Ex Parte Anderson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 27, 2012

10743587 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte NOEL WAYNE ANDERSON
___________

Appeal 2010-011581
Application 10/743,587
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-011581
Application 10/743,587

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Noel Wayne Anderson (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-29. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE. 1

THE INVENTION
This invention is “a method and system for locating harvested
material within a work area.” Spec. para. [0001].
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A data processing system implemented method
for locating harvested material, the method
comprising:
receiving, by the data processing system,
material data including material location data
on a material location of unloaded harvested
material within a work area, wherein the
unloaded harvested material is unloaded from a
harvester that harvested the harvested material;
obtaining, by the data processing system,
background data on at least one established
transportation path within the work area;

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Mar. 29, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Aug. 19,
2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jun. 24, 2010).

Appeal 2010-011581
Application 10/743,587

3
determining, by the data processing system, a
forwarder location of a forwarder;
estimating, by the data processing system,
economic cost factors associated with
corresponding candidate paths or segments of
candidate paths between the forwarder location
and the material location; and
selecting, by the data processing system, a
preferential path plan between the forwarder
location and the material location consistent
with the background data and minimization of
the economic cost factors, wherein the material
location of the unloaded harvested material is a
different location than the forwarder location of
the forwarder.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Mueller
Hayami
Weigelt
Motz
US 4,950,118
US 5,369,588
US 5,712,782
WO 00/35265
Aug. 21, 1990
Nov. 29, 1994
Jan. 27, 1998
Jun. 22, 2000

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-7, 10-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Motz, Hayami, and Mueller.
2. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Motz, Hayami, Mueller, and Weigelt.
Appeal 2010-011581
Application 10/743,587

4
3. Claims 14, 15, 23, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Motz and Mueller.
4. Claims 19-22 and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Motz, Mueller, and Hayami.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are
supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v.
Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general
evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office).
1. Motz states:
The present invention anticipates the
expected time at which the hopper on the harvester
110 will be full and ready for unloading, and
further determines an expected location of the
harvester 110 at the expected time, so that a tractor
150 pulling a grain cart 160 will be available for
unloading of the harvested crop. Since the
harvester 110 does not have to stop harvesting in
order to wait for the tractor 150, the harvester 110
is allowed to continuously harvest the crop, thus
greatly increasing the amount of crop that can be
harvested in a day.
Motz 17:13-23.
2. Motz’s system directly transfers grain from the harvester 110 to the
grain cart 160. See Motz 5:9-11 (“The harvested crop is
transferred from the hopper by an auger 130 located on the
harvester 110 into a grain cart 160 attached to the tractor 150”).
See also Motz 11:.8-11 and 13:13-14.
Appeal 2010-011581
Application 10/743,587

5
3. Motz states: “It is desirable to provide continuous harvesting, and
avoid nonproductive time in which the harvester is idle while
waiting to unload the harvested crop.” Motz 2:14-17. See also
Motz 17:19-23.
4. Motz’s “Background Art” section describes prior art U.S. Patent
No. 4,104,850 to Harris which discloses having a harvester
discharge grain into a centrally located storage bin if a truck is not
available for transportation and states: “However, Harris does not
disclose providing continuous, uninterrupted harvesting, in which
the harvester does not have to deviate from its natural course to
unload the harvested crop.” Motz 2:17 – 3:2.
5. Mueller describes a method of loading and unloading first and
second trailers, which are parked at first and second loading docks,
using automatic guided vehicles (AGV). Col. 2, ll. 4-13.
6. Mueller describes a system that uses the AGVs to load and unload
material containers 44 (col. 4, l. 37) between first and second
trailers, which are parked at loading docks, and conveyors 28, 29,
and 30 fixedly positioned at the opposite side of an operating area
from the loading docks. See Col. 2, l. 38- col. 3, l. 13. See also,
col. 3, l. 34 – col. 4, l. 6 and Fig. 1.
7. Mueller states:
The operation of the present invention is
best described in relation to its use in the trailer
loading and unloading applications as disclosed in
the Figs. Traditionally, automatic guided vehicles
(AGV)s 14 are used for material handling
applications inside a facility where the layout is
somewhat permanent and the type of load 44 being
Appeal 2010-011581
Application 10/743,587

6
handled is substantially consistent in size and
shape.
Col. 7, ll. 10-17.

ANALYSIS
In rejecting independent claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Motz, Hayami, and Mueller and independent claims
14 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Motz and
Mueller, the Examiner modifies Motz’s system to unload the harvested grain
from the harvester’s grain hopper in the field, whenever and where ever the
harvester’s grain hopper becomes full. See Ans.7. See also Ans. 13, 20, and
22-23. The Examiner states that this is “for the purpose of . . . eliminating
the need for the forwarder to follow the harvester around. By doing this the
harvester would not have to stop and the forwarder would only have to pick
up the loads as deposited.” Id.
The Appellant argues that the Examiner has used impermissible
hindsight in combining Motz and Mueller. App. Br. 13 and Reply Br. 7.
We agree.
Rejections based on § 103 must rest on a factual basis with these facts
being interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the
prior art. The examiner may not, because of doubt that the invention is
patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumption or hindsight
reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual basis for the rejection.
See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S.
1057 (1968). Our reviewing court has repeatedly cautioned against
employing hindsight by using the appellant's disclosure as a blueprint to
Appeal 2010-011581
Application 10/743,587

7
reconstruct the claimed invention from the isolated teachings of the prior art.
See, e.g., Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Products Co., 840
F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Nowhere does Motz describe that their system unloads harvested
grain in the field anywhere other than directly into the second agricultural
vehicle (i.e., the claimed forwarder) nor does Motz contemplate later pick up
of any unloaded grain by the forwarder. See FF 1 and 2. In contrast to the
Examiner’s proposed modification, Motz’s invention is directed to a system
where the forwarder arrives at the harvester at the expected time when and
expected location where the harvester’s hopper is full so that the harvested
grain can be unloaded into the forwarder without making the harvester wait.
FF 1.
Further, nowhere does Mueller cure these deficiencies in Motz
without the use of impermissible hindsight. Mueller’s invention relates to
the loading and unloading of trailers parked at a loading dock by automatic
guided vehicles. FF 5 and 6. In Mueller the loading and unloading occurs
between fixed locations (i.e., the parked trailers and the conveyors in the
loading dock) by the AVGs (i.e., forwarders). FF 6. See also FF 7.
Nowhere does Mueller contemplate unloading a trailer first and then later,
having the AVGs pick up the unloaded material so that the trailer does not
have to wait longer and may leave the loading dock.
Finally, we note that Motz seems to discourage having the harvester
unload the harvested grain into a storage bin located in the field for later
pick up. In the “Background Art” section, Motz describes a prior art patent
which discloses having a harvester discharge grain into a centrally located
storage bin if a truck is not available for transportation. FF 4. Motz then
Appeal 2010-011581
Application 10/743,587

8
states: “However, Harris does not disclose providing continuous,
uninterrupted harvesting, in which the harvester does not have to deviate
from its natural course to unload the harvested crop.” Id. Cf. FF 3.
Therefore, we are persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that the
Examiner erred. Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of:
claims 1-7, 10-13, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Motz, Hayami, and Mueller;
claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Motz, Hayami, Mueller, and Weigelt;
claims 14, 15, 23, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Motz and Mueller; and
claims 19-22 and 24-28 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Motz, Mueller, and Hayami.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-29 is reversed.

REVERSED

mls