Ex Parte CameronDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 29, 201612211996 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/211,996 09/17/2008 112877 7590 03/02/2016 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Trimble Navigation Limited Two Embarcadero Center Eighth Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3834 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR John F. Cameron 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. TRMB-1973 9515 EXAMINER FE!, JORDAN S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3665 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2016 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): patents@wagnerblecher.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN F. CAMERON Appeal2014-000281 Application 12/211,996 Technology Center 3600 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE John F. Cameron (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-57. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM, but denominate the affirmance as NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION. Appeal2014-000281 Application 12/211,996 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A method for monitoring a lifting device with respect to a jobsite object comprising: receiving location information from a first position determiner module coupled to a first point of interest associated with said lifting device; determining an autonomous position of said first point of interest based on said location information, said autonomous position determined at said first point of interest; accessing an autonomous position of a said jobsite object proximate said lifting device; and monitoring said lifting device based on comparing said autonomous position of said first point of interest to said autonomous position of said jobsite object. REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 13, 14, 16-20, 22, 24, 30, 31, 34--38, 40, 41, 43--46, 51-53, and 57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Pahmeier (US 5,359,542, issued Oct. 25, 1994). II. Claims 3, 8-12, 21, 25-29, 32, 39, 47--49, and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pahmeier. III. Claims 4, 6, 23, 42, 50, and 56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pahmeier and Browne (US 6,658,336 B2, issued Dec. 2, 2003). IV. Claims 15 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pahmeier and O'Connor (US 2005/0242052 Al, issued Nov. 3, 2005). 2 Appeal2014-000281 Application 12/211,996 V. Claim 55 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pahmeier and Lesage (US 5,634,565, issued June 3, 1997). DISCUSSION Rejection I-Anticipation by Pahmeier Appellant argues for patentability of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 13, 14, 16-20, 22, 24, 30, 31, 34--38, 40, 41, 43--46, 51-53, and 57 subject to this ground of rejection as a group. Appeal Br. 6-9. We select claim 1 as representative of this group, and the remaining claims in the group stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015). The Examiner finds that Pahmeier discloses a method as called for in claim 1. Final Act. 5; Ans. 6-7. In particular, the Examiner finds that Pahmeier discloses receiving location information from a first position determiner module coupled to a first point of interest associated with the lifting device. Ans. 6 (citing Pahmeier, col. 3, 11. 47-55; col. 13, 11. 26-37). The Examiner cites column 3, lines 47-53 and column 6, lines 41---65 as disclosing determining an autonomous position of a first point of interest based on said location information. Final Act. 5; Ans. 7. The Examiner finds that Pahmeier discloses accessing an autonomous position of a jobsite object proximate a lifting device, and monitoring said lifting device based on comparing said autonomous position of said first point of interest to said autonomous position of said jobsite object. Id. (citing Pahmeier, claim 1; col. 2, 1. 55---col. 3, 1. 8; col. 14, 11. 25--40). Appellant argues that the locations determined in Pahmeier are not "autonomous," as called for in claim 1, because they "are determined 'relative to a known reference point' of the system of which Pahmeier is 3 Appeal2014-000281 Application 12/211,996 interested." Appeal Br. 6. Appellant contends that paragraph 21 of the Specification defines the term "autonomous position." Reply Br. 2. Paragraph 21 of the Specification states that "[f]or purposes of the present invention, an autonomous position is the actual or physical location of the point of interest in space." Appellant adds that "[b]eing the 'actual or physical location,' the autonomous position is not dependent on the physical interaction or relationship between components [of the lifting device] and is an actual location in space, based on location information." Reply Br. 2-3. Appellant fails to cogently explain why the determination of the position of a point of interest relative to a known reference point of a coordinate system, such as the hangar X, Y, Z coordinate system of Pahmeier, is not the determination of the actual or physical location (i.e., the autonomous position) of that point of interest in space. Notably, neither claim 1 nor the definition of "autonomous position" in paragraph 21 of the Specification specifies a coordinate system or reference (origin) point in space relative to which the "autonomous position" is defined. Thus, claim 1 does not preclude the "autonomous position" from being determined relative to the origin of Pahmeier's hanger coordinate system, rather than relative to a different coordinate origin, for example, the Earth's center (i.e., the coordinate origin of Global Navigation Satellite Service (GNSS) systems, such as the Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) system). See Pahmeier, col. 5, 11. 56-59 (alluding to determination of offset position of aircraft "relative to an absolute origin of an X, Y, Z coordinate system within the space of the hangar"); id., col. 12, 11. 