Ex Parte Algulin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2016

12733735 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121733,735 03/17/2010
2529 7590
MARK P, STONE
400 Columbus A venue
Valhalla, NY 10595
03/30/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ulrik Algulin
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.
AC-167 9103
EXAMINER
SHERWIN,RYANW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2016 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):
stone92349@msn.com
aleitner.stonelaw@msn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ULRIK ALGULIN, FREDRIK GRAHN, and
ANDERS HAGNELIUS
Appeal2014-004061
Application 12/733,735
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 filed this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-20, all of the claims pending in the Application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.2
1 Appellants identify Atlas Copco Rock Drills AB as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Mar. 17, 2010 ("Spec."), the
Appeal Brief filed Aug. 6, 2013 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer
mailed Dec. 17, 2013 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed Jan. 31, 2014
("Reply Br.").
Appeal2014-004061
Application 12/733,735
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to detecting leakage in a hydraulic system of a
working vehicle. Spec. 1:6-8. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. An arrangement for detecting leakage in a hydraulic
system of a working vehicle, which hydraulic system
comprises:
a tank for hydraulic oil,
hydraulic working means, which can be acted upon by
the hydraulic oil and are adapted to maneuvering a means in the
working vehicle,
conduits which connect the hydraulic working means to
the tank, which arrangement for detecting leakage comprises:
a supervision system and
a level sensor which is arranged in the tank and
connected for signaling purposes to the supervision system and
adapted to providing the supervision system with a
measurement signal representing a current hydraulic oil volume
in the tank,
the working vehicle being further said to be in a dynamic
state substantially when the vehicle moves or any of the
vehicle's working means are being used, and in a static state
substantially when the vehicle is motionless and its working
means are not being used, wherein the level sensor is adapted to
operating continuously, or at regular brief intervals of time,
when the vehicle is in a dynamic state and further in that the
supervision system comprises:
a calibration table with a number of volume values
corresponding to a number of measurement signal values,
a calculation algorithm for calculating current volume
values from current measurement signal values and for storing a
sequence of volume values thus calculated,
means for calculating a volume change rate from said
stored volume values and comparing the volume change rate
with a certain threshold value in order to detect any leakage in
the hydraulic system, and
2
Appeal2014-004061
Application 12/733,735
means for low-pass filtering of the signal from said level
sensor and/or a partial result from the supervision system's
calculation arising from said signal.
REJECTIONS
RI. Claims 1-17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Beiderman et al. (US 2007/0028674 Al; Feb. 8, 2007), Saulsberry
(US 5,621,170; Apr. 15, 1997), and Moore-McKee et al. (US 5,648,898;
July 15, 1997). Ans. 2---6.
R2. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Beiderman, Saulsberry, Moore-McKee, and Adachi et al. (US 6,049,750;
Apr. 11, 2000). Ans. 6.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants;
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken and the
reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants'
Appeal Brief. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis as follows.
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err by finding Beiderman teaches the level
sensor for measuring hydraulic oil volume of independent claims 1 and 6?
Appellants contend Beiderman does not teach the hydraulic oil level
sensor of claims 1 and 6, because Beiderman includes sensing the oil
temperature to determine its volume, but the claimed level sensor
arrangement does not rely upon changes in oil temperature to determine a
3
Appeal2014-004061
Application 12/733,735
change in volume. App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2--4. The Examiner finds, and
we agree, Beiderman teaches a volume level sensor with "a measurement
signal representing a current hydraulic oil volume in a tank." Ans. 2. The
Examiner further finds the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed
measurement signal does not preclude having both a level measurement
component and a temperature compensation component. Ans. 7. Therefore,
we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of independent
claims 1 and 6.
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of
Beiderman, Saulsberry, and Moore-McKee teaches a hydraulic oil
measurement system including a calibration table, calculation algorithm,
and means for calculating a volume change rate, as recited in independent
claims 1 and 6?
Appellants contend Beiderman does not teach a table and algorithm
for storing a sequence of volume values, and calculating volume change rate
from the stored volume values, as required by claims 1 and 6. App. Br. 7.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error, because the Examiner relied upon
the combination of Beiderman and Saulsberry to teach the claimed system
having a calibration table and calculation algorithm. Ans. 7-8 (citing
Saulsberry, col. 6, 11. 55---63; Beiderman, i-fi-f 17-18). "Non-obviousness
cannot be established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references." In re
Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Thus, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1 and 6 because Appellants have not shown error in the
combination of Beiderman, Saulsberry, and Moore-McKee.
4
Appeal2014-004061
Application 12/733,735
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1 and 6 because
Saulsberry and Moore-McKee are not relevant to the detection of hydraulic
fluid leaks?
Appellants contend the rejection of claims 1 and 6 is not proper
because Saulsberry is directed to measuring a water injection rate, Moore-
McKee is directed to monitoring information on a vehicle, and neither
reference is relevant to the claimed subject matter of detecting hydraulic
fluid leaks. App. Br. 8. We are not persuaded of Examiner error, because a
prior art reference is analogous (i.e., relevant) if the reference is "reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved." See
In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The Examiner finds the
volume calculation system of Saulsberry is relevant to both Beiderman and
the claimed system because Saulsberry is directed to fluid volume
measurement systems. Ans. 3, 8. The Examiner further finds the low-pass
filter of Moore-McKee is relevant to Beiderman and the claims because the
Moore-McKee reference is related to monitoring fluid sensors on a vehicle.
Id. Because Saulsberry and Moore-McKee are reasonably pertinent to the
problem of accurately measuring fluid volume, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 6.
Issue 4: Did the Examiner err by failing to provide a rationale to
combine the prior art references?
Appellants contend the Examiner's rejection relied upon improper
hindsight reconstruction and lacked any teaching or rationale, aside from
Appellants' disclosure, to support the combination of prior art references in
the rejection of claims 1 and 6. App. Br. 9-10. We are not persuaded of
Examiner error, because the Examiner provided a rational underpinning to
5
Appeal2014-004061
Application 12/733,735
support the conclusion of obviousness for each combination of references.
See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Specifically,
the Examiner finds combining the volume calibration table of Saulsberry
adapts the volume measurement system of Beiderman to be used with
storage tanks of varying size. Ans. 3. The Examiner further finds adding a
low pass filter as taught by Moore-McKee is known in the art to smooth the
output signals of measurement sensors. Id.
Further, we realize that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense
"necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as
it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary
skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include
knowledge gleaned only from applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is
proper." In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (C.C.P.A. 1971). As
discussed herein, the Examiner relied upon knowledge gleaned from the
prior art when providing a rational underpinning for the rejection, and we
therefore find the Examiner did not err in combining the references.
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for claims 2-5 and 7-20 (see
App. Br. 2), therefore we sustain their rejection for the reasons stated with
respect to independent claims 1 and 6.
6
Appeal2014-004061
Application 12/733,735
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7