Ex Parte Ivans

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 20, 2012

11038444 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 20, 2012)

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.
11/038,444 01/18/2005 Norman Ivans 30025.09 9900
66943 7590 08/20/2012
James P. Broder
Roeder & Broder LLP
9915 Mira Mesa Blvd. Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92131
EXAMINER
PRICE, CRAIG JAMES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/20/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte NORMAN IVANS

Appeal 2010-007929
Application 11/038,444
Technology Center 3700

Before LINDA E. HORNER, JAMES P. CALVE, and REMY J.
VANOPHEM, Administrative Patent Judges.

VANOPHEM, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-007929
Application 11/038,444

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection
of claims 2-9, 15, 17-24 and 26-45. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 19 and 29 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter on
appeal.
19. A method for detecting a malfunction
in an irrigation system for irrigating an area with
an irrigation fluid, the method comprising the steps
of:
providing a plurality of spaced apart
irrigation units, each of the irrigation units
including a single nozzle;
measuring a fluid condition at at least
two of the irrigation units of the irrigation system;
and
determining whether a malfunction in
the irrigation system exists based on whether a
disparity in the fluid conditions exists above a
predetermined percentage between the at least two
of the plurality of irrigation units.

29. An irrigation system for irrigating an
area, the irrigation system comprising:
a plurality of spaced apart irrigation
units, each of the irrigation units including a single
nozzle and a fluid condition sensor for measuring a
fluid condition at the irrigation unit; and
a system that receives information
from the fluid condition sensors and determines
whether a disparity in the fluid condition exists
above a predetermined percentage between at least
two of the plurality of irrigation units to determine
whether a malfunction in the irrigation system
exists.
Appeal 2010-007929
Application 11/038,444

3

REJECTION
Claims 2-9, 15, 17-24, and 26-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Christiansen (WO
01/37641 A1; Pub. May 31, 2001) in view of the teachings of Prandi (U.S.
Publication 2002/0066810 A1; Pub. June 6, 2002). The Examiner relied on
U.S. Patent 6,766,221 B1, Iss. July 20, 2004 for the Christiansen WIPO
document.

ANALYSIS
Independent method claims 19 and 38 call for the step of determining
whether a disparity in the fluid conditions exists above a predetermined
percentage between at least two of the plurality of irrigation units.
Independent system claims 29, 33, and 39 similarly call for an irrigation
system that determines whether a disparity in the fluid condition exists
above a predetermined percentage either between at least two irrigation units
or in a single irrigation unit at different points in time.
With regard to the independent system claims, the Examiner
determined that Christiansen discloses an irrigation system substantially as
claimed but does not explicitly disclose that its control system determines
whether a disparity in the fluid condition exists as called for in the claims.
Ans. 3-4. The Examiner determined:
Prandi discloses an irrigation system which teaches the
use of a control system that compares a fluid condition at a first
point (main pressure sensor 23, para. 0061) along an irrigation
line with the fluid condition at a second point (the additional
pressure sensor provided at the beginning of the main line, para.
0061) located at an irrigation unit of the irrigation system to
determine whether a disparity of at least a predetermined
percentage in the fluid conditions exists (para. 0061 – para.
Appeal 2010-007929
Application 11/038,444

4

0070, as cited “During a normal operation of a nozzle section,
the nozzles themselves define a flow limit…If the measure is
low in both sensors, it may be that there is an important leak in
the lines or a failure in the pumping station” is seen as the
predetermined percentage, and from para. 0062- para. 0063,
“The problems in the secondary lines are detected by flow
sensors 22 capable of detecting the amount of liquid that is
flowing inside the line. The presence of flow in a not proper
situation or the lack of flow during the activation of the nozzles
will indicate a failure in the valve controlling the associated
section. If the flow is low and the main pressure sensor 23
indicates a low pressure, it is possible that the auxiliary line
corresponding to the associated section is disconnected from
the main line. During a normal operation of a nozzle section,
the nozzles themselves define a flow limit; therefore, when an
overflow is detected during a nozzle shot, damage may be
determined in the secondary line of that section”). Prandi
discloses in paragraphs 0061-0062 that the flow sensors (using
a time measurement, such as gallons per minute) detect a leak
or breach in the irrigation line.
Ans. 4-5.
With regard to the independent method claims, the Examiner
determined that Christiansen discloses the irrigation system is capable of
performing the steps of the method claims, as the computer and controller
can control the valves and monitor the pressure for each of the individual
units. The Examiner further stated that the device shown by Christiansen in
combination with Prandi will perform the methods as recited in independent
method claims 19 and 38 during normal operational use of the device. In
other words, “the method of making or using the device is inherent in using
the apparatus.” Ans. 7.
In rebuttal to the Examiner’s rejection, the Appellant argues:
[A]lthough comparisons of certain fluid pressure and/or flow
values are taught by Prandi, there is no teaching in Prandi that
Appeal 2010-007929
Application 11/038,444

5

any differences in fluid pressure and/or fluid flow must meet a
certain threshold value, i.e., “a disparity in the fluid conditions
exists above a predetermined percentage”. Although any
difference found in a comparison will naturally have a
percentile difference, as noted by the Examiner that does not
lead to the conclusion that the reference is teaching to look for a
specific difference, which would be indicative of a malfunction
in the irrigation system as taught in the present claims.
Reply Br. 8.
The Examiner responded that “the two pressure sensors of Prandi are
used to compare measurements having a difference in the fluid lines for a
leak in the system (¶ 0061). This difference in values has inherently a
percentile difference, such that since the difference is indicated as a leak it
would have to be compared to some predetermined value and therefore
would have a percentage value in relation to the predetermined value.” Ans.
8.
We disagree with the Examiner’s determination that an inherent
percentile difference between the data from the two pressure sensors of
Prandi is a teaching of determining whether a disparity in the fluid
conditions exists above a predetermined percentage. Prandi teaches that if
the measures of the flow from both sensors (i.e., the main pressure sensor 23
provided at the end of the main line and the additional pressure sensor
provided at the beginning of the main line) are low, then a leak in the lines
or a failure in the pumping station may exist. Prandi, para. [0061]. This
teaching in Prandi suggests comparing the measures from both sensors with
a predetermined expected normal flow to determine whether the flow
measured in the sensors is low. This portion of Prandi does not teach
determining a disparity between the measures from each sensor and
comparing that disparity to a predetermined percentage.
Appeal 2010-007929
Application 11/038,444

6

Prandi also teaches that if the main sensor 23 indicates a low value
and the sensor at the beginning of the main line indicates a normal value,
then the tank may need to be replenished. Id. Prandi further teaches that
when none of the nozzle sections is shooting, and the main sensor 23 is
reading a lower value than the sensor at the beginning of the main line, then
a small leakage may exist in the main line. Id. These latter teachings of
Prandi again appear to suggest comparing the flow conditions as measured at
each sensor with an expected normal value to determine whether the
measurement at either sensor is low. Prandi does not suggest or inherently
disclose determining a disparity between the measures from each sensor and
comparing that disparity to a predetermined percentage.
As reiterated in the Appellant’s contentions, although comparisons of
certain fluid pressure and/or flow values are taught by Prandi, Prandi does
not teach that any differences in fluid and/or fluid flow must meet a certain
threshold value, i.e., “a disparity in the fluid conditions exists above a
predetermined percentage,” as called for in each of the independent method
and system claims.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 2-9, 15, 17-24 and 26-45 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Christiansen
and Prandi is reversed.

REVERSED
JRG