Ex Parte Taylor et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 8, 2012

10928070 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ARTHUR JAMES TAYLOR, MARK NICHOLS, and
PHILIP JACKSON
____________

Appeal 2010-010186
Application 10/928,070
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, EDWARD A. BROWN, and HYUN J. JUNG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Arthur James Taylor et al. (Appellants) seek our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 16-22, 24-45,
and 56. Claims 1-15, 23, 46-55, and 57-73 are withdrawn from
consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2010-010186
Application 10/928,070

2
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a “system for determining the
position of an implement coupled with a mobile machine.” Spec. 1, ll. 7-8.
Claims 16 and 31 are independent. Claim 16, reproduced below (emphasis
added), is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
16. A system for performing non-contact based
determination of the position of an implement
comprising:
a non-contact based sensor measurement
system configured for determining the position of
said implement relative to a mobile machine
coupled with said implement, said non-contact
based measurement system including a distance
measuring component coupled to said implement
and configured for determining the distance
between said implement and said mobile machine;
a position determination system for
determining the geographic position of said mobile
machine; and
a system for determining the geographic
position of said implement based upon data
received from said non-contact based measurement
system and said position determination system.

Independent claim 31 is directed to a system for determining the
position of an implement and likewise calls for “a distance measuring
component . . . configured for determining the distance between said
implement and said mobile machine.”
Appeal 2010-010186
Application 10/928,070

3
THE REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 36-39, 43, and 44
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Anderson
(US 5,848,485; iss. Dec. 15, 1998).1
2. Claims 16-19, 21, 22, 24-29, 31-34, 36-44, and 56 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson.
3. Claims 20 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Anderson and Kügler (Dirk Kügler et al., “Combined Use of
GPS and LORAN-C in Integrated Navigation Systems”, Satellite
Systems for Mobile Communications and Navigation, IEE Conf. Pub.
No. 424, (May, 1996)).
4. Claims 30 and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Anderson and Nielson (US 5,559,725; iss. Sep. 24, 1996).
ISSUE
In the new ground of rejection based on anticipation, the Examiner
determined that Anderson discloses a “non-contact based measurement
system including a distance measuring component (i.e. light transceiver 52
in conjunction with reflectors 54-57 and computer 62) . . . configured for
determining the distance between the implement and the mobile machine.”
Ans. 3-4 (claim 16) and Ans. 5-6 (claim 31). Appellants argue that
“Anderson does not anticipate utilizing a distance measuring component”
and “instead teaches that position of a tool/implement is calculated by the

1 The Examiner entered this ground of rejection in the Examiner’s Answer
as a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(a)(2). Ans. 3.
Appeal 2010-010186
Application 10/928,070

4
angle of various reflectors 54-57 with respect to a transceiver 42.” Reply
Br. 4.
With regard to the obviousness rejection over Anderson, the Examiner
determined that “Anderson et al[.] do not explicitly disclose the non-contact
based measurement system including a distance measuring component
coupled to the implement and configured for determining the distance
between the implement and the mobile machine as claimed.” Ans. 8
(emphasis omitted). The Examiner determined that the claimed distance
measuring component would have been obvious in light of Anderson
because “[i]t appears that the invention would perform equally well with
utilizing the transceiver and reflectors for determining the distance of an
implement relative to a mobile machine coupled with an implement as
taught by Anderson et al.” Id. Appellants argue that the rejection “does not
address how the cited art of Anderson discloses a distance measuring
component” and “contains no clearly articulated explanation which supports,
articulates, or explains why the above noted deficiencies and difference(s)
between Anderson and the claimed features of Claims 16 and 31 would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.” App. Br. 15.
The issue presented by this appeal is whether Anderson discloses or
renders obvious “a distance measuring component . . . configured for
determining the distance between said implement and said mobile machine”
as called for in independent claims 16 and 31.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation by Anderson
Anderson discloses an apparatus for determining the position of a tool
mounted at the end of a pivotable arm forming part of a machine that
Appeal 2010-010186
Application 10/928,070

