Deere & Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 16, 2021

2021000497 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2021)

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.
15/908,574 02/28/2018 Aaron R. Kenkel 208065-9158-US01 8465
132636 7590 08/16/2021
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (JOHN DEERE)
790 N WATER ST
SUITE 2500
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
REDA, MATTHEW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2021 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte AARON R. KENKEL, GRANT R. HENN, and
DOUG M. LEHMANN
____________

Appeal 2021-000497
Application 15/908,574
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

O’HANLON, 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 1–11, 13–15, and 17–20.2 We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
In explaining our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed
February 28, 2018 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed April 8, 2020

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Deere & Company.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 12 and 16 are canceled. Appeal Br. 49–50 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2021-000497
Application 15/908,574

2
(“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed July 31, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), and the
Examiner’s Answer mailed September 4, 2020 (“Ans.”).
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to material handling vehicles.
Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1, 7, and 14 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below
from page 47 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A material handling vehicle comprising:
a vehicle frame;
a boom arm having a first end and a second end, the
boom arm coupled to the frame adjacent the first end for
rotation with respect to the frame;
an actuator coupled to the vehicle frame and the boom
arm for moving the boom arm with respect to the frame;
an attachment coupled to the boom arm adjacent the
second end of the boom arm;
a fluid reservoir fluidly coupled to the actuator to control
movement of the attachment;
a control system configured to direct movement of the
attachment in response to input from a user;
a control valve positioned between the fluid reservoir and
the actuator to selectively limit flow to the attachment and to
thereby control a speed of movement of the attachment; and
an accelerometer coupled to the vehicle and configured
to sense an acceleration of the attachment and to communicate
the sensed acceleration to the control system,
wherein the control system is operable to compare the
sensed acceleration to a predetermined range of acceleration
limits of the attachment, and
wherein the control system is operable to adjust the
control valve to limit flow to the actuator in response to the
sensed acceleration of the attachment being above a
pre-determined upper limit of the range of acceleration limits.
Appeal 2021-000497
Application 15/908,574

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Smith US 2013/0226415 A1 Aug. 29, 2013
Dal Dosso US 2015/0368080 A1 Dec. 24, 2015
Ikegami US 2016/0281331 A1 Sept. 29, 2016
Mizuochi US 2017/0284056 A1 Oct. 5, 2017
REJECTIONS3
I. Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 9–11, 14, and 17–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuochi, Dal Dosso, and Ikegami.
II. Claims 2, 6, 8, 13, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Mizuochi, Dal Dosso, Ikegami, and Smith.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I – Obviousness Based on Mizuochi,
Dal Dosso, and Ikegami
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Mizuochi discloses a
material handling vehicle substantially as recited, including a frame, boom
arm, actuator, attachment, fluid reservoir, control system, and control valve.
Final Act. 3–4 (citing Mizuochi ¶¶ 38–45, 48–50, 53, Figs. 1, 2a, 2b,
code (57)). The Examiner also finds that Mizuochi discloses sensors
configured to sense acceleration of the attachment. See id. at 4–5
(explaining that “limiting the deceleration acceleration of a movable part
corresponds to the sensing an acceleration of the attachment and attitude

3 The Examiner has withdrawn the provisional nonstatutory double patenting
rejections of claims 1, 7, 10, 12, 14, and 17 in view of the filing of a
Terminal Disclaimer. Ans. 3; see also Final Act. 11–13.
Appeal 2021-000497
Application 15/908,574

4
sensor 3b and angle sensors correspond[] to the sensors that can calculate
acceleration” (citing Mizuochi ¶¶ 113–118, Fig. 3b)). The Examiner finds
that Mizuochi’s control system is operable to compare the sensed
acceleration to a range of acceleration limits and adjust a control valve to
limit flow to an actuator responsive to the sensed acceleration being above
the predetermined range of limits. See id. at 5–6 (explaining that “the
deceleration acceleration of a movable part [and] maximum speed of the
drive actuators correspond to the recited pre-determined acceleration limit of
the attachment” (alteration in original) (citing Mizuochi ¶¶ 74–77,
110–115)).
Appellant argues that “Mizuochi fails to teach any sensor that senses
an acceleration of the attachment.” Appeal Br. 9. In particular, Appellant
asserts that “Mizuochi discloses an attitude detection unit 49 that includes a
variety of position sensors, such as attitude sensor 3b, angle sensor 3s, to
detect the inclination of the work machine 1 and swing angle of the swing
structure 3.” Id. (citing Mizuochi ¶ 118). Appellant also asserts that
Mizuochi does not disclose that the control system is “configured to
compare acceleration to an acceptable range and adjust a control valve
based upon the sensed acceleration.” Id. at 10. Appellant maintains that
“Mizuochi discloses sensing control command pilot pressure and adjusting a
speed in response to the sensed pressure, and discloses sensing various
attributes related to vehicle stability and limiting a boom speed and enacting
a gradual stoppage of the boom accordingly.” Id. at 11. We are persuaded
by Appellant’s arguments.
Mizuochi discloses that stabilization control system 190 “performs
gradual stoppage and operation speed limitation as operation limitation for
Appeal 2021-000497
Application 15/908,574

5
keeping the work machine 1 stable taking it into consideration that the
stability is deteriorated significantly by a sudden stoppage operation.”
Mizuochi ¶ 112. “[G]radual stoppage is a[n] operation for limiting the
deceleration acceleration of a movable part upon a stoppage operation to
cause the movable part to stop gradually, and the operation speed limitation
is an action to limit the maximum speed of the drive actuators.” Id. ¶ 113.
Mizuochi also discloses attitude sensor 3b and angle sensors 3s, 40a, 41a
and 42a. Id. ¶ 118; see also id. (“An attachment angle sensor 42a is
provided at the supporting point 42 of the attachment 23 on the arm 12.”).
Mizuochi’s attitude sensor 3b detects the inclination of the work machine,
and angle sensors 3s, 40a, 41a, and 42a detect swing structure angle, boom
rotation angle, arm rotation angle, and attachment angle. Id. In other words,
Mizuochi discloses that sensors 3b, 3s, 40a, 41a, and 42a are used to sense
position. However, the Examiner does not point to, nor do we discern, any
disclosure in Mizuochi that the sensors are used to sense acceleration. Even
assuming, arguendo, that Mizuochi’s attitude and angle sensors are capable
of being used to calculate acceleration (see Final Act. 4–5), we discern no
evidence that Mizuochi’s control system actually uses these sensors to
calculate acceleration. The Examiner also does not cogently explain how
Mizuochi limiting deceleration acceleration via a gradual stoppage operation
necessarily involves using sensors to sense acceleration, comparing the
sensed acceleration to an upper limit, and controlling a control valve to limit
flow to an actuator responsive to the sensed acceleration exceeding an upper
limit as required by claim 1.
In the Answer, the Examiner contends that Appellant’s arguments
attack the references individually rather than as a combination. See Ans. 5
Appeal 2021-000497
Application 15/908,574

6
(explaining that “Appellant is using piecemeal analysis to refute Mizuochi’s
disclosure of an accelerometer given that secondary reference Dal Dosso
does explicitly disclose the use of accelerometers in the measurement and
stability control of the machine” (citing Dal Dosso ¶¶ 30–32)). However, as
discussed above, the rejection of record relies on Mizuochi, not Dal Dosso,
to disclose a control system operable to compare a sensed acceleration to
predetermined acceleration limits and adjust a control valve to limit flow to
an actuator in response to the sensed acceleration being above an upper
acceleration limit. See Final Act. 4–6. The Examiner relies on Dal Dosso
only to teach an accelerometer. Id. at 6 (citing Dal Dosso ¶ 32).
Although Dal Dosso discloses a triaxial accelerometer attached to a
material handling vehicle attachment to sense mast tilt (Dal Dosso ¶ 32), the
Examiner does not articulate any findings or reasoning that would remedy
the aforementioned deficiency in the disclosure of Mizuochi with respect to
a control system comparing a sensed acceleration to predetermined
acceleration limits and adjusting a control valve to limit flow to an actuator
responsive to the sensed acceleration being above an upper acceleration limit
as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 1, or its dependent claims 3–5, as being
unpatentable over Mizuochi, Dal Dosso, and Ikegami.
Independent claims 7 and 14 contain similar recitations as claim 1,
including sensing an acceleration of the attachment, comparing the
acceleration to an upper limit, and limiting flow to the actuator if the upper
limit is exceeded, and the Examiner relies on the same deficient findings as
for claim 1. Appeal Br. 48, 50 (Claims App.); Final Act. 3–6. Accordingly,
for the same reasons as set forth above, we do not sustain the rejection of
Appeal 2021-000497
Application 15/908,574

7
independent claims 7 and 14, or their respective dependent claims 9–11 and
17–19, as being unpatentable over Mizuochi, Dal Dosso, and Ikegami.
Rejection II – Obviousness Based on Mizuochi,
Dal Dosso, Ikegami, and Smith
The Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2, 6, 8, 13, 15, and 20
relies on the same proposed combination of Mizuochi, Dal Dosso, and
Ikegami that we find deficient for the reasons discussed above in connection
with Rejection I. See Final Act. 9–11. The Examiner relies on Smith for
teaching additional features, but does not articulate any findings or reasoning
that would remedy the aforementioned deficiency in the combination of
Mizuochi, Dal Dosso, and Ikegami. See id. Accordingly, for the same
reasons as set forth above, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 6, 8,
13, 15, and 20 as being unpatentable over Mizuochi, Dal Dosso, Ikegami,
and Smith.
CONCLUSION
In summary,
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 7,
9–11, 14,
17–19
103 Mizuochi, Dal
Dosso, Ikegami
1, 3–5, 7, 9–11,
14, 17–19
2, 6, 8, 13,
15, 20
103 Mizuochi, Dal
Dosso, Ikegami,
Smith
2, 6, 8, 13, 15,
20
Overall Outcome 1–11, 13–15,
17–20
REVERSED