45-52 (discussing determining the X, Y locations of portions of the cranes with reference to the hangar coordinate system); Spec. 4 Appeal2014-000281 Application 12/211,996 if 25 (disclosing one embodiment using GNSS data, such as GPS data, to determine the autonomous position of interest on a crane). Appellant points out that, unlike Pahmeier, which determines the location of the airplane relative to the known reference point (i.e., the origin of the hangar coordinate system) by determining the location of a point of intersection of lines through collinear points positioned along the leading edges of the wings, Appellant's "invention does not rely on a 'point of intersection of lines through collinear points' to determine position." Appeal Br. 6-7. However, Appellant's reliance on this distinction with regard to the manner in which the position is determined is unavailing to distinguish claim 1 over the prior art. Notably, the airplane in Pahmeier corresponds to the "jobsite object" of claim 1. Claim 1 does not specify how the position of the jobsite object is determined; indeed, claim 1 does not even positively recite a step of determining the position of the jobsite object. See Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.) (reciting, "accessing an autonomous position of said jobsite object proximate said lifting device"). Pahmeier uses scanners to ascertain directly the actual locations of two points on the leading edge of each of the wings of the airplane and then determines the point of intersection 52 of the lines passing through the two points on the leading edge of each wing to locate one point along the longitudinal axis of the airplane, and uses a sight gauge to determine the height or Z value of the airplane. Pahmeier, Fig. 3; col. 2, 1. 64---col. 3, 1. 21; col. 8, 11. 1-39; col. 8, 1. 61---col. 9, 1. 6. In doing so, Pahmeier determines the X, Y, and Z values of the airplane relative to the hangar coordinate system. These X, Y, and Z values represent the actual or physical location of the airplane within the space of the coordinate system, and, thus, the "autonomous position" of the 5 Appeal2014-000281 Application 12/211,996 airplane (i.e., ajobsite object). Further, Pahmeier uses (i.e., accesses) this airplane positional data, along with the X, Y, and Z position of the crane platform, to set software limits on the motion of the crane. See Pahmeier, claim 1 ("said setting means employing the stored set of data from said scanning means"); see also id., col. 3, 11. 22-53. Likewise, Pahmeier discloses using a plurality of encoders to determine the X, Y, and Z positions of each crane (lifting device). See col. 3, 11. 47-53; col. 13, 1. 26-col. 14, 1. 11. These encoders provide information on the distance the crane platform travels in the X, Y, and Z directions. As such, the information provided by these encoders is not sufficient, by itself, to determine the actual or physical location of the platform in the hangar coordinate system, and, thus, does not determine an autonomous position of a first point of interest, as the Examiner's rejection suggests. See Final Act. 5 (citing Pahmeier, col. 3, 11. 47-53). However, the actual or physical location (i.e., the autonomous position) of the lifting platform of the crane is determined from the encoder information and from the home position of the crane, which is known relative to the hangar coordinate system. See Pahmeier, col. 12, 11. 45-52. Appellant argues that the autonomous position of Appellant's invention takes into account bending and stretching of the lifting device components in determining the position, such that the autonomous position "is 'not dependent on physical interaction and/or relationships between components of the lifting device' in determining the position." Appeal Br. 7. According to Appellant, this distinguishes Appellant's invention "from the cited references that [sic] known physical relationships between objects to determine position." Id. This argument does not apprise us of error. As 6 Appeal2014-000281 Application 12/211,996 the Examiner points out, paragraph 60 of Appellant's Specification discloses using a measured distance between the autonomous position of the trolley and another component to determine the autonomous position of another component of the lifting device, such as the hook block. See Ans. 5. Thus, the term "autonomous position" cannot be read, consistent with Appellant's Specification, as excluding an autonomous position of a point of interest determined in part by measuring the distance between a component of the lifting device whose autonomous position is already known, and the point of interest. Like the autonomous position of Appellant's hook block, the position of Pahmeier' s platform, determined from the direct distance measurements of the encoders and the home position of the crane, which is known relative to the hangar coordinate system, is an actual or physical location (i.e., autonomous position) within the space of Pahmeier's hangar coordinate system. Likewise, as already discussed above, the location of Pahmeier' s airplane is determined from actual or physical locations of points on the leading edges of Pahmeier' s airplane, and is not dependent on physical interactions and/or relationships between components of the lifting device. Thus, Appellant's argument fails to show that the X, Y, and Z values of the airplane determined by Pahmeier do not represent an autonomous position of the airplane. Appellants argue that Pahmeier's "specific examples of 'ultrasonic sensors[]' [and] 'infrared sensors[,]' merely 'detect' objects and do not generate an 'autonomous position,' as claimed." Appeal Br. 8. We agree with Appellant that the ultrasonic and infrared sensors of Pahmeier' s "other collision detection and/or anti-collision mechanisms" disclosed for use in 7 Appeal2014-000281 Application 12/211,996 combination with Pahmeier' s software limits do not detect or determine autonomous positions of the airplane. See Pahmeier, col. 4, 11. 