5
includes a plurality of light reflectors mounted in a known relationship on at
least one of the platform, the arm and the tool of the machine for indicating
movement of the arm and the tool and a light transceiver mounted on the
machine in a known relationship to the reflectors. Anderson, col. 2, ll. 32-
36; 58-60; and 63-64. Anderson discloses that the light transceiver is
“adapted to detect the reflected light from each of the reflectors and to detect
the angular orientation of this reflective light” and that “[a] computer
determines the position of the tool using the output signals from the
reflectors.” Anderson, col. 2, l. 67 – col. 3, l. 7. See also Anderson, col. 7,
ll. 9-19 (disclosing the output signals from transceiver 52, which are
generated when it detects reflected laser light 61 and its corresponding
angular orientation from each reflector 54-57, are transmitted to a computer
62, which is operatively adapted to determine the position of the top of the
teeth 30 of a bucket 26 from the output signals as well as stored data on the
geometry of the machine 10 and the locations of the transceiver 52 and
reflectors 54-57 on the machine 10). Anderson further discloses:
The position of the tip of the bucket teeth 30 relative to the
platform 12 of machine 10 can be determined once the
orientation of the arm 16 (i.e., of the bucket 26 and arm
segments 18 and 20) is known. The orientation of the arm 16
can be determined using conventional mathematical methods,
once the dimensions of the machine 10 (in particular the arm
16), the location of the transceiver 52 and each reflector 54-57
relative to the pivot points 22, 24 and 28, and the geometric
relationship between the reflectors 54-57 is determined. The
dimensions of the machine 10 and the locations of the
transceiver 52 and reflectors 54-57 can be measured and stored
in the memory of computer 62.
Anderson, col. 9, ll. 3-14. Anderson describes that “[i]n determining the
geometric relationship between the reflectors 54-57, the transceiver 52 may
Appeal 2010-010186
Application 10/928,070

6
be adapted to detect the angular orientation of each reflected beam of light
61 and thus of each reflector 54-57 relative to a known index position,
shown as line 63 in FIG. 1, along the path of rotation of the beam of light 60.
That is, the angular orientations detected are the angles A1, A2, A3 and A4
between the index position 63 and the reflected light 61 from each reflector
54-57, respectively.” Anderson, col. 9, ll. 20-29. Anderson indicates, “[t]he
orientation of the arm 16, and thus the location of the bucket 26 and its teeth
30, can then be calculated from these angles A1, A2, A3, and A4 once the
geometric relationship between the transceiver 52, the reflectors 54-57 and
the machine 10 is known.” Anderson, col. 11, ll. 38-42.
As such, Anderson’s system is configured to calculate the position of
the tip of the bucket teeth 30 based on the angular orientation of each
reflected beam of light reflected from each of the reflectors 54-57 and a
known geometric relationship between the transceiver 52, the reflectors 54-
57, and the machine 10. We agree with Appellants that Anderson does not
disclose that its system is configured to determine the distance between the
implement and the mobile machine, as called for in claims 16 and 31. Thus,
the Examiner’s finding that Anderson’s non-contact based sensor
measurement system includes a “distance measuring component . . .
configured for determining the distance between said implement and said
mobile machine” is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 16 and 31, and their
dependent claims 17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 28, 29, 32, 34, 36-39, 43, and 44, as
anticipated by Anderson.
Appeal 2010-010186
Application 10/928,070

7
Unpatentability over Anderson
We agree with Appellants (App. Br. 14) that “[a]lthough it is possible
that a distance can be indirectly determined through the measurement of
angles and the performance of computations,” the Examiner’s articulated
reason to modify Anderson’s system to determine the claimed distance, viz
that the invention would perform equally well for determining distance, is
not so much a statement of a reason to modify Anderson as it is an assertion
that such a modification would be feasible. The possibility that a
measurement of angles using portions of Anderson’s system could be used
to indirectly determine a distance is not an adequate articulation of a reason
to modify the system of Anderson to configure the components to determine
distance in the manner called for in claims 16 and 31. As such, we reverse
the rejection of independent claims 16 and 31, and their dependent claims
17-19, 21, 22, 24-29, 32-34, 36-44, and 56, as being unpatentable over
Anderson.
The Examiner does not rely on Kügler or Nielson in the rejection of
dependent claims 20, 30, 35, and 45 to overcome the deficiencies in
Anderson as discussed supra. Ans. 12-13. As such, for the same reasons as
discussed for independent claims 16 and 31, we likewise reverse the
rejection of claims 20 and 35 as being unpatentable over Anderson and
Kügler and the rejection of claims 30 and 45 as being unpatentable over
Anderson and Nielson.
CONCLUSIONS
Anderson does not disclose “a distance measuring component . . .
configured for determining the distance between said implement and said
mobile machine” as called for in independent claims 16 and 31.
Appeal 2010-010186
Application 10/928,070

8
The Examiner has failed to adequately articulate reasoning based on
rational underpinnings to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have found “a distance measuring component . . . configured for determining
the distance between said implement and said mobile machine” to be
obvious in view of the teachings of Anderson.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 16-22,
24-45, and 56.

REVERSED

Klh