Ex Parte Baumgarten et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2017

13113270 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 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.
13/113,270 05/23/2011 Joachim Baumgarten 4999 9317
278 7590
MICHAEL J. STRIKER
103 EAST NECK ROAD
HUNTINGTON, NY 11743
EXAMINER
WEEKS, MARTIN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2017 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):
striker@strikerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOACHIM BAUMGARTEN, SEBASTIAN NEU,
CHRISTOPH BUSSMAN, ANDREAS WILKEN,
HENNER VOECKING, and CHRISTOPH HEITMANN
Appeal 2016-001619
Application 13/113,27c1
Technology Center 3600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, HUNG H. BUI, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Office Action rejecting claims 1 and 3—11, all of which are
pending on appeal. Claim 2 is canceled. Claims App’x. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is CLAAS
Selbstfahrende Emtemaschinen GmbH. App. Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed April 13, 2015
(“App. Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed September 4, 2015 (“Ans.”); Final
Office Action mailed November 21, 2014 (“Final Act.”); and original
Specification filed May 23, 2011 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2016-001619
Application 13/113,270
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to an agricultural harvester machine (i.e.,
tracker), shown in Figure 1, having “a driver assistance system for
optimizing the efficiency of an agricultural working machine . . . and
adapted to the customer’s preferences within the shortest amount of time
possible.” Spec. 5:2—14, Abstract.
Figure 1 is reproduced below with additional markings for illustration.
FIG. 1 shows an agricultural harvester machine (tracker) 1,2 having a
driver assistance system 23, 23 and sensors 26 at different locations on the
harvester machine to select a process implementation strategy that account
for one or more of crop parameters selected from a group of damage grain,
cleanliness, threshed out crop material and combinations thereof.
2
Appeal 2016-001619
Application 13/113,270
Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of
Appellants’ invention, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in
italics:
1. A combine harvester, comprising:
a driver assistance system comprising a data processing
system and control unit, a number of working mechanisms which
process a crop material passing through the combine harvester,
and
at least one display unit,
wherein the data processing and control unit processes
information generated by sensor systems internal to the combine
harvester, information stored in the data processing and control
unit, external information and combinations thereof
wherein the driver assistance system has selectable
process implementation strategies that account for one or more
of the crop parameters selected from the group consisting of
damaged grain, cleanliness, threshed out crop material and
combinations thereof,
wherein said process implementation strategies are
selected according to a selection criterium [sic, criteria]
comprising
a quality required for a certain intended use of the
crop selected from the group consisting of "food plants",
"seed", "feed plants", "industrial plants" and combinations
thereof, and
an optimization criteria of the working mechanisms,
and
wherein the selection criteria are stored in characteristic
curves or algorithms in an editable manner.
App. Br. 27 (Claims App.).
Examiner’s Rejections and References
(1) Claims 1 and 3—7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Behnke et al. (US 2006/0272307 Al; published
Dec. 7, 2006; “Behnke ’307”), Bischoff (US 2003/0216158 Al; published
3
Appeal 2016-001619
Application 13/113,270
Nov. 20, 2003), and Ma et al. (US 2003/0014171 Al; published Jan. 16,
2003; “Ma”). Final Act. 8-15.
(2) Claims 8—11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Behnke ’307, Bischoff, Ma, and Behnke (US
2003/0066277 Al; published Apr. 10, 2003; “Behnke ’277”). Final Act.
15-20.
ANALYSIS
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1 and 3—7 based on
Behnke ’307, Bischoff andMa
The Examiner finds the combination of Behnke ’307, Bischoff, and
Ma teaches ah the limitations of independent claim 1. For example, the
Examiner finds Behnke ’307 teaches Appellants’ claimed “combine
harvester” shown in Figure 1, equipped with ah the recited elements,
including:
(1) “a driver assistance system comprising a data processing
system and a control unit” (| 56);
(2) “a number of working mechanisms which process a crop
material passing through the combine harvester” (137); and
(3) “at least one display unit” (| 46);
(4) “wherein the data processing and control unit processes
information generated by sensor systems internal to the combine
harvester, information stored in the data processing and control
unit, external information and combinations” (| 46).
Final Act. 8 (citing Behnke ’307 Tflf 37, 46, 56).
4
Appeal 2016-001619
Application 13/113,270
Behnke’s ’307 Figure 1 is reproduced below:
1* 20 2%
Behnke’s Figure 1 shows Appellants’ claimed “combine harvester” 1
including “a driver assistance system comprising a data processing system
and a control unit” 22, 25 and multiple working mechanisms 2, 4, 10, 17, 19,
including sensors SD, Se, Sv, Sk, and So.
To support the conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner relies on (1)
Bischoff for teaching: “the driver assistance system [that] has selectable
process implementation strategies that account for one or more of the crop
parameters selected .. . according to a selection criterium . . . and an
optimization criteria {id. at 9 (citing Bischoff H 28, 32)); and (2) Ma for
teaching “the selection criteria are stored in characteristic curves or
algorithms in an editable manner” {id. at 10 (citing Ma 130)).
Appellants dispute the Examiner’s factual findings regarding Behnke
’307, Bischoff, and Ma. First, Appellants acknowledge Behnke ’307 teaches
“a display unit and a driver assistance system with a processing system and
control unit for processing sensor data.” App. Br. 14. However, Appellants
contend Behnke’s “control unit 25,” shown in Figure 2, does not “process[],
5
Appeal 2016-001619
Application 13/113,270
in addition to information generated by sensors So, Se, Su, Sk and So, stored
information and external information, as required by independent claim 1.”
Id. at 15.
Second, Appellants contend “Bischoff s controller 55 does not
implement process implementation strategies that are selected according to a
selection criterium comprising a quality required for a certain intended use
of the crop selected from the group consisting of ‘food plants’, ‘seed’, ‘feed
plants’, ‘industrial plants’ and combinations thereof, as claimed.” Id. at 16.
According to Appellants, “Bischoff does not disclose, either explicitly nor
[sic] implicitly, defining the quality parameters dependent on the intended
use of the harvested crop, which is so important to the invention as claimed.”
Id. at 17.
Third, Appellants acknowledge Ma teaches an operator with selection
criteria to input “various types of information via input line 154a of the
device 154, including crop type, location, yield, acceptable grain loss,
damage and dockage and the like, corresponding to working process quality
parameters.” Id. at 18. However, Appellants contend Ma does not teach “an
operator with selection criteria stored in characteristic curves or algorithms
in an editable manner.” Id.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Instead, we find
the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants’
arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 3—6. As such,
we adopt the Examiner’s findings and explanations provided therein. Id. At
the outset, we note claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable
6
Appeal 2016-001619
Application 13/113,270
interpretation, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning,
as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of
the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
(Fed. Cir. 2007).
Appellants’ Specification does not provide an explicit and exclusive
definition of the claimed term “process implementation strategies.” Rather,
Appellants’ Specification provides discussion of selections of crop
parameters as well as quality parameters related to the operating state of
agricultural working machines. See Spec. 5:20-7:18. Based on Appellants’
Specification, the Examiner has broadly interpreted the term “process
implementation strategies” as encompassing Bischoff’s user input of
information about crop characteristics and selection in the context of an
automatic mode and a manual mode. Ans. 4—5 (citing Bischoff H 28, 32).
We find the Examiner’s interpretation reasonable and consistent with
Appellant’s Specification.
Moreover, as correctly recognized by the Examiner, Behnke ’307’s
“control unit 25,” shown in Figure 2, processes (1) “information generated
by sensor systems” i.e., sensors SD, Se, Su, Sk and So (see Behnke ’307 1
46); (2) “information stored in the data processing and control unit” (see
Behnke ’307 161); and (3) “external information” i.e., input from an
operator (see Behnke ’307 1 50). Ans. 3. Contrary to Appellants’
arguments, the controllers of Behnke’307 and Bischoff are programmed
with software, i.e., “algorithms in an editable manner.” Behnke ’307 1 10;
Bischoff, Fig. 5 (“a flowchart of the operation of a control system of a
harvester”). The use of an algorithm in an editable manner is well known to
those skilled in the art, as evidenced in paragraphs 38—43 of Ma.
7
Appeal 2016-001619
Application 13/113,270
For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not persuaded us of
Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 3—7, which
Appellants do not argue separately. App. Br. 19.
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 8—11 based on
Behnke ’307, Bischoff Ma, and Behnke ’277
Claim 8 depends indirectly from independent claim 1, and further
recites: “the display unit has a notice field which provides a general notice
regarding effects that the process implementation strategy selected using the
selection criterium [sic] or an optimization criterium [sic] has on a mode of
operation of automated regulating units, the crop parameters, and both.”
Claim 9 also depends from claim 1, and further recites a similar limitation.
Claim 10 depends from claim 9, and further requires “the control/regulating
unit and the display unit are configured so that optimized adaptation
suggestions for one or more of the automated regulating units are determined
in the control/regulating unit, and are displayed to an operator in a dialog
field in the display unit.”
The Examiner further relies on Behnke ’277 for teaching that a
display unit is provided “with a notice field which provides a general notice
regarding ... the process implementation strategy selected” to support the
conclusion of obviousness of claims 8—10. Final Act. 15—16 (citing Behnke
’277 11298-303, Fig. 30).
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s factual findings. Nor do
Appellants present arguments against the Examiner’s combination of
8
Appeal 2016-001619
Application 13/113,270
Behnke ’307, Bischoff, Ma, and Behnke ’277. App. Br. 20. As such, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8—10.
With respect to independent claim 11, Appellants reiterate the same
arguments presented against independent claim 1, and additionally argue
Behnke ’277 does not teach “prompting an operator ... in a first menu step .
. . in a subsequent menu step.” App. Br. 20-24. We disagree. As correctly
recognized by the Examiner, these menu steps are nothing more than a menu
display panel provided with guidance. Ans. 7 (citing Behnke ’277 130).
For this reason, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 3—11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 and
3-11.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9