THE RAYMOND CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2020

15183002 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2020)

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.
15/183,002 06/15/2016 DANIEL ROBERT DRISCALL 780139.00699.RC784 5395
26710 7590 10/01/2020
QUARLES & BRADY LLP
ATTN: IP DOCKET
411 E. WISCONSIN AVENUE
SUITE 2350
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-4426
EXAMINER
ZIAEIANMEHDIZADE, NAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2020 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):
pat-dept@quarles.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL ROBERT DRISCALL and
ROBERT WALTER GREENE
Appeal 2020-000721
Application 15/183,002
Technology Center 3600
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and
GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 5–11, 13–15, and 18. Claims 2, 4,
12, 16, and 17 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The
Raymond Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.

Appeal 2020-000721
Application 15/183,002

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Of the claims on appeal, claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is
directed to a “material handling vehicle” equipped with a processor
configured to “execute a real time weight calculation program to account for
non-linearity of the [vehicle’s] lift system” and “control a speed of the
material handling vehicle based on at least the real time weight value.”
Claim 13 is directed to a “method” of using a processor that performs
essentially the same steps. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below.
1. A material handling vehicle comprising:

a lift system configured to manipulate a load, the lift
system including:
a pair of forks; and
a linkage coupled to the pair of forks and associated
with operation thereof;

a pressure sensor coupled to the linkage and configured to
measure a pressure associated with a weight on the pair of forks;

a height sensor configured to measure a height of the pair
of forks;

a data collection system; and

a processor having a memory, the processor configured to
execute a real time weight calculation program to account for
non-linearity of the lift system, the weight calculation program
comprising the steps of:
receiving data from the pressure sensor and the
height sensor; and
combining the data from the pressure sensor and the
height sensor to continuously determine a real time weight
value of the load being manipulated by the lift system;

wherein the processor is configured to control a speed of
the material handling vehicle based on at least the real time
weight value.

Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
Appeal 2020-000721
Application 15/183,002

3
EVIDENCE OF RECORD
Name Basis Date
Avitan US 4,942,529 July 17, 1990
Nagai US 6,611,746 B1 Aug. 26, 2003
Abels US 7,216,024 B1 May 8, 2007
Anson US 2006/0208893 A1 Sept. 21, 2006
Akaki US 2010/0063682 A1 Mar. 11, 2010
Santi US 2014/0262551 A1 Sept. 18, 2014
Yoon US 2016/0264387 A1 Sept. 15, 2016
EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis
1, 3, 5–11, 13–15, 18 112(a) Written Description
1, 3, 5–11, 13–15, 18 112(b) Indefiniteness
1, 9–11, 13–152 103 Akaki, Avitan, Santi
3 103 Akaki, Avitan, Santi, Nagai
5 103 Akaki, Avitan, Santi, Anson
6–8 103 Akaki, Avitan, Santi, Yoon
18 103 Akaki, Avitan, Santi, Abels

ANALYSIS
A. Lack of Written Description
In the Non-Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected all the pending
claims as failing to comply with the written description requirement of 35
U.S.C. § 112(a). Non-Final Act. 2–3. Specifically, the Examiner contends
that the limitation “to account for non-linearity of the lift system” lacks
sufficient written description support in Appellant’s Specification. See id.
We disagree. The Specification clearly states, in part, “[u]sing data from a

2 Although the Examiner omits claim 11 from the listing of claims rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner nonetheless includes claim 11 in the
rejection. Compare Non-Final Act. 4, with id. at 6.

