Ex Parte Bischoff et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 8, 2013

11198585 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2013)

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.
11/198,585 08/05/2005 Lutz Bischoff 09359-US 2022
7590 04/08/2013
Dawn C. Wolff
Patent Department
DEERE & COMPANY
One John Deere Place
Moline, IL 61265-8098
EXAMINER
WEST, JEFFREY R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2857
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/08/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LUTZ BISCHOFF, FOLKER BECK, KLAUS BRAUNHARDT,
and THOMAS HERLITZIUS
____________

Appeal 2010-011612
Application 11/198,585
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and
MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.

QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1
We AFFIRM.

1 Appellants seek review of claim objections presented in the final
rejection concerning claims 1 and 9 for problems of antecedent basis. These
are not grounds of rejection appealable to the Patent and Trademark Appeal
Board. “[T]he Board will not hear or decide issues pertaining to objections
and formal matters which are not properly before the Board. These formal
matters should not be combined in appeals to the Board.” MPEP §
706.01(8th ed., Rev. 5 Aug. 2006). The proper vehicle for such an issue is
petition to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. See In re
Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 1403 (CCPA 1971).
Appeal 2010-011612
Application 11/198,585

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal involves surveilling the state of work
machines. Spec. ¶ [0001].2 According to the Specification, “[t]he work
machines are provided with sensors that detect their operating state and/or
noises or vibrations produced by movable elements of the work machine.”
Spec. ¶ [0012]. The sensor signals are analyzed, and an operator of the work
machine is informed of the presence of a possible fault and determined
location of the fault. Id. Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in
illustrative independent claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief.
1. A method for surveilling a state of work machines,
comprising the steps of:
providing a plurality of work machines including a first work
machine and a second work machine;
positioning a plurality of sensors in each of said plurality of
work machines for detecting operating states of each of said
plurality of work machines, including detection of at least one of
noises and vibrations produced by movable elements of each said
plurality of work machines;
providing a first machine specific databank with configuration
data for each of said plurality of work machines;
associating a second machine specific databank having
evaluation specific reference data with each of said plurality of
work machines, said evaluation specific reference data of said
first work machine including measured values that relate to at
least one fault previously detected in said second work machine;

2 References to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) are directed to the
specification filed on August 5, 2005 and its subsequent modification filed
on April 5, 2007, as appropriate.
Appeal 2010-011612
Application 11/198,585

3

detecting measured values from at least one of said plurality
of sensors in said first work machine;
analyzing said measured values regarding possible faults of
said first work machine using said first machine specific
databank and said second machine specific databank, using only
the reference data that applies to the configuration of said first
work machine in said analyzing step;
depending on said analyzing step, if said measured values
indicate a fault in said first work machine then executing a step
of outputting of information to an operator regarding a presence
of a possible fault and a determined fault location;
providing an input device to receive inputs of the operator
regarding any fault of said first work machine that is found by the
operator;
transmitting data containing operator inputs of said fault and
at least one of said measured values and analyzed results derived
from said measured values to a central damage databank, and
updating of said central damage databank using said data;
updating of said second machine specific databank based on
data in said central damage databank;
weighting a fault value once damage to a portion of said first
work machine has been confirmed and assessed; and
observing a symptom of said damage in said first work
machine in a concentrated manner after said weighting step has
been executed and while said first work machine continues to
operate.
As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the
Examiner relies on the following references at pages 3 to 13 of the Answer:
Beck US 2002/0107625 A1 Aug. 8, 2002
Johnson US 6,553,336 B1 Apr. 22, 2003
Appeal 2010-011612
Application 11/198,585

4

Bjornson US 6,934,663 B2 Aug. 23, 2005
Amble EP 0355968 A2 Feb. 28, 1990
Ottosson EP 1111550 A1 Jun. 27, 2001
The Examiner provides the following grounds of rejection, of which
Appellants seek review:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 11, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Amble in view of Ottosson. Ans. 4-
11.
2. Claims 9, 10, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Amble in view of Ottosson and further
in view of Beck. Ans. 12-13.
ISSUES
a) Has the Examiner incorrectly found that the combination of Amble
and Ottosson teaches or suggests that the evaluation specific data
includes “measured values that relate to at least one fault
previously detected in said second work machine,” as recited in
claims 1and 8, and commensurately recited in claim 9 (App. Br.
14-15, 18, 19-20)?
b) Has the Examiner incorrectly found that Amble teaches or suggests
“weighting a fault value,” as recited in claims 1 and 8 (App. Br.
15, 18)?
c) Has the Examiner incorrectly found that Amble teaches or suggests
“observing a symptom . . . in a concentrated manner,” as recited in
claims 1 and 8 (App. Br. 16, 18)?
Appeal 2010-011612
Application 11/198,585

