CNH Industrial America LLC et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 29, 2020

14709235 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 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.
14/709,235 05/11/2015 Christopher A. Foster 51925 (CNHA:0261) 6682
71475 7590 09/29/2020
CNH Industrial America LLC
Intellectual Property Law Department
700 STATE STREET
RACINE, WI 53404
EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, KELLY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2020 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):
napatent@cnhind.com
vannette.azarian@cnhind.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER A. FOSTER, JOHN H. POSSELIUS,
PAUL J. LEWIS, BRET TODD TURPIN, JEREMY ALEXANDER
HARRIS, JAMES BRIAN STEWART, MAX J. BARFUSS, JOSHUA
HILL HENRIE, DANIEL JOHN MORWOOD, and
BRANDON CHAMBERLAIN ADAMS

Appeal 2020-000513
Application 14/709,235
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, 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, 2, 4–6, 9, 10, 12, and 15–20. See
Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CNH Industrial
America LLC and Autonomous Solutions, Inc.. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000513
Application 14/709,235
2
We AFFIRM IN PART.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed “to agricultural systems and, more
particularly, to a control system for autonomous vehicle within an
agricultural system.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. An electronic control system for an agricultural system,
comprising a controller configured to:
receive a first signal indicative of a mission of a work
vehicle of the agricultural system; determine a first desired path
of travel of the work vehicle based on the mission;
output a second signal to the work vehicle indicative of the
first desired path of travel;
receive a third signal indicative of a change event, wherein
the change event comprises availability of a second work
vehicle;
determine a response to the change event that facilitates
completion of the mission; and
output a fourth signal indicative of the response to the
work vehicle.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Birnie US 2009/0118904 A1 May 7, 2009
Durkos US 2009/0228166 A1 Sept. 10, 2009
Anderson US 2010/0094499 A1 Apr. 15, 2010
Peterson US 2011/0084851 A1 Apr. 14, 2011
Collins US 2011/0196565 A1 Aug. 11, 2011
Burema US 2014/0303814 A1 Oct. 9, 2014

Appeal 2020-000513
Application 14/709,235
3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Birnie and Anderson. Final Act. 2.
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Birnie, Anderson, and Peterson. Final Act. 6.
Claims 5 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Birnie, Anderson, and Burema. Final Act. 9.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Birnie, Anderson, Peterson, and Burema. Final Act. 10.
Claims 6, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Birnie, Anderson, and Collins. Final Act. 11.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Birnie, Anderson, and Durkos. Final Act. 13.
OPINION
Obviousness
Appellant presents arguments for independent claims 1 and 15
together as well as for claim 9 separately. Appellant does not otherwise
argue the dependent claims, relying merely on their dependence for
patentability. We address each of independent claims 1, 9, and 15 infra, and
the dependent claims stand or fall with their respective independent claims.
Claims 1 and 15
Appellant argues these claims as a group. We select claim 1 as
representative and the remaining claims stand or fall with our disposition of
claim 1. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in the rejection because
“assigning an available work vehicle to resume a task of a failed vehicle is
not receiving a signal indicative of a change event.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant
Appeal 2020-000513
Application 14/709,235
4
further contends that what Anderson actually teaches is not a change event
indicative of the availability of a work vehicle, but merely reassigning tasks
to compensate for a failed vehicle. Reply Br. 3.
Although we acknowledge that the Examiner is less than clear in the
Answer in explaining the rejection, the Examiner makes clear in formulating
the rejection that the claimed “third signal indicative of a change event”
relates to vehicle failure and cites to Anderson ¶ 166. Final Act. 3–4. In
Anderson, the vehicle failure is the change event and the claimed availability
is actually the unavailability of the vehicle that has failed. We interpret the
term “availability” to include whether or not a vehicle is available, not
merely that a new vehicle is available, as Appellant appears to argue. See,
e.g., Reply Br. 2. In this manner, Anderson’s system does receive a third
signal indicative of a change event, i.e., the vehicle failure, and then outputs
a fourth signal to reassign the remaining vehicles to make up for the loss of
the failed vehicle. As such, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 15.
Claim 9
As to claim 9, Appellant argues that “Peterson does not teach a path of
travel returning from a second position (e.g., for adding product) to a first
position, in which the path of travel facilitates completion of the mission as
the controllable device traverses the path of travel.” Reply Br. 4. This is
allegedly so because Peterson teaches deviating from an original, first path,
using a second path to refill the vehicle, and then returning to the stopping
point via a third path and resuming the first path to complete the mission.
Id.
Appellant is correct that Peterson does not teach completion of the
mission as the vehicle traverses the third path. The claims define the third
Appeal 2020-000513
Application 14/709,235
5
path as “extend[ing] from the second position to the first position” where the
second position is the refilling point and the first position is the stopping
point where the vehicle stopped work and deviated from the first path to
travel to the refilling point. In this regard, the claims require some work to
be done as the vehicle traverses this third path. In Peterson, the vehicle
traverses a second path to the refilling station, but the third path merely
returns the vehicle in reverse on the second path to the stopping point, at
which time the vehicle then resumes completion of the assigned work. In
order for Peterson to meet the claim language at issue, it would need to teach
a new path that routes the vehicle not in reverse along the second path where
there is no work to be completed, but to a point on the field where it could
resume work and then finish at the stopping point where it deviated from the
first path to refill. Because no work is done in Peterson as the vehicle
traverses the third path, we agree that the Examiner’s rejection is in error
and do not sustain the rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED IN PART.
More specifically,
Appeal 2020-000513
Application 14/709,235
6
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 15,
18
103 Birnie, Anderson 1, 2, 4, 15,
18

9, 10 103 Birnie, Anderson,
Peterson
9, 10
5, 20 103 Birnie, Anderson,
Burema
5, 20
12 103 Birnie, Anderson,
Peterson, Burema
12
6, 17, 19 Birnie, Anderson,
Collins
6, 17, 19
16 Birnie, Anderson,
Durkos
16
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–6,
15–20
9, 10, 12

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 IN PART