Ex Parte KumarDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 6, 201612274596 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 6, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/274,596 11120/2008 Ajith Kuttannair Kumar 91959 7590 07/08/2016 GE GPO- Transportation- The Small Patent Law Group 3135 Easton Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06828 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 233139-2 (663) 1552 EXAMINER BEHNCKE, CHRISTINE M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER CQIC NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/08/2016 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): gpo.mail@ge.com marie.gerrie@ge.com lori.E.rooney@ge.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AJITH KUTTANNAIR KUMAR Appeal2014-001853 Application 12/274,5961 Technology Center 3600 Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1, 3-16, and 18-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. BACKGROUND According to Appellant, the present invention seeks "to provide a control system that recognizes the necessary conditions for the development of slack locations, and is capable of maintaining the operating parameters of 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is General Electric Company. Appeal Br. 5. Appeal2014-001853 Application 12/274,596 the locomotive consist(s) of the train such that developed slack locations do not adversely affect the handling of the train." Spec. i-f 5. CLAIMS Claims 1, 3-16, and 18-23 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 1. A control system comprising: a controller configured to determine first and second slack locations in a powered system having first and second powered vehicles capable of self-propulsion, the first and second powered vehicles disposed in respective first and second consists that are separated by at least one other vehicle that is incapable of self-propulsion in the powered system, each of the first and second slack locations representing a force separation in the powered system between a compression region and a tension region, the compression region including one or more couplers in the powered system that are subject to a compression force and the tension region including one or more couplers in the powered system that are subject to a tension force; wherein the controller is configured to be coupled to a first engine of at least one of the first or second powered vehicles, the controller being configured to adjust a first output of the first engine to control a rate of change of at least one of the first or second slack locations in the powered system and to cause the first and second slack locations to move in a common direction in the powered system relative to the first and second powered vehicles and the at least one other vehicle. Appeal Br. 42. 2 Appeal2014-001853 Application 12/274,596 REJECTIONS2 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 11-16, and 20-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hess3 in view of Halvorson. 4 2. The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hess in view of Halvorson and Hughson. 5 3. The Examiner rejects claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hess in view of Halvorson and Montgomery.6 4. The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hess in view of Halvorson and Mosier. 7 5. The Examiner rejects claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hess in view of Halvorson and Kumar. 8 DISCUSSION Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, "a controller configured to determine first and second slack locations in a power system" and "each of the first and second slack locations representing a force separation in the powered system between a compression region and a tension region." Appeal Br. 42. Claims 16 and 21, the only other independent claims on appeal, recite substantially similar limitations. Id. at 46-47. We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner failed to establish that 2 The rejection of claims 3, 6, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, have been withdrawn. See Ans. 3--4. 3 Hess, Jr. et al., US 7 ,021,588 B2, iss. Apr. 4, 2006. 4 Halvorson et al., US 6,273,521 Bl, iss. Aug. 14, 2001. 5 Hughson, US 3,217,663, iss. Nov. 16, 1965. 6 Montgomery, US 5,950,967, iss. Sept. 14, 1999. 7 Mosier, US 4,041,283, iss. Aug. 9, 1977. 8 Kumar et al., US 2007/0219681 Al, pub. Sept. 20, 2007. 3 Appeal2014-001853 Application 12/274,596 the art of record teaches, suggests, or otherwise makes obvious, these claim limitations. See Appeal Br. 22-23, 26-28. The Examiner finds that Halvorson teaches determining slack locations as required by the independent claims. See Final Action 4--5. The Examiner states, Halvorson teaches a controller configured to determine first and second slack locations in a powered system (col 2: Ins 51-61 ), each of the first and second slack locations representing a force separation in the powered system between a compression region and a tension region (col 3: ln 64- col 4: ln 6), the compression region including one or more couplers in the powered system that are subject to a compression force (col 3: Ins 55-58, compressed state) and a tension region including one or more couplers in the powered system that are subject to a tension force (col 3: Ins 65-67, stretched state). Id. at 4. Halvorson discloses using sensors between cars to measure the distance between the cars; using a control to control the amount of slack between cars; and monitoring the rate of change of distance between cars to operate the brakes at an appropriate level to avoid cars from becoming completely stretched apart or compressed together. Halvorson col. 2, 11. 51- 61; col. 3, 1. 55---col. 4, 1. 9. Halvorson also discloses displaying absolute slack information as well as rate of change of train slack. Id. at col. 4, 11. 29-35. Although Halvorson's system and controller can measure and display the distance and rate of change of distance between rail cars, we agree with Appellant that measuring and displaying slack fails to adequately show that Halvorson's controller is configured to determine first and second slack locations according to the definition of slack location provided in the claims. Specifically, claim 1 requires that "each of the first and second slack 4 Appeal2014-001853 Application 12/274,596 locations represent[ s] a force separation in the powered system between a compression region and a tension region," i.e. the controller must be configured to determine a location between a compression region and a tension region, not simply list the slack between all rail cars. We find that the Examiner has not established that Halvorson's controller is capable of making such a determination. In response to Appellant's argument the Examiner also states: Since the absolute slack is determined and displayed at each railcar coupling, thereby each location of slack is determined and displayed, including the first and second slack locations. As Halvorson further teaches, the slack is between a compression region and a tension region: "Each railcar may be capable of recording the maximum and minimum separation distances which correspond to stretched and compressed slack statuses respectfully" (col 4: lines 7-9). At maximum separation distances, the couplers are subject to the maximum stretched force, or tension. At minimum separation distances, the couplers are subject to the compression forces, as they are in compressed slack status. Ans. 6. However, as discussed above, the claim requires more than simply determining how much slack exists at each coupling, i.e., measuring the distance between the cars. Further, the Examiner failed to adequately explain why Halvorson's disclosure of measuring and displaying slack and also recording maximum and minimum separation distances shows that Halvorson teaches or suggests determining a location between a compression region and a tension region. Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting each of the independent claims over Hess in view of Halvorson. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 16, and 21. For the 5 Appeal2014-001853 Application 12/274,596 same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3, 5, 6, 11-15, 20, 22, and 23. With respect to the remaining obviousness rejections, the Examiner does not identify any portion of the art of record that cures the deficiencies in the rejection of independent claims 1, 16, and 21. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 4, 7-10, 18, and 19 for the same reasons identified with respect to those independent claims. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejections of claims 1, 3-16, and 18-23. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation