reads as follows: 1. A method for controlling rotational speeds of first and second motors comprises: a) selectively inputting X and Y transducers; b) producing X and Y electrical outputs separately proportional to said selective inputting step; c) proportioning one of said electrical outputs as an inverse function of an other of said electrical outputs; and d) rotating one of said electrical motors as a function of said proportioning step. Requester proposes rejections of the claims over the following prior art references: 1 Claims 5, 8-10, 16-21, 23-27, and 31 are not subject to reexamination. Appeal 2014-001755 Reexamination Control No. 95/001,471 Patent 6,426,600 B1 3 Nowick US 3,970,160 July 20, 1976 Hofer US 3,990,319 Nov. 9, 1976 Melocik US 4,471,273 Sept. 11, 1984 Klimo US 4,511,825 Apr. 16,1985 Littlejohn US 5,033,000 July 16, 1991 Lautzenhiser US 5635,807 June 3, 1997 Patent Owner appeals the Examiner’s adoption of the following rejections: Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 15, 28, 29, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Melocik. Claims 7 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Melocik and Littlejohn. Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Melocik and Lautzenhiser. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Nowick. Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Nowick and Lautzenhiser. Claims 1 and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Hofer and Klimo. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lautzenhiser. Appeal 2014-001755 Reexamination Control No. 95/001,471 Patent 6,426,600 B1 4 Claims 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Lautzenhiser and Klimo. Claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lautzenhiser, Klimo, and Littlejohn. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that Melocik discloses “selectively inputting X and Y transducers,” as recited in claim 1? Did the Examiner err in finding that Lautzenhiser discloses “producing X and Y electrical outputs separately proportional to said selective inputting step,” as recited in claim 1? Did the Examiner err in finding that Lautzenhiser discloses “producing X and Y electrical outputs as an inverse function of an other of said electrical outputs,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Claim 1 – Anticipation by Melocik Claim 1 recites “selectively inputting X and Y transducers.” The Examiner finds that Melocik discloses this limitation wherein Melocik discloses three devices that are transducers: the accelerator pedal, the steering/steerable wheel, and the direction switch. RAN 6-7. Patent Owner argues that Melocik does not disclose the disputed limitation. App. Br. 11- 15; Reb. Br. 4-7. Patent Owner and the Examiner agree that the definition of a transducers is a device that converts one type of energy into another, i.e., a Appeal 2014-001755 Reexamination Control No. 95/001,471 Patent 6,426,600 B1 5 mechanical input is converted into an electrical output. App. Br. 13; Ans. 5. Patent Owner’s arguments are, therefore, centered around the contention that the devices indicated by the Examiner in Melocik are not transducers. App. Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 5-7. We disagree with Patent Owner. Patent Owner first argues that the steering wheel is not a transducer because the reference does not describe how the mechanical input is changed into an electrical output. App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 4-5. Additionally, Patent Owner argues that while Melocik discloses a “steering wheel transducer” the device really does not represent a transducer because according to Figure 2 of Melocik the device is already receiving an electrical signal. App. Br. 13-14. As such, Patent Owner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how the angular position of the steerable wheel sends a signal to the control circuit via line 34. App. Br. 13. We do not find these arguments to be persuasive. “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987)(emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 8-9) that one of ordinary skill in the art would know that Melocik’s steering wheel in conjunction with the steerable wheel inherently takes a mechanical input and produces an electrical output. Even so, Patent Owner admits that Melocik discloses the steerable wheel rotating through different angular positions and suggests that the output is electrical in form. App. Br. 12. While there is no indication as to what type of signal line 34 contains, it is clear that the Appeal 2014-001755 Reexamination Control No. 95/001,471 Patent 6,426,600 B1 6 system requires a mechanical input and an electrical output. See Melocik, col. 2, ll. 22-51. Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 8-9) that the steering/steerable wheel is a transducer because it is turning a mechanical input into an electrical output. Patent Owner makes a similar argument with respect to the accelerator pedal as with the steering/steerable wheel. App. Br. 12-13. For similar reasons as indicated above we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 6-7) that the accelerator pedal is also a transducer. We specifically find persuasive the Examiner’s finding that Melocik discloses a system that converts the position of the pedal into an electrical signal. Ans. 6-7. As indicated supra, we find that the steering/steerable wheel and the accelerator pedal are transducers. As such, we need not address Patent Owner’s arguments regarding Melocik’s switch (App. Br. 14-15; Reply Br. 6) because claim 1 only requires inputting two transducers. Thus, for all the reasons stated supra, we agree with the Examiner’s decision to adopt Requester’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Melocik. Claim 28 – Anticipation by Melocik Patent Owner argues that claim 28 is allowable for the same reasons as claim 1. App. Br. 15. As indicated supra, we agree with the Examiner’s decision to adopt Requester’s rejection of claim 1. Thus, we also agree with the Examiner’s decision to adopt Requester’s rejection of claim 28. Claims 2, 4, 6, 15, 29, and 32 – Anticipation by Melocik Appeal 2014-001755 Reexamination Control No. 95/001,471 Patent 6,426,600 B1 7 Patent Owner argues that claims 2, 4, 6, 15, 29, and 322 are allowable for the same reasons as claims 1 and 28. App. Br. 15-16. As indicated supra, we agree with the Examiner’s decision to adopt Requester’s rejection of claims 1 and 28. Thus, we also agree with the Examiner’s decision to adopt Requester’s rejection of claims 2, 4, 6, 15, 29, 30, and 32. Claims 7 and 30 – Obviousness over Melocik and Littlejohn Patent Owner argues that claims 7 and 30 are allowable for the same reasons as claims 1 and 28. App. B. 16. As indicated supra, we agree with the Examiner’s decision to adopt Requester’s rejection of claims 1 and 28. Thus, we also agree with the Examiner’s decision to adopt Requester’s rejection of claims 7 and 30. Claim 3 – Obviousness over Melocik and Lautzenhiser Patent Owner argues that claim 3 is allowable for the same reasons as claim 1. App. Br. 16-17. As indicated supra, we agree with the Examiner’s decision to adopt Requester’s rejection of claim 1. Thus, we also agree with the Examiner’s decision to adopt Requester’s rejection of claim 3. Claim 1– Anticipation by Lautzenhiser Patent Owner argues that Lautzenhiser does not disclose “producing X and Y electrical outputs separately proportional to said selective inputting step,” as recited in claim 1, because Lautzenhiser discloses an X-type 2 Patent Owner inadvertently listed claim 30 instead of claim 32 on page 15 of the Appeal Brief. We find this as harmless error and include the correct claim here. Appeal 2014-001755 Reexamination Control No. 95/001,471 Patent 6,426,600 B1 8 controller, whereas the present invention pertains to a plus-type controller. App. Br. 26-27; Reb. Br. 12. Patent Owner contends that the difference between the two controllers is that the X-type controller contains two transducers that each provide steering and speed signals to two motors. App. Br. 26-27; Reb. Br. 12. Patent Owner contends that on the other hand, with the plus-type controller, one transducer provides a speed input while the other provides a turning input. App. Br. 26-27; Reb. Br. 12. With this line of reasoning, Patent Owner contends that one transducer must be located on the X axis and the other along the Y axis. App. Br. 26-27; Reb. Br. 12. Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s interpretation of the reference, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 26) that claim 1 does not require a particular configuration for the transducers, nor does claim 1 require a plus-type controller. Instead, claim 1 requires producing an electrical output from each of the transducers. We agree with the Examiner (RAN 24) that Lautzenhiser discloses exactly that. For instance, the Examiner cites to column 4, lines 13-28 of Lautzenhiser. RAN 24. In this portion of the reference, Lauztenhiser specifically states “producing the first output from the first transducer that is proportional to the selective positions thereof; producing the second output from the second transducer that is proportional to the selective portions thereof.” Lauztenhiser, col. 4, ll. 21-25. Thus, we find that Lauztenhiser discloses the disputed limitation. Patent Owner also argues that Lautzenhiser does not disclose “proportioning one of said electrical outputs as an inverse function of an Appeal 2014-001755 Reexamination Control No. 95/001,471 Patent 6,426,600 B1 9 other of said electrical outputs,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 27; Reb. Br. 12. Patent Owner specifically contends that Lautzenhiser reduces the difference between the outputs of the transducers but does not reduce the output of one of the transducers. Reb. Br. 13. We disagree. The Examiner finds that Lautzenhiser discloses taking one of the electrical outputs and reducing the differences in the output as an inverse and nonlinerar function of the differences. Ans. 27. This disclosure is found in column 4, lines 46-55 of Lautzenhiser. Patent Owner does not specifically address the Examiner’s finding and merely relies on a portion of the ‘600 Patent to argue the difference. We do not find this argument persuasive. As such, for the reasons discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner’s decision to adopt Requester’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lautzenhiser. Claim 28 – Anticipation by Lautzenhiser Patent Owner argues that claim 28 is allowable for the same reasons as claim 1. App. Br. 28. As indicated supra, we agree with the Examiner’s decision to adopt Requester’s rejection of claim 1. Thus, we also agree with the Examiner’s decision to adopt Requester’s rejection of claim 28. Claims 2-4, 6, 7, 29, and 30 – Anticipation by Lautzenhiser Patent Owner argues that claims 2-4, 6, 7, 29, and 30 are allowable for the same reasons as claims 1 and 28. App. Br. 27-28. As indicated supra, we agree with the Examiner’s decision to adopt Requester’s rejection of Appeal 2014-001755 Reexamination Control No. 95/001,471 Patent 6,426,600 B1 10 claims 1 and 28. Thus, we also agree with the Examiner’s decision to adopt Requester’s rejection of claims 2-4, 6, 7, 29, and 30. Claims 11-14 – Obviousness over Lautzenhiser and Klimo Patent Owner argues that claims 11-14 are allowable for the same reasons as claim 1. App. B. 28. As indicated supra, we agree with the Examiner’s decision to adopt Requester’s rejection of claim 1. Thus, we also agree with the Examiner’s decision to adopt Requester’s rejection of claims 11-14. Claim 22 – Obviousness over Lautzenhiser, Klimo, and Littlejohn Patent Owner argues that claim 22 is allowable for the same reasons as claim 1. App. Br. 28. As indicated supra, we agree with the Examiner’s decision to adopt Requester’s rejection of claim 1. Thus, we also agree with the Examiner’s decision to adopt Requester’s rejection of claim 22. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11-15, 22, 28-30, and 32 – Other proposed rejections Our conclusions above address the patentability of all of the claims on appeal and, thus, render it unnecessary to reach the propriety of the Examiner’s decision to adopt the proposed rejections of the same claims on a different basis. Cf. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As such, we need not reach the other proposed and adopted rejections listed above. Appeal 2014-001755 Reexamination Control No. 95/001,471 Patent 6,426,600 B1 11 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that Melocik discloses “selectively inputting X and Y transducers,” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner did not err in finding that Lautzenhiser discloses “producing X and Y electrical outputs separately proportional to said selective inputting step,” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner did not err in finding that Lautzenhiser discloses “producing X and Y electrical outputs as an inverse function of an other of said electrical outputs,” as recited in claim 1. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to adopt the following rejections: claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 15, 28, 29, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Melocik; claims 7 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Melocik and Littlejohn; claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Melocik and Lautzenhiser; claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lautzenhiser; claims 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Lautzenhiser and Klimo; and claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lautzenhiser, Klimo, and Littlejohn. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). Appeal 2014-001755 Reexamination Control No. 95/001,471 Patent 6,426,600 B1 12 Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes reexamination proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.956. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.79. In the event neither party files a request for rehearing within the time provided in 37 C.F.R. § 41.79, and this decision becomes final and appealable under 37 C.F.R. § 41.81, a party seeking judicial review must timely serve notice on the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 90.1 and 1.983. AFFIRMED Lautzenhiser Technology, LLC Valenti Hanley & Robinson PLLC One Riverfront Plaza 401 West Main Street, Ste. 1950 Louisville, KY 40202 Third Party Requester: PG Drives Technology, Inc. Middleton Reutlinger 2500 Brown & Williamson Tower 401 S. 4th Street, Suite 2500 Louisville, KY 40202 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation