Ex Parte Hendrickson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2016

13435129 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/435, 129 03/30/2012
89881 7590 10/26/2016
Caterpillar/ Miller, Matthias & Hull LLP
One North Franklin Street
Suite 2350
Chicago, IL 60606
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Matthew L. Hendrickson
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.
50100/11-0533 1541
EXAMINER
KAN, YURI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2016 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):
tmiller@millermatthiashull.com
mloye@millermatthiashull.com
us_docket_clerk@cat.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW L. HENDRICKSON and DONALD J. GILMORE 1
Appeal2014-006251
Application 13/435, 129
Technology Center 3600
Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, AMANDA F. WIEKER, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Matthew L. Hendrickson and Donald J. Gilmore ("Appellants")
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Caterpillar Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-006251
Application 13/435, 129
CLAHvfED SUBJECT ~vfATTER
The invention concerns "a display for providing a view of a trolley-
driven machine position relative to a trolley line." Spec. i-f 1. Independent
claims 1, 13, and 19 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal, and
recite:
1. A method for guiding an operator of an off-highway
truck to facilitate use of a trolley line for providing electrical
power to the truck, the method comprising:
determining a position of the off-highway truck relative to
the trolley line; and
generating a display within an operator cab of the off-
highway truck, the display including a graphical element
showing alignment of the off-highway truck to the trolley line.
13. An off-highway truck having a self-contained
power source for being selectively powered by a trolley line and
by the self-contained power source, the off-highway truck
compnsmg:
a pantograph adapted for selectively raising or lowering
contacts to respectively make contact or break contact with an
overhead trolley line;
one or more sensors located and configured to gather data
indicative of a position of the off-highway truck relative to the
trolley line;
a display generator for providing a display in a cab of the
off-highway truck; and
a controller linked to the one or more sensors and the
display generator, the controller being configured to cause the
display generator to provide a display providing steering
guidance to an operator of the off-highway truck to engage the
pantograph with the trolley line.
19. A display for use in an off-highway truck, the
display comprising:
a position element providing an indication to an operator
of the off-highway truck to steer the off-highway truck to align
the off-highway truck with an overhead trolley line; and
2
Appeal2014-006251
Application 13/435, 129
a pantograph elenzent providing an indication to the
operator to raise or lower a pantograph associated with the off-
highway truck to respectively make or break contact with the
overhead trolley line.
Appeal Br. 15, 17, 18 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: 2
I. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Kruckow (DE 10256705 Al, iss. July 22, 2004).
II. Claims 2 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kruckow and Eklund (US 2010/0198466 Al, pub. Aug. 5,
2010).
III. Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kruckow and Takei (US 4,745,997, iss. May 24, 1988).
IV. Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
K..'"'11ckow, Gong (US 2010/0270983 Al, pub. Oct. 28, 2010),
and Stratton (US 5,293,947, iss. Mar. 15, 1994).
V. Claims 13 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kruckow and Stratton.
VI. Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kruckow, Stratton, and Eklund.
VII. Claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kruckow, Stratton, and Gong.
2 The Examiner indicates that Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief
overcome the rejection of claims 1 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph. See Ans. 2; see also Final Act. 3--4; Appeal Br. 6-7. We treat
the rejection as withdrawn by the Examiner.
3
Appeal2014-006251
Application 13/435, 129
VIII. Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kruckow, Gong, and Stratton.
IX. Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kruckow, Gong, Stratton, and Eklund.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I - Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 10, and 12
Anticipation by Kruckow
Appellants argue claims 1, 3-5, and 7 as a group and present separate
argument for claims 9, 10, and 12. Appeal Br. 7-9, 11-13. We treat claim 1
as representative, and claims 3-5 and 7 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(iv). We treat claims 9, 10, and 12 separately.
Claim 1, 3-5, and 7
The Examiner finds that Kruckow discloses a method as claimed,
including a step of generating a display including a graphical element
shmving alignment of the truck to the trolley line. Final Act. 5 (citing
Kruckow i-fi-1 6, 7, 21 ). Specifically, the Examiner finds that "[Kruckow]
inherently teaches alignment of the entire vehicle relative to the trolley line
or overhead contact wire by displaying position or alignment of pantograph
relative to trolley line." Ans. 3; see also id. at 2-5.
First, Appellants contend that the cited portions of Kruckow do not
disclose a display. Appeal Br. 8-9. Specifically, Appellants contend that
Kruckow's disclosure of automatic steering "indicates that a display is not
even needed." Id. at 9 (citing Kruckow i1 6). Appellants also contend that
Kruckow's disclosure of informing the driver about the position of the
pantograph on the overhead line does not teach a display element. Id. (citing
Kruckow i1 7).
4
Appeal2014-006251
Application 13/435, 129
\Ve are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument. Kn1ckow explicitly
discloses a driver-viewable "display unit." Kruckow i-fi-1 6, 21. Therefore,
Appellants' argument that Kruckow' s disclosure of automatic steering
teaches away from a display is unpersuasive. Appeal Br. 9; see Celeritas
Tech., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'! Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
("A reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the
reference then disparages it."). Furthermore, that paragraph 7 of Kruckow
does not discuss a display does not negate the express disclosure contained
in paragraphs 6 and 21. Therefore, the Examiner's finding that Kruckow
discloses a display is supported by a preponderance of evidence.
Second, Appellants contend that to the extent Kruckow discloses a
display, Kruckow's display does not depict a graphical element showing
alignment of the truck to the trolley line, as claimed. Appeal Br. 9.
Specifically, Appellants contend that paragraph 21 of Kruckow does not
specify what is shown on the display and, rather than showing "a graphical
element," the display could depict "numbers including distance from the
[trolley] line," a numerical representation of "signal strength," or "a written
command." Id. Indeed, in the Reply Brief, Appellants contend that the
claimed "graphical element" requires "pictorial content." Reply Br. 3.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument. During examination,
"claims in an application 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 Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
(internal citation, alteration, quotation omitted). Therefore, the words of a
5
Appeal2014-006251
Application 13/435, 129
1· 1 • 1. 1· • 1 1 •••• c1an11 must oe given t11en- p1am meanmg un1ess t11at meanmg is mconsiStent
with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
An appropriate construction of "alignment," consistent with its plain
meaning and in the context of the Specification and claim language, is
"arrangement in a straight line, or in correct or appropriate relative
positions."3 Appellants do not provide evidence or argument to support a
different construction of this term, and Appellants' Specification provides no
guidance as to the meaning of this term in the context of the disclosed
invention. See Spec. i-fi-18, 23, 24, 26 (utilizing the term in accordance with
its plain meaning).
Paragraph 21 of Kruckow discloses a display unit that notifies the
driver of the relative position of the vehicle 1 (including sensors 5 and
pantographs 2a, 2b) to the trolley lines 4a, 4b (contact wires). Kruckow
i-fi-1 6, 21, Fig. 2. Specifically, Kruckow states:
The information regarding the position of the sensor[ s 5] relative
to the contact wire[ s] 4a, 4b and thus 4a on the position of the
pantograph 2a, 2b and thus of the entire vehicle 1 to the contact
wire, 4b by means of a not-shown display unit to the driver to be
notified so that can execute this immediately suitable steering
movements.
Id. ,-r 21; see also Ans. 3--4. Therefore, a preponderance of evidence
supports the Examiner's finding that Kruckow's display shows the relative
position of the truck to the trolley line, which satisfies the claim requirement
that the display show "alignment of the off-highway truck to the trolley
line," under the broadest reasonable construction of that term.
3 Oxford Dictionary ("alignment"), available at
https ://en. oxforddictionaries. com/ definition/us/ alignment (last visited Oct.
19, 2016).
6
Appeal2014-006251
Application 13/435, 129
An appropriate construction of "a graphical element," consistent with
its plain meaning and in the context of the Specification and claim language,
is "a visual element, including pictorial content, letters, or numbers."4
Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument to support a
different construction of this term. See Reply Br. 3 (arguing that the phrase
"mean[ s] pictorial content" but providing no evidence or reasoning to
support that argument). Furthermore, Appellants' Specification provides
little guidance as to the meaning of this term in the context of the disclosed
invention. Indeed, Appellants' Specification utilizes this phrase only once,
in reference to the "pantograph indicator 62" of Figure 5. See Spec. i-f 46;
Fig. 5. Although Figure 5 depicts a pictorial image, claim 1 utilizes broader
language and Appellants' Specification does not demonstrate any intention
to limit the claim scope. See Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d
898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted) ("Even when the specification
describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent will not be read
restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit
the claim scope using 'words or expressions of manifest exclusion or
restriction'."); see also In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation omitted) ("Construing claims broadly during
prosecution is not unfair to the applicant ... because the applicant has the
opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage.").
4 Oxford Dictionary ("graphic"), available at
https:// en.oxforddictionaries.com/ definition/us/ graphic (last visited Oct. 19,
2016) ("Relating to visual art, especially involving drawing, engraving, or
lettering").
