Ex Parte Beck et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 29, 201311432008 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2013) 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. 11/432,008 05/11/2006 Folker Beck 09517-US 8460 30689 7590 04/29/2013 DEERE & COMPANY ONE JOHN DEERE PLACE MOLINE, IL 61265 EXAMINER DAGER, JONATHAN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3663 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/29/2013 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 ____________________ Ex parte FOLKER BECK and LUTZ BISCHOFF ____________________ Appeal 2011-003203 Application 11/432,008 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: WILLIAM V. SAINDON, NEIL T. POWELL, and BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges. POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-003203 Application 11/432,008 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 4 and 6-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed subject matter. 1. A monitoring device for monitoring the function of components of an agricultural implement, comprising: a vibration sensor configured to provide signal values containing information on mechanical vibrations generated by moving components of the implement; an operating state detecting device configured to generate a signal containing information on the operating state of components of the implement; and a calculating device configured to generate state information of the state of the components of the implement, which is based on the signal values of the operating state detecting device and the vibration sensor, the calculating device being configured to divide the signal values of the vibration sensor into various classes on the basis of the corresponding signals of the operating state detecting device, which correspond to different combinations of the operating states of the components when signal values are detected, the calculating device being further configured to compare the signal values divided into the classes or data derived from these values with comparison values for generating the state information, wherein the calculating device is configured to Appeal 2011-003203 Application 11/432,008 3 selectively store signal values of the vibration sensor for subsequent use by said calculating device in determining said state information, said storing occurring only when the signals of the operating state detecting device indicate that the operating conditions during which the signals of the vibration sensor were gathered fall into a class that can be analyzed. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Beck US 2002/0107625 A1 Aug. 8, 2002 REJECTIONS Appellant seeks our review of the following rejections. 1. Claims 1-4 and 6-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Beck. ANALYSIS Appellants argue claims 1-4 and 6-9 as a group. We select claim 1 as representative, treating claims 2-4 and 6-9 as standing or falling with representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellants traverse the anticipation rejection by arguing that Beck’s system does not meet the claim limitations the calculating device is configured to selectively store signal values of the vibration sensor for subsequent use by said calculating device in determining said state information, said storing occurring only when the signals of the operating state detecting device indicate that the operating Appeal 2011-003203 Application 11/432,008 4 conditions during which the signals of the vibration sensor were gathered fall into a class that can be analyzed App. Br. 12-16; Reply Br. 2-4. The Examiner finds that Beck discloses these limitations in the form of a system that stores sensor signals for use as comparative values. Ans. 8- 10 (citing Beck, paras. [0025] and [0038]). The Examiner notes Beck discloses that this system stores comparative sensor-signal values at the beginning of a working process, at which time Beck discloses the machine “operates flawlessly.” Ans. 7-9; Beck, para. [0025]. In view of disclosures in Beck that static comparative values may cause errors and that its system may employ a neural network, the Examiner also finds that Beck implicitly suggests that its system stores new values of the comparative sensor signals at certain other times during the life of the machine. Ans. 10; Beck, para. [0025]. Appellants argue that Beck does not disclose a system that selectively stores the comparative signal values. App. Br. 14. Specifically, Appellants argue that Beck’s system does not determine when the machine is actually operating flawlessly and store comparative signal values. Id. Instead, Appellants argue, Beck suggests that an operator periodically replaces the comparative values when the operator believes the machine is operating flawlessly. Id. These arguments do not apprise us of error in the rejection. Beck’s disclosure that static comparative values present disadvantages and that its system uses a neural network suggests that its system employs dynamic comparative values that the system automatically updates at selected times. Beck, para. [0025]. Whether Beck’s system actually determines that the Appeal 2011-003203 Application 11/432,008 5 machine operates flawlessly at the times selected for storing the signal values has no bearing on whether the system selectively stores the signal values. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Beck implicitly discloses its system selectively stores vibration sensor signals as the comparative values, meeting the claim limitation “wherein the calculating device is configured to selectively store signal values of the vibration sensor.” Ans. 8-10. To the extent Appellants are contending that Beck fails to meet the claim limitations related to “a class that can be analyzed” on the theory that Beck’s system does not actually determine when the machine is operating flawlessly, we cannot agree. Even if we accept that Beck’s system does not actually determine when the machine is operating flawlessly, Appellants do not point to any evidence or reasoning that would support a conclusion that the claim language “can be analyzed” requires a determination of flawless operation. See App. Br. 17; Claims Appendix. Appellants further argue that Beck’s system does not classify the sensor signals and use the resulting classifications to determine whether a signal falls into a class that can be analyzed and will be stored. App. Br. 12- 13 and 15; Reply Br. 2-3. These arguments are not commensurate in scope with the disputed claim language. Claim 1 does recite “the calculating device being configured to divide the signal values of the vibration sensor into various classes,” but Appellants expressly note that Appellants’ arguments are not directed to this part of the claim. Reply Br. 3-4 (“[T]he Examiner quotes (at the top of page 11 of the Examiner’s Answer) from a portion of Appellants’ claim 1 that does not correspond to Appellants’ argument.”); see also Ans. 11. Appeal 2011-003203 Application 11/432,008 6 The claim language Appellants do rely on requires operating conditions to fall into a certain class to trigger the claimed storing, reciting “said storing occurring only when the signals of the operating state detecting device indicate that operating conditions during which the signals of the vibration sensor were gathered fall into a class that can be analyzed” (emphasis added). But this language does not require that “a class that can be analyzed” is one of the “various classes” recited earlier in claim 1 into which the claimed calculating device is “configured to divide the signal values.” See App. Br. 17; Claims Appendix. In the claim 1 recitation of “a class that can be analyzed,” the indefinite article “a” gives the language a scope that reads on any class that can be analyzed, regardless of whether the class is one of the “various classes” recited earlier in the claim. Moreover, the claim limitation that the calculating device stores signal values when the operating conditions “fall into a class” does not require that the calculating device actually classify operating conditions and/or signals, as the calculating device could use an algorithm that allows it to perform the required storing in the specified circumstances without actually assigning a classification. Thus, while the Specification discloses a system that classifies sensor signals and uses the resulting classifications to determine whether a signal falls into a class that can be analyzed and will be stored, the language of claim 1 is broader. We decline to import limitations from the Specification into the claim. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments that Beck fails to disclose storing signal values based on an active classification performed by the calculating device do not apprise us of error in the rejection. Appeal 2011-003203 Application 11/432,008 7 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision regarding claims 1-4 and 6-9. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation