Ex Parte Harshbarger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 16, 2017

12751120 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2017)

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.
12/751,120 03/31/2010 Aaron H. Harshbarger CRN 361 P2A 1054
29673 7590 10/18/2017
STEVENS & SHOWALTER LLP
7019 CORPORATE WAY
DAYTON, OH 45459-4238
EXAMINER
BOYCE, ANDRE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/18/2017 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):
PTO@sspatlaw.com
ssllp@speakeasy.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AARON H. HARSHBARGER, DAVID K. TINNERMAN,
TIMOTHY A. WELLMAN, JEFFREY C. WHITFORD,
and DEAN E. WINNER
Appeal 2016-0010311
Application 12/751,1202
Technology Center 3600
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
March 25, 2015) and Reply Br. (“Reply Br.,” filed October 28, 2015), and
the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 28, 2015) and Final Office
Action (“Final Act.,” mailed July 15, 2014).
2 Appellants identify Crown Equipment Corporation as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 4.
Appeal 2016-001031
Application 12/751,120
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—6 and 20-33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “systems of hardware and/or
software, methods and computer program products ... for enabling
industrial vehicles and/or operators to communicate across a wireless
environment” (Spec. 14).
Claims 1, 20, and 23 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of tracking usage of an industrial vehicle,
the method comprising:
establishing configuration data for an hour meter that
tracks usage of an associated feature of an industrial vehicle,
wherein the configuration data includes at least one rule that is
based on inputs selected from a user interface and that indicates
when the hour meter is to accumulate usage measurements;
wirelessly communicating the configuration data from a
server application to an associated industrial vehicle having a
transceiver installed therewith for receiving wirelessly
communicated messages from the server application;
programming hour meter settings on the associated
industrial vehicle that define when usage measurements of the
associated feature tracked by the hour meter are accumulated in
accordance with the at least one rule of the configuration data
wirelessly received from the server application;
operating the hour meter on the industrial vehicle to record
usage of the associated feature according to the programmed
hour meter settings; and
2
Appeal 2016-001031
Application 12/751,120
providing a reading to indicate usage of the associated
feature.
REJECTION
Claims 1—6 and 20—33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Roth et al (US 2006/0053075 Al, pub. Mar. 9, 2006)
(hereinafter “Roth”) and Palladino (US 7,706,938 B2, iss. Apr. 27, 2010).
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 2—6, 24—26, 32, and 33
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Palladino,
on which the Examiner relies, does not disclose or suggest “establishing
configuration data for an hour meter that tracks usage of an associated
feature of an industrial vehicle, wherein the configuration data includes at
least one rule that is based on inputs selected from a user interface and that
indicates when the hour meter is to accumulate usage measurements,” as
recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 19—25).
Palladino is directed to a system for automatically creating a
maintenance schedule for vehicles (Palladino, Abstract), and discloses that
the system uses a two-part algorithm that includes: (1) a “usage rate
algorithm” that calculates a usage rate of serviceable items; and (2) a
“service interval algorithm” that schedules service based on the computed
usage rate (id. at col. 4,11. 59-63). Palladino describes that usage
parameters (e.g., engine hours, idle hours, brake applications, fuel usage) are
used to determine a rate of consumption (i.e., usage rate) and a consumption
status (i.e., percent used); the rate of consumption is the amount of each item
3
Appeal 2016-001031
Application 12/751,120
which is consumed per day based on the usage rule (id. at col. 5,11. 31—34).
For example, Palladino discloses that if the user generates a rule which
specifies that engine oil must be changed after 10,000 gallons of fuel are
consumed, and the vehicle uses an average of 100 gallons per day, the
consumption rate for engine oil is 1 % per day; engine oil status after 20 days
is 20% consumed (id. at col. 5,11. 34—39). The calculated percentages and
usage rates are used as inputs to the service interval algorithm, which then
calculates service target dates for each item; the first target date is the
number of days from the current day when a particular service item is 100%
consumed (id. at col. 5,11. 39-44).
In Palladino, one or more usage rules are established using an
interface, as shown in Figure 7, and are input to the usage rate algorithm (see
id. at Fig. 3). Each rule has an assigned rule number, a usage item that
indicates an item associated with the rule (e.g., oil change), a parameter
(“Time_Days,” “Miles,” “Engine_Hours,” “Idle_Hours,”
“Engine_Rotations,” “BrakeTime,” and “Fuel_Used), and a threshold value
that indicates when that rule is considered to be 100% satisfied (id. at col. 7,
11. 13-30).
In rejecting claim 1 under § 103(a), the Examiner notes that Palladino
discloses, at column 5, lines 10-19, that a user can schedule brake
maintenance based on the amount of time the brake pedal is depressed and
pressure applied (Final Act. 4—5; see also Ans. 3). And the Examiner takes
the position that “[w]hen the peddle [sic] is depressed is ‘when’ time is
accumulated” and that “this parameter is . . . user defined, not based upon
system assumptions” (Ans. 3).
4
Appeal 2016-001031
Application 12/751,120
The difficulty with the Examiner’s rejection is that there is nothing in
the cited portion of Palladino that discloses or suggests a rule that is based
on inputs selected from a user interface and that indicates when the hour
meter (in the Examiner’s example, the “brake pedal depressed” usage
parameter) is to accumulate usage measurements, as called for in claim 1.
Thus, in the scheduling brake maintenance example, although a user may
define a rule that requires his/her vehicle brakes to be serviced based on the
amount of time the brake pedal is depressed and pressure applied, we find
nothing in the cited portion of Palladino that discloses or suggests a user-
defined rule that indicates when the “brake pedal depressed” usage
parameter or the “pressure applied” usage parameter accumulates usage
measurements. In other words, although Palladino accumulates brake pedal
applications, there is nothing in the cited portion of Palladino that discloses
or suggests a user-defined rule that defines when the accumulation occurs;
instead, the brake applications are determined independently of any usage
rule. As Appellants point out, in Palladino, the usage rules define when a
particular action should be taken based on the output of an hour meter, e.g.,
the amount of time the brake pedal is depressed and pressure applied is used
to determine when brake maintenance is performed; in claim 1, on the other
hand, the user-defined rule is an input to the hour meter, e.g., the rule
indicates when the hour meter, i.e., the “brake pedal depressed” usage
parameter, is triggered to begin accumulating usage measurements (see App.
Br. 24).
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we
also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2—6, 24—26, 32, and 33.
5
Appeal 2016-001031
Application 12/751,120
Cf. In reFritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“dependent claims
are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are
nonob vious”).
Independent Claims 20 and 23 and Dependent Claims 21, 22, and 27—31
Independent claims 20 and 23 include language substantially similar
to the language of independent claim 1, and stand rejected based on the same
rationale applied with respect to claim 1 (Final Act. 8). Therefore, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent
claims 20 and 23, and claims 21, 22, and 27—31, which depend therefrom,
for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—6 and 20-33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
6