7
Appeal2014-006251
Application 13/435, 129
Therefore, it is immaterial whether the relative position information
disclosed in paragraph 21 ofKruckow is shown on Kruckow's display as
pictorial content, as "numbers including distance from the [trolley] line," as
a numerical representation of "signal strength," or as "a written command"
(see Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 3), because each of these representations of
relative position information constitute "a graphical element" under the
broadest reasonable construction of that term. Therefore, a preponderance
of evidence supports the Examiner's finding that Kruckow' s display
includes "a graphical element" as claimed.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 and claims 3-5 and 7,
which were argued as a group with claim 1.
Claim 9
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and further requires the display include
"a first visual element representing the off-highway truck and a second
visual element representing a lateral range of the trolley line." Appeal
Br. 16 (Claims App).
The Examiner finds that Kruckow anticipates this claim, relying on
paragraphs 6 and 7, which discuss informing the driver about the position of
the pantograph on the trolley line. Final Act. 6. The Examiner interprets
this disclosure to "equivalently teach visual representation (arrow heads,
distances, numerical indications, or similar symbols or elements) of
directions of pantograph offset or off-highway truck offset relative to trolley
line." Id.; see also Ans. 10.
Appellants contend "a mere teaching to keep the operator informed
does not amount to a teaching or even a suggestion to generate two very
specific display elements." Appeal Br. 12.
8
Appeal2014-006251
Application 13/435, 129
\Ve agree with Appellants. Kn1ckow' s disclosures of a display and
informing an operator about relative positions does not disclose "first" and
"second" visual elements included in the display. Indeed, as found by the
Examiner, relative position information may be conveyed numerically,
which may involve only one numerical element representing the distance
between the truck and trolley lines. See Final Act. 6; see also Appeal Br. 9.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 9.
Claim 10
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and further requires the display to
include "a visual element representing a steering direction to allow the off-
highway truck to remain powered by the trolley line." Appeal Br. 16
(Claims App).
The Examiner finds that Kruckow anticipates this claim, relying on
paragraphs 6, 7, and 21, which discuss automatic steering and informing the
operator of relative position information to allow the operator to coordinate
steering movements. Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 10-11.
Appellants contend that Kruckow does not inherently disclose a visual
element that shows a steering direction. Appeal Br. 12-13.
We agree with Appellants. Appellants' Specification defines
"steering direction" as "the direction of correction needed." Spec. i-f 39. The
cited portions of Kruckow do not establish that Kruckow' s display includes
an element indicating the direction of correction needed. Although
providing relative position information conveys that correction may be
needed, for example, when the relative distance between the truck's position
and the trolley lines' positions is large, the mere provision of relative
9
Appeal2014-006251
Application 13/435, 129
position information does not convey the direction of the correction that is
needed.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 10.
Claim 12
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and further requires the display
include "an alarm indicator element." Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App).
The Examiner finds that Kruckow anticipates this claim, relying on
paragraph 21. Final Act. 7. In the Answer, the Examiner further finds that
"notifying a driver so that the driver can execute suitable immediate steering
movements is equivalent to alarming the driver so the driver can react to the
alarm properly." Ans. 12.
Appellants contend that the cited portion of Kruckow does not
disclose "anything at all to do with an alarm condition." Appeal Br. 13.
We agree with Appellants. Paragraph 21 of Kruckow does not discuss
an alarm indicator element, or "alarming the driver," at all. See Kruckow
i-f 21. The Examiner's finding that notifying a driver "is equivalent to
alarming the driver" is not supported by a preponderance of evidence.
Merely providing relative position information, as disclosed in paragraph 21
of Kruckow, does not constitute "an alarm indicator element for indicating
that an alarm condition exists."
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 12.
Rejections II and III- Claims 2, 6, and 8 - Obviousness
over Kruckow and Eklund or Takei
Appellants do not present separate argument against the rejection of
claims 2 and 6 as unpatentable over Kruckow and Eklund, or against the
rejection of claim 8 as unpatentable over Kruckow and Takei. See generally
10
Appeal2014-006251
Application 13/435, 129
Appeal Br. Accordingly, Appellants have waived any additional argument
as to those claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d
1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) ("If an appellant fails to present
arguments ... on a particular rejection[,] the Board will not, as a general
matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection.").
Accordingly, we affirm the rejections of claims 2, 6, and 8.
Rejection IV - Claim 11
Obviousness over Kruckow, Gong, and Stratton
Claim 11 recites a display that includes "a pantograph indicator
element indicating whether the operator is to raise or lower a pantograph."
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Kruckow does not disclose this limitation,
but finds that Gong discloses a pantograph that can be automatically raised
or, alternatively, can be manually raised by a driver. Final Act. 9 (citing
Gong i-f 14). The Examiner finds that Gong also discloses camera 250,
which monitors the pantograph and sends video signals to CAN
instrument 240, and Gong also discloses display 440, which provides an
interface to the driver. Id. (citing Gong i-fi-115, 24); see also Ans. 7-9
(regarding claim 19), 11-12 (incorporating the discussion of claim 19 for
claim 11 ). The Examiner finds that "through the monitoring camera of the
pantograph and meter display, the driver can monitor the pantograph current
collector's state to prevent errors and avoid damage caused by malfunction
of the pantograph type current collector." Final Act. 9 (citing Gong i-f 24).
In light of these teachings, the Examiner concludes it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
"modify the teaching of Kruckow by adding and using the monitoring
11
Appeal2014-006251
Application 13/435, 129
camera of the pantograph and meter display as taught by Gong in order for
[the] driver to monitor the pantograph current collector's state to prevent
errors and avoid damage caused by malfunction of the pantograph type
current collector." Id. In the Answer, the Examiner finds that Gong's
teaching of a driver who monitors the pantograph current collector's state is
"equivalent to teaching a driver who monitors pantograph of a vehicle, who
is capable to raise or [lower] the pantograph in order to maintain a physical
contact." Ans. 7.
The Examiner also finds that Stratton teaches a controller that controls
transfer switch 16 in response to vehicle operating conditions or manual
operator selections, such that when a pantograph and trolley line meet, the
controller allows the operator to energize the vehicle's drive system. Final
Act. 9. According to the Examiner, "this is equivalent to teaching step for
providing an indication to the operator to raise or lower a pantograph
associated with a vehicle to respectively make or break contact with the
overhead trolley line, because a manually raised pantograph by the operator
in response to vehicle operating conditions makes the proper connection
between the trolley line and the pantograph." Ans. 8. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to modify Kruckow "by utilizing
programmable logic controller that automatically controls in response to
vehicle operating conditions or manual operator selections as taught by
Stratton in order to provide a vehicle as aforesaid that can be supplied with
external electric power from a trolley line; and a vehicle as aforesaid that
includes an on-board auxiliary power source." Final Act. 9-10 (emphasis
omitted).
12
Appeal2014-006251
Application 13/435, 129
Appellants contend that Gong's disclosure of a pantograph that is
manually raised by a driver "has no bearing on what is to be displayed to the
operator." Appeal Br. 13. Appellants also contend that Gong's disclosure of
a pantograph that is automatically raised "is directly at odds with giving
instructions to the operator." Id.
We agree with Appellants that Gong does not disclose the claimed
"pantograph indicator element indicating whether the operator is to raise or
lower a pantograph." Because the Examiner's findings are not entirely clear,
we summarize our understanding below. As best understood, the Examiner
appears to rely on Gong's teachings of camera 250, which monitors a
pantograph, and LCD display 440, which interfaces to a driver. Final Act. 9
(citing Gong i-fi-f 15, 24). In light of these teachings, the Examiner appears to
conclude it would have been obvious to modify Kruckow "by adding and
using the monitoring camera ... as taught by Gong in order for [the] driver
to monitor the pantograph." Id. This conclusion, however, is not supported
by a preponderance of evidence. Specifically, Gong does not disclose that
the position of the pantograph, as captured by the monitoring camera, is
displayed to the driver on LCD display 440, as the Examiner's rejection
suggests. In fact, Gong discloses that the camera's video is fed to CAN
instrument 240, not displayed on display 440. Gong i-f 15. Further, Gong
specifies that LCD display 440 depicts "system operating status [and]
inputting alarming threshold parameters," not a video feed of the pantograph
from camera 250. Id. i124.
Further, a preponderance of evidence does not support the Examiner's
finding, in the Answer, that Gong's teaching of a driver who monitors the
pantograph current collector's state is "equivalent to teaching a driver who
13
Appeal2014-006251
Application 13/435, 129
monitors pantograph of a vehicle, who is capable to raise or low the
pantograph in order to maintain a physical contact." Ans. 7. Claim 11
requires generating a display that includes "a pantograph indicator element
indicating whether the operator is to raise or lower a pantograph." Whether
a driver is capable of monitoring and manipulating a pantograph's position
appears to have no bearing on whether a display includes a pantograph
indicator element.
Additionally, we do not find, in Stratton's disclosure of a controller
that allows an operator to energize the vehicle's primary drive system when
the pantograph and trolley line are in contact, support for the Examiner's
findings or conclusions. Ans. 8 (citing Stratton, 3:3-10). Whether a
controller may energize a drive system appears to have no bearing on
whether a display includes a pantograph indicator element.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 11.