Appeal 2020-000721
Application 15/183,002

4
plurality of sensors, including height sensor 102 and pressure sensor 104, a
real time calculated weight of the load can be determined whether the
material handing vehicle is stopped or moving, while taking the non-
linearity of the lift system into account.” Spec. ¶ 37 (emphasis added). To
the extent a skilled artisan would have understood the meaning of “non-
linearity,” as discussed below, we are of the view that the Specification
provides adequate support for the “non-linearity” limitation.
B. Indefiniteness
The Examiner also rejected all the pending claims as being indefinite
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Non-Final Act. 3–4; see also Ans. 5–6. In
particular, the Examiner again takes issue with the claim limitation requiring
that the processor be configured “to account for non-linearity of the lift
system.” Non-Final Act. 3–4. According to the Examiner, because the only
occurrence of the term “non-linearity” in the Specification lacks sufficient
definition and description, “it is not clear how the real time calculated
weight of the load can be determined while taking the non-linearity of the
lift system into account.” Id. (citing Spec. ¶ 37); see also Ans. 5–6.
Explaining further, the Examiner notes that the term could be construed to
encompass “any non-linear behavior in the lift system (e.g., including load
position variation during system movement) causing the weight calculation
to be skewed from a straight line response in the context of the lift system.”
Ans. 6. Thus, the Examiner finds that “non-linearity,” as used in the claims,
“is open to multiple interpretations thus rendering it indefinite.” Id. at 5–6.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the term “non-linearity”
lacks sufficient definition in the context of the claims. In refuting the
Examiner’s rejection, Appellant contends that a skilled artisan would have
Appeal 2020-000721
Application 15/183,002

5
“known . . . that non-linearity exists in lift systems on material handling
vehicles.” Appeal Br. 6. But nowhere does Appellant cite any supporting
evidence for this purported knowledge. See id. And although Appellant
contends that the claims “do not attempt to claim every way of accounting
for non-linearity in a lift system,” Appellant fails to explain the scope of the
“one specific solution” that the term purportedly encompasses. Id.
More specifically, in our view, the term “non-linearity” as used in the
claims could be construed to mean any non-linear variation relative to the
longitudinal (front-to-rear) axis, lateral (side-to-side) axis, or vertical
(height) axis of the forklift vehicle’s center of gravity. It could also be
construed to mean non-linearity in the electronic operation of components in
“the lift system” of the claims, such as the pressure sensor, the height sensor,
or a motor operating the lift system. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 34–38. That a
skilled artisan would need to make arbitrary assumptions in order to
ascertain what might cause the load weight calculation to depart from a
straight-linear response supports a finding of indefiniteness. The dependent
claims do not cure the deficiencies of claims 1 and 13, as they provide no
further clarity for the term “non-linearity.”
In the end, one is left to speculate as to whether the lift system
accounts for non-linearity in the longitudinal, lateral, and/or vertical
directions of the lift, or in the system components themselves. As presently
worded, the claim language does not provide the answer. Thus, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5–11, 13–15, and 18 for
indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Appeal 2020-000721
Application 15/183,002

6
C. Obviousness
1. Claims 1, 9–11, 13–15
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 9–11, and 13–15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Akaki, Avitan,
and Santi. See Non-Final Act. 4–6; Ans. 3, 7–10. Although Appellant
argues independent claims 1 and 13 separately, we treat them together given
that Appellant relies on the same arguments for claim 13 as it does for
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9, 11. Appellant does not argue dependent claims
9–11, 14, and 15 separately, so we presume they are argued solely on the
basis of their dependency from their respective base claims 1 and 13.
As explained by the Examiner (see Non-Final Act. 4–5), Akaki
indisputably discloses a forklift vehicle including:
(1) a pair of forks (see ¶ 70, Fig. 1A, “fork 13”);
(2) a linkage coupled to the pair of forks for operation
thereof (see ¶¶ 70–71, Fig. 1A, “mast 11,” “mast 12,” “tilt
device 18”);
(3) a pressure sensor configured to measure a pressure
associated with a weight on the pair of forks (see ¶¶ 73–74,
Figs. 1A, 1B, “pressure sensor 22”);
(4) a height sensor configured to measure a height of the
pair of forks (see ¶¶ 73–74, Figs. 1A, 1B, “displacement sensor
21”);
(5) a data collection system (see ¶¶ 73–78, Figs. 1A, 1B,
“controller 20”);
(6) a processor and memory configured to execute a real
time weight calculation program based on data from the
pressure sensor and control the speed of the forklift vehicle
based on the calculated real time weight value (see ¶¶ 76–81,
Fig. 2, computer C1–C5, steps S11–15 where “[i]n a step S12,
load weight W is calculated by inputting lift cylinder pressure P
into computer C2 for outputting load weight W based on lift
Appeal 2020-000721
Application 15/183,002