5

d) Has the Examiner incorrectly found that the combination of Amble
and Ottosson teaches or suggests “using only the reference data
that applies to the configuration of said first work machine in said
analyzing step,” as recited in claims 1 and 8, and commensurately
recited in claim 9 (App. Br. 16-17, 20)?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to
Appellants’ arguments. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following arguments for
emphasis.
Issue Concerning the Evaluation Specific Data
Appellants contend that the combined teachings of Amble and
Ottosson fail to teach or suggest “associating a second machine specific
databank having evaluation specific reference data with each of said
plurality of work machines, said evaluation specific reference data of said
first work machine including measured values that relate to at least one fault
previously detected in said second work machine.” App. Br. 14-15.
Specifically, Appellants argue that Amble generates a list of “hypothesized
faults” and requests that the user confirm one of the “hypothesized faults.”
Id. In Appellants’ view, the claims require that “detected” fault data from
Appeal 2010-011612
Application 11/198,585

6

the plurality of work machines are available in the second machine specific
database of the first work machine. Id.
The Examiner responds that the combination of Amble and Ottosson
teaches the disputed limitation. In particular, the Examiner points to
Amble’s disclosure of the Knowledge Base (“KB”), which includes data
provided from the Machine Information Database (“MIB”) and the Sensory
Input Database (“SID”). Ans. 16 (citing Amble, 2, ll. 44-45). The Examiner
also points to paragraphs 13, 45, 48, and 53 in Ottosson to support the
finding that Ottosson teaches that measured values relating to at least one
fault previously detected in the second work machine are stored in a local
databank and transmitted to a central databank for updating the local
databank with the data from other work machines. Ans. 16-17.
We concur with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. First we
note that the Examiner relies on the combination of Amble and Ottosson as
disclosing the disputed limitation. Ans. 15-16. Appellants’ arguments fail
to focus on the combined teachings of Amble and Ottosson. “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., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(citing Keller, 642 F.2d at 425). Both Amble and Ottosson teach the use of
at least two databases for diagnosing a machine. For example, Amble
discloses that the KB includes the “fact base which contains dynamic
information obtained from the MID and SID.” Amble, 2, ll. 45-46. The
information is updated for each analysis upon identification of the machine
to be diagnosed. Amble, 2, ll. 46-47. Ottosson further teaches that a central
database contains a compilation of the operational data of all machines
Appeal 2010-011612
Application 11/198,585

7

connected to the database, including “known faults.” Ottosson, [0013].
Furthermore, Ottosson also teaches that the second reference data, which is
communicated to that central database, may include detected fault data
collected in a fault analysis database for formation of failure models.
Ottosson, [0051-52]. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Amble’s disclosure of the KB combined with Ottosson’s central database
system for storing and updating fault information from a plurality of work
machines meets the disputed limitation.
With respect to Appellants’ argument that the European Patent Office
considered the claims “inventive,” we are not persuaded. App. Br. 19-20.
We evaluate patentability of claims based on their own merit. In re Gyurik,
596 F.2d 1012, 1018 n.15 (CCPA 1979) (“In reviewing specific rejections of
specific claims, this court does not consider allowed claims in other
applications or patents.” (citations omitted)).
Issue Concerning Weighting a Fault Value
Appellants contend that Amble does not teach or suggest “weighting a
fault value once damage to a portion of said work machine has been
confirmed and assessed,” as recited in claims 1 and 8. App. Br. 16, 18
(emphasis omitted). Specifically, Appellants argue that while Amble may
prioritize an analysis, it does not weight a fault value as required by the
claims. App. Br. 16; Reply 2.
The Examiner finds that because Appellants’ Specification describes
“weighting a fault value” by the act of an operator providing the fault with a
weighting as to whether the problem is slight, average, or severe (Spec.
[0029]), then Amble’s determination of the severity of a fault value discloses
Appeal 2010-011612
Application 11/198,585

8

the claim limitation. Ans. 19-20 (relying on Amble, 6, ll. 26-33). The
Examiner relies on page 6, lines 26-33 of Amble to support these findings.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Amble teaches “weighting
a fault value.” As the Examiner correctly points out, Amble teaches
assigning a corresponding severity to each fault value. Ans. 20. According
to Amble, potential problems are detected by determining amplitude values
in the problem range of 80% to 100% above a threshold. Amble, 6, ll. 25-
26. If a potential problem is detected for any amplitude value within a group
of measurements, that group will be analyzed further. Amble, 6, ll. 26-27.
And since only one group can be analyzed at a time, Amble performs a
prioritization based, at least in part, on the severity of the detected potential
problems “as determined by the amount by which the amplitude exceeds the
threshold.” Amble, 6, ll. 30-31. Therefore, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has incorrectly found that Amble
teaches or suggests “weighting a fault value.”

Issue Concerning Observing a Symptom in a Concentrated Manner
Appellants contend that Amble does not disclose “observing of a
symptom in a concentrated manner,” and that there is no reference to
“observing of the symptoms in a concentrated manner after the weighting
step is executed and while the machine continues to operate.” App. Br. 16.
We do not agree with Appellants’ contention.
First, Appellants’ argument is unsupported by sufficient objective
evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings.
Furthermore, the Examiner correctly finds that Appellants’ Specification
does not define the limitation of observing in a “concentrated manner.” Ans.
Appeal 2010-011612
Application 11/198,585

9

21. Therefore, giving the term the broadest reasonable interpretation, the
Examiner defines the term to be coextensive with Amble’s disclosure of
observing a symptom of damage before other symptoms due to an assigned
priority. Ans. 21. The Examiner relies on Amble, page 6, lines 26-33 to
support these findings.
Appellants, in the Reply Brief, take issue with the Examiner’s
interpretation and offer an alternative definition of the term “concentrated”
to mean increased frequency of observation. Reply 3. Appellants, however,
have not presented sufficient evidence or argument to show error in the
Examiner’s interpretation. “During examination, ‘claims . . . are to be given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and
. . . claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
Cir., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1053-54 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the
observation of a symptom in a “concentrated manner” would encompass
observation of a symptom in a focused manner – e.g., one based on
prioritization, per the Examiner’s interpretation.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Amble’s
prioritization fails to disclose the disputed claim limitation. Reply 3-4.
Appellants’ argument characterizes Amble’s prioritization as if the
Examiner had found that feature meets the claimed “weighting of fault
values” (Reply 4), which is not correct. As stated with respect to the term
“weighting of fault values” supra, the Examiner correctly finds that
determining the severity – not the prioritization – of the fault in Amble meets
the limitation of “weighting of fault values.” Amble further discloses that
Appeal 2010-011612
Application 11/198,585

10

based, at least in part, on this severity determination, the detected problems
are prioritized for further analysis. Amble, 6, ll. 30-31. Therefore, we
concur with the Examiner, that analyzing based on priority (observing . . . in
a concentrated manner) occurs after Amble determines the severity of the
problem (weighting of fault values), as required by the claims. Ans. 22.
Accordingly, we do not agree with Appellants’ contention that the Examiner
has incorrectly found that Amble teaches the “observing” step, as recited in
independent claims 1 and 8.
Issue Concerning the Analyzing Step
Appellants contend that the prior art does not disclose the limitation of
“using only the reference data that applies to the configuration of said work
machine in said analyzing step.” App. Br. 16. We do not agree with
Appellants’ contention.
First, Appellants’ arguments do not provide sufficient argument or
evidence to persuade us of error. Instead we agree with the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions (Ans. 23-26), which we adopt as our own. In
particular, we note that Appellants argue features of “selective use of data”
that are not commensurate with scope of the claims as currently written. See
Ans. 23.
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Amble’s
diagnosis using data from the MIB meets the claimed limitation, because the
MIB correlates the measured data to the actual machine configuration. Ans.
24. We also agree with the Examiner’s findings that Ottosson’s analysis
based on operational data meets the claimed limitation, because that data
corresponds to measurements and components that are matched. Ans. 25
Appeal 2010-011612
Application 11/198,585

11

(citing Ottosson, [0013] which describes the first set of operational data and
the second set of operational data for the individual machine based on
measurements performed on that machine).
Accordingly, we do not agree with Appellants’ contention that the
Examiner has incorrectly found that Amble and Ottosson teach or suggest
the analyzing step, as recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 9.

CONCLUSION
For all the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that the Examiner
did not incorrectly find that the disputed limitations recited in independent
claims 1, 8, and 9 are met by the combination of Amble and Ottosson.
Accordingly, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 8, and 9.
With respect to the remaining, non-argued claims, Appellants allow
those claims to rise or fall with the claims on which they depend. App. Br.
17 and 21. Accordingly, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 2-7, 11-
13, 14, 15, and 10, not separately argued.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 11,
and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amble in view
of Ottosson.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9, 10, 12, and
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amble in view of
Ottosson and further in view of Beck.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2010-011612
Application 11/198,585

12

AFFIRMED
ke