Rejection V - Claims 13 and 15-17
Obviousness over Kruckow and Stratton
Appellants argue claims 13 and 15-17 as a group. Appeal Br. 10. We
treat claim 13 as representative, and claims 15-17 stand or fall with
claim 13. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Kruckow discloses an off-highway truck,
including a controller configured to generate a display providing steering
guidance to a truck operator to engage the pantograph with the trolley line.
Final Act. 10 (citing Kruckow i-fi-16-7).
Appellants contend that "giving someone a location and giving
someone steering directions to reach that location are two different things
entirely .... [I]nforming the truck operator of the location of the trolley line
14
Appeal2014-006251
Application 13/435, 129
requires the operator to figure out how to get to the trolley line, whereas
providing the operator with steering directions eliminates this requirement."
Appeal Br. 10-11.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument, which is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 13. Claim 13 requires that the
display provide "steering guidance," not "steering directions." As discussed
above, "steering direction[]" is defined by the Specification as "the direction
of correction needed." Spec. i-f 39. Importantly, however, the Specification
does not define "steering guidance," which is the actual language recited in
claim 13. See id. i-f 9 (utilizing the phrase but providing no definition).
Accordingly, and in light of Appellants' Specification, we conclude that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed "steering guidance"
requires simply some information provided to the operator to inform
steering; directional information is not required. See id. In light of this
interpretation, Kruckow' s disclosure of providing relative position
information reasonably provides "steering guidance" as claimed because
such information constitutes information provided to the operator to inform
the operator's steering. See Kruckow i-f 7 (informing the driver about
relative positions so the driver "can better coordinate its steering
movements"), i-f 21 (displaying relative position information so that the
driver "can execute this immediately suitable steering movements reliably").
Unlike claim 10, claim 13 does not require that the display convey
directional information.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 13 and claims 15-17,
which were argued as a group with claim 13.
15
Appeal2014-006251
Application 13/435, 129
Rejection VI- Claim 14
Obviousness over Kruckow, Stratton, and Eklund
Appellants do not present separate argument against the rejection of
claim 14 as unpatentable over Kruckow, Stratton, and Eklund. See generally
Appeal Br. Accordingly, Appellants have waived any additional argument
as to this claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv); Frye, 94 USPQ2d at 1075.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 14.
Rejection VII - Claim 18
Obviousness over Kruckow, Stratton, and Gong
Similar to claim 11, claim 18 also requires the display include "a
pantograph indicator element indicating whether the operator is to raise or
lower the pantograph." Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.).
The Examiner makes findings and conclusions substantially identical
to those made with respect to claim 11. Final Act. 12; Ans. 7-9 (regarding
claim 19), 11-12 (incorporating the discussion of claim 19 for claim 18).
As with claim 11, Appellants contend that Gong's disclosure of a
pantograph that is manually raised by a driver "has no bearing on what is to
be displayed to the operator." Appeal Br. 13. Appellants also contend that
Gong's disclosure of a pantograph that is automatically raised "is directly at
odds with giving instructions to the operator." Id.
For the reasons detailed with respect to claim 11, we agree with
Appellants that the Examiner fails to establish the unpatentability of claim
18 over Kruckow, Stratton, and Gong.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 18.
16
Appeal2014-006251
Application 13/435, 129
Rejection VIII- Claim 19
Obviousness over Kruckow, Gong, and Stratton
Similar to claims 11 and 18, claim 19 also requires a display that
includes "a pantograph element providing an indication to the operator to
raise or lower a pantograph." Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.).
The Examiner makes findings and conclusions substantially identical
to those made with respect to claim 11. Final Act. 12-13; Ans. 7-9.
Appellants contend that Gong does not provide "actual instruction" to
an operator regarding whether to raise or lower a pantograph, but relies on
the operator to "figure out on his own whether to raise or lower the
pantograph." Appeal Br. 11.
For the reasons detailed with respect to claim 11, we agree with
Appellants that the Examiner fails to establish the unpatentability of claim
19 over Kruckow, Gong, and Stratton.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 19.
Rejection IX-Claim 20
Obviousness over Kruckow, Gong, Stratton, and Eklund
Appellants do not present separate argument against the rejection of
claim 20 as unpatentable over Kruckow, Gong, Stratton, and Eklund. See
generally Appeal Br. Accordingly, Appellants have waived any additional
argument as to this claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv); Frye, 94 USPQ2d at
1075.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 20.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8, 13-17, 20 is affirmed;
and
17
Appeal2014-006251
Application 13/435, 129
the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 9-12, 18, and 19 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
18