7
cylinder pressure P” and “[i]n a step S13, . . . [a] computer C3b
which memori[z]es the cargo height H output in the step S11
and a limit velocity V2 in the case of a specified load (=
maximum load), inputs the cargo height H and outputs a limit
velocity V2 in the case of the specified load (=nonload)
condition”; see also ¶ 96, Fig. 7, steps S21–25, and claim 8’s
recitation of “controlling output of said internal combustion
engine in order to maintain vehicle velocity less than said limit
velocity”).
The Examiner concedes, however, that Akaki does not expressly
disclose the claim limitation of “combining the data from the pressure sensor
and the height sensor to continuously determine a real time weight value of
the load being manipulated by the lift system.” Non-Final Act. 5. For that
limitation, the Examiner points to Avitan’s express teaching of using
“instantaneous data representing lift cylinder pressure, and carriage height,
to determine the instantaneous payload on the load carriage.” See id. (citing
Avitan, 3:10–20); see also Ans. 8 (same). According to the Examiner, a
skilled artisan would have been led to use inputs from both a pressure sensor
and a height sensor, as taught by Avitan, in the calculation of Akaki’s load
weight “in order to more precisely and reliably measure the instantaneous
payload of the lifter in the [forklift] vehicle thus improving the overall
system sensitivity and stability.” Non-Final Act. 5.
Appellant raises two arguments in response to the Examiner’s
combination of Avitan with Akaki. Appeal Br. 6–11. First, Appellant
contends that Avitan does not provide “sufficient clarity as to how the
cylinder pressure and carriage height values are used” in the calculation of
load weight. Id. at 7. We do not find this argument persuasive for the
simple reason that Avitan describes the use of separate inputs from a
pressure sensor and a height sensor to the same extent as Appellant’s
Appeal 2020-000721
Application 15/183,002

8
Specification. See Spec. ¶ 37 (stating generally that “[t]he software 108 can
use the operational and state data, in combination with the data from the
height sensor 102 and pressure sensor 104 to calculate a weight of a load.”).
In our view, the breadth of Appellant’s disclosure is no different than that of
Avitan’s disclosure. See Avitan, 3:1–20 (disclosing that “logged data is
used, together with instantaneous data representing lift cylinder pressure,
and carriage height, to determine the instantaneous payload on the load
carriage”) (emphasis added). In any event, because it is the claims, not the
Specification, that define the claimed invention, we are not persuaded that
Avitan lacks sufficient clarity in teaching that inputs from both a pressure
sensor and a height sensor maybe used to more accurately calculate the load
weight of a forklift system.
We also are not moved by Appellant’s characterization that the
Examiner relies on Avitan’s “learn mode” to calculate load weight. Appeal
Br. 8. As explained by the Examiner, Avitan is not relied on for teaching a
“learn mode” but is relied on for its express teaching of using “instantaneous
data representing lift cylinder pressure, and carriage height, to determine
the instantaneous payload on the load carriage.” Ans. 8–9 (citing Avitan,
3:17–20). That teaching by Avitan clearly supports the soundness of adding
a height sensor input to the pressure sensor input used in Akaki’s load
weight calculation program in order to provide a more precise and reliable
measurement of the instantaneous payload of the forklift.
Finally, Appellant takes issue with the Examiner’s conclusion that a
skilled artisan would have used Santi’s teaching of load sensors to
compensate for a “non-linear” load position on the forks of the modified
Akaki/Avitan forklift system. Appeal Br. 9–11. At the outset, we note that
Appeal 2020-000721
Application 15/183,002

9
the Examiner concedes that Akaki does not disclose that the real time weight
calculation program “accounts for non-linearity of the lift system,” as called
for by the claims. Non-Final Act. 5–6. To meet that limitation, the
Examiner points to Santi’s teaching of equipping a forklift with “load cells”
to derive “a correction factor or other adjustments to the readings based on
load position to compensate for the non-linear response and obtain greater
accuracy of load measurements.” Id. (citing Santi ¶ 34). According to the
Examiner, a skilled artisan would have been led to incorporate Santi’s
correction factor as another input for Akaki’s load weight calculation “in
order to more precisely and reliably measure the instantaneous load weight
[by] compensating for non-linear response based on load position thus
improving the overall system accuracy, sensitivity and stability.” Id.
In response, Appellant contends that, if Santi’s load cells were
incorporated into the modified Akaki/Avitan forklift system, “the principle
of operation of the load weight measurement performed by the pressure
sensors of Akaki and Avitan would be changed in an undesirable way.”
Appeal Br. 10. We disagree. First, we note that Appellant never explains
the “undesirable” change that would occur with the addition of a
“non-linear” correction factor to Akaki’s load-weight calculation program if
Santi’s load cells were placed along the forks of the modified Akaki/Avitan
lift system. See id. at 10–11.
Moreover, we note that both Akaki and Santi share the same objective
of calculating accurate load measurements based on knowing the load’s
center of gravity on the fork. Compare Akaki ¶ 77 (“[a] height of a center of
a gravity point of load on the fork 13 is varied depending on actual load”),
with Santi ¶ 34 (“[k]nowing the center of gravity or approximate center of
Appeal 2020-000721
Application 15/183,002

10
gravity of the load, it is then possible to adjust or correct the . . . non-linear
response based on said load position”). That shared objective persuades us
that adding load sensors directly to the forks of the modified Akaki/Avitan
system to derive a correction factor for a load weight calculation, as taught
by Santi, would not improperly alter the operation of the pressure and height
sensors on the linkage of the modified Akaki/Avitan system but rather would
further enhance the accuracy of Akaki’s load weight calculation program by
compensating for any non-linearity of the load’s center of gravity. That is
all the claims require—“account for non-linearity of the lift system.”
In sum, under a broad reasonable interpretation of “non-linearity,”
Appellant does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s reason for
combining the respective teachings of Akaki, Avitan, and Santi—“to more
precisely and reliably measure the instantaneous payload of the lifter.” See
Non-Final Act. 5; see also id. at 6 (same reasoning). Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 13, as well as the dependent claims not
argued separately.
2. Dependent Claims 3, 5–8, and 18
The Examiner rejected dependent claims 3, 5–8, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Akaki, Avitan, Santi, and additional
prior art that includes Nagai, Anson, Yoon, and Abels. Non-Final Act. 6–9.
Appellant does not argue these dependent claims separately from claims 1
and 13, and we presume they are argued based solely on their dependency
from their respective base claims 1 and 13. For the same reasons provided
above in our analysis of claims 1 and 13, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of dependent claims 3, 5–8, and 18.
Appeal 2020-000721
Application 15/183,002

11
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections of the claims as indefinite under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, but reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of the claims for lacking written description support
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5–11,
13–15, 18
112(a) Written
Description
1, 3, 5–11,
13–15, 18
1, 3, 5–11,
13–15, 18
112(b) Indefiniteness 1, 3, 5–11,
13–15, 18

1, 9–11,
13–15
103(a) Akaki, Avitan,
Santi
1, 9–11,
13–15

3 103(a) Akaki, Avitan,
Santi, Nagai
3
5 103(a) Akaki, Avitan,
Santi, Anson
5
6–8 103(a) Akaki, Avitan,
Santi, Yoon
6–8
18 103(a) Akaki, Avitan,
Santi, Abels
18
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 5–11,
13–15, 18

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED