Ex Parte Kumar

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 6, 2016

12274596 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 6, 2016)

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