1-19; col. 14, 11. 25--40. Thus, any reliance on these sensors by the Examiner (see Final Act. 5; Ans. 7) is unavailing for purposes of showing determination of an autonomous position of either the lifting device or a jobsite object, or monitoring by comparing such autonomous positions. However, as discussed above, we find that the positions of the platform and the airplane determined for use in setting the software limits are autonomous positions, as called for in claim 1. Finally, Appellant argues that "the Examiner has not sufficiently showed [sic] that Pahmeier teaches 'accessing an autonomous position of said jobsite object proximate said lifting device,' as claimed." Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 4 (stating, "The Examiner provides Claim 1 and column 2, line 55-colunm 3, line 8 as teaching this feature, but Appellant[] disagree[s] that Pahmeier shows this claimed feature."). Appellant does not elaborate, with any specificity, on why the disclosure of Pahmeier relied on by the Examiner is deficient vis-a-vis the "accessing an autonomous position ... " limitation of claim 1. For the reasons discussed above, Pahmeier uses the locations of two points on the leading edge of each wing detected by scanners to ascertain the autonomous position of the airplane within the space of the hangar coordinate system. See Pahmeier, col. 2, 1. 55----col. 3, 1. 8; see also id., col. 8, 11. 1-39; col. 8, 1. 61---col. 9, 1. 6 (disclosing same in more detail). Further, Pahmeier uses (i.e., accesses) this airplane positional data, along with the X, Y, and Z position of the crane platform, to set software limits on the motion of the crane. See Pahmeier, claim 1 ("said 8 Appeal2014-000281 Application 12/211,996 setting means employing the stored set of data from said scanning means"); see also id., col. 3, 11. 22-53. For the above reasons, Appellant fails to show that the Examiner erred in finding that Pahmeier anticipates the subject matter of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2, 5, 7, 13, 14, 16-20, 22, 24, 30, 31, 34--38, 40, 41, 43--46, 51-53, and 57, which fall with claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Pahmeier. However, because our analysis in affirming this rejection elaborates on, and supplements, the findings and reasoning articulated by the Examiner, and relies on portions of Pahmeier not cited by the Examiner, we designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) to provide Appellant with an opportunity to respond thereto. Rejection II-Obviousness based on Pahmeier In contesting this rejection, Appellant reiterates the argument "that Pahmeier fails to show determining autonomous positions at a point of interest" and "point out that this would not be an obvious modification to Pahmeier because it would significantly change the principal mode of operation of Pahmeier." Appeal Br. 10; see also id. at 11-13 (repeating this argument). According to Appellant, "the principle mode of operation of Pahmeier is to use a known position and intersecting lines and extrapolating [sic] a position of interest based on a known relationship between locations to determine relational positioning." Id. at 10. Appellant's argument fails to apprise us of error in the rejection. The Examiner does not propose to modify Pahmeier to change the manner in which the position of the airplane is determined. The Examiner finds, and we agree, as discussed above, that Pahmeier's manner of ascertaining the 9 Appeal2014-000281 Application 12/211,996 position of the crane platform determines an autonomous position at a point of interest, and Pahmeier' s manner of ascertaining the position of the airplane determines an autonomous position of the airplane (i.e., jobsite object). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 3, 8-12, 21, 25-29, 32, 39, 47--49, and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pahmeier. Because our affirmance of this rejection incorporates the analysis articulated, supra, in sustaining the rejection of claim 1, including findings and reasoning supplementing that articulated by the Examiner, we designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) to provide Appellant with an opportunity to respond thereto. Rejection III-Obviousness based on Pahmeier and Browne In contesting this rejection, Appellant argues that Pahmeier does not teach or suggest determining an autonomous position at a point of interest and that modifying Pahmeier to do so would significantly change the principal mode of operation of Pahmeier and, thus, would not have been obvious. Appeal Br. 14. This argument is unavailing in contesting the rejection of claims 4 and 42 because it does not address the rejection of claims 4 and 42 as articulated by the Examiner. See Final Act. 12 (proposing to modify Pahmeier to include a position determiner physically coupled to the object as taught by Brown to transmit data about the nature of the object as well as location information which can be relevant to avoiding a collision with the object). The Examiner finds, and we agree, as discussed above, that Pahmeier determines an autonomous position of the lifting device at a point of interest. The Examiner does not propose modifying 10 Appeal2014-000281 Application 12/211,996 Pahmeier to change the manner in which this autonomous position is determined. Appellant adds that Browne does not teach or suggest determining an autonomous position at a point of interest to avoid collisions, and, thus, fails to remedy the deficiencies of Pahmeier. Appeal Br. 14. This argument also fails to apprise us of error in the rejection of claims 4 and 42 because, as discussed above, Pahmeier determines an autonomous position at a point of interest to avoid collisions. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pahmeier and Browne. Because our affirmance of this rejection incorporates the analysis articulated, supra, in sustaining the rejection of claim 1, including findings and reasoning supplementing that articulated by the Examiner, we designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) to provide Appellant with an opportunity to respond thereto. In addition to the aforementioned arguments, Appellant also submits "that Browne fails to show how a GNS S position determiner can be used with a system that relies upon using relative positions, as with Pahmeier." Id. This argument, which is directed to claims 6, 23, 50, and 56, is not convincing because, as discussed above, we find that Pahmeier, in fact, determines actual or physical locations of the crane platform and the airplane within the space of the hangar coordinate system, and uses those positions to set software limits for rotation of the crane in order to avoid collisions with the airplane. Browne teaches that a collision avoidance system may include a GPS device attachable to the subject vehicle, in addition to other collision- avoidance sensors, for obtaining real time subject vehicle position, which is 11 Appeal2014-000281 Application 12/211,996 then compared with real time position data for objects to identify predicted and imminent collisions. Browne, col. 2, 1. 63----col. 3, 1. 3; id., col. 10, 1. 33----col. 11, 1. 5. As the Examiner explains, Browne teaches avoiding collisions between a vehicle and an object by determining the autonomous positions of each, and also teaches using a GPS device to determine the position of the subject vehicle. Ans. 8. The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to modify Pahmeier, which discloses avoiding collisions between a crane and objects, to include a position determiner that is substantially compatible with a GNSS device as taught by Browne to allow the position determiner to use GPS data when determining the first point of interest location or object location. Id. Appellant does not point out error in the Examiner's reasoning. The modification proposed by the Examiner would simply adapt Pahmeier' s system to accept GPS position data, in addition to or instead of position data referenced to Pahmeier's hangar coordinate system, to determine crane and airplane positions in order to set software limits on crane rotation to avoid collisions. In light of the teachings of Pahmeier and Browne, such a modification would not be unduly challenging for one skilled in the art and would not change the principal mode of operation of Pahmeier. For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the rejection of claims 6, 23, 50, and 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pahmeier and Browne. Because our affirmance of this rejection incorporates the analysis articulated, supra, in sustaining the rejection of claim 1, including findings and reasoning supplementing that articulated by the Examiner, we designate our affirmance as a new ground of 12 Appeal2014-000281 Application 12/211,996 rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) to provide Appellant with an opportunity to respond thereto. Rejection IV-Obviousness based on Pahmeier and 0 'Connor In contesting this rejection, Appellant reiterates the arguments that Pahmeier does not teach or suggest determining an autonomous position at a point of interest; that modifying Pahmeier to do so would change the principal mode of operation of Pahmeier and, thus, would not have been obvious; and that Lesage1 does not remedy the deficiencies of Pahmeier in this regard. Appeal Br. 15. This line of argument does not apprise us of error, for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 15 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pahmeier and O'Connor. Because our affirmance of this rejection incorporates the analysis articulated, supra, in sustaining the rejection of claim 1, including findings and reasoning supplementing that articulated by the Examiner, we designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) to provide Appellant with an opportunity to respond thereto. Rejection V-Obviousness based on Pahmeier and Lesage In contesting this rejection, Appellant reiterates the arguments that Pahmeier does not teach or suggest determining an autonomous position at a point of interest; that modifying Pahmeier to do so would change the principal mode of operation of Pahmeier and, thus, would not have been obvious; and that Lesage does not remedy the deficiencies of Pahmeier in this regard. Appeal Br. 16. This line of argument does not apprise us of error, for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection 1 We assume that Appellant intended to refer to O'Connor, and not Lesage, and interpret Appellant's argument as such. 13 Appeal2014-000281 Application 12/211,996 of claim 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pahmeier and Lesage. Because our affirmance of this rejection incorporates the analysis articulated, supra, in sustaining the rejection of claim 1, including findings and reasoning supplementing that articulated by the Examiner, we designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) to provide Appellant with an opportunity to respond thereto. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-57 is affirmed. FINALITY OF DECISION This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review." 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: ( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. ... (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record .... 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)(l )(iv). 14 Appeal2014-000281 Application 12/211,996 AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 15 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation