Ex Parte Kraimer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2017

13798232 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 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.
13/798,232 03/13/2013 James V. Kraimer CRN 415 IA3 3999
29673 7590 10/26/2017
STEVENS & SHOWALTER LLP
7019 CORPORATE WAY
DAYTON, OH 45459-4238
EXAMINER
MAWARI, REDHWAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2017 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 JAMES V KRAIMER, JAY G. POLLACK,
TIMOTHY A. WELLMAN, JESS D. GILLAND, MATTHEW M. GREEN,
STEVEN R. PULSKAMP, JAMES F. SCHLOEMER, and
VERN I. WOODRUFF III AL.
Appeal 2016-006637
Application 13/798,232
Technology Center 3600
Before THU A. DANG, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—27, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to “wearable wireless
remote control devices for use with materials handling devices.” (Spec. 1,11.
21-23).
Appeal 2016-006637
Application 13/798,232
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A supplemental remote control system for a materials
handling vehicle comprising:
a wearable wireless remote control device that is donned
by an operator interacting with said materials handling vehicle,
said remote control device comprising:
a docking area;
a detachably mountable communications device
that temporarily docks to said docking area during use of
the supplemental remote control system to control
movement of said materials handling vehicle, said
communications device including a wireless transmitter;
and
a travel control communicably coupled to said
wireless transmitter, wherein actuation of said travel
control causes said wireless transmitter to wirelessly
transmit a travel request as a first type signal requesting
said materials handling vehicle to move across a floor
surface in a first direction.
C. REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 12, and 21 stand rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claim 1 of copending
Application No. 11/855,310 (now Patent No. US 2008/0071429 Al, issued
Mar. 20, 2008 to Kraimer et al.) (hereinafter “Kraimer”) and Tamowski (US
2002/0172017 Al, published Nov. 21, 2002).
2. Claims 1,2, 10-12, and 19—21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kazerooni (US 2002/0178830 Al,
2
Appeal 2016-006637
Application 13/798,232
published Dec. 5, 2002), Tamowski, and Gilliland (US 7,017,689 B2, issued
Mar. 28, 2006).
3. Claims 3—9, 13—18 and 22—27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kazerooni, Tamowski, Gilliland, and
Harrison, Jr. (US 2003/0209604 Al, published Nov. 13, 2003) (hereinafter
“Harrison”).
II. ISSUES
The main issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in finding:
1. It would have been obvious to implement Tamowski’s
detachable docking station to the claimed invention set forth Kraimer.
2. The combination of Kazerooni and Gilliland in view of
Tamowski teaches or would have suggested a “wearable wireless remote
control device” comprising a “docking area,” a “detachably mountable
communication device,” including a “wireless transmitter” that docks to the
docking area, and a “travel control” coupled to the wireless transmitter,
wherein activation of the travel control causes the wireless transmitter to
wirelessly transmit a “travel request. . . requesting said materials handling
vehicle to move,” as recited in claim 1.
3
Appeal 2016-006637
Application 13/798,232
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Appellants ’ Invention
I. Appellants’ invention is directed to wireless remote control
arrangements for a materials handling vehicle, such as a lift truck (Spec. 5,
II. 10-12), wherein Figure 1 is reproduced below:
FIG, 1
Figure 1 shows a materials handling vehicle such as an order picking
truck 10. As shown in Figure 1, the truck includes an antenna 66 coupled to
receiver 102 for receiving commands issued by the remote control device
70, wherein the remote control device 70 wirelessly transmits a travel
request to the receiver on the truck 10 to request the truck 10 to advance or
jog in a first direction (Spec. 11,11. 6—18).
4
Appeal 2016-006637
Application 13/798,232
Kazerooni
2. Kazerooni discloses a wireless material handling system comprising
an instrumented glove device worn by an operator (Kazerooni, Abst.),
wherein Figure 1 is reproduced below:
.A,
S*"**#’ \\ ...
.S\ % X \ A // \ M r
X A7 "
a/. . .
Figure 1 shows an instrumented glove 10 worn on the human operator
(id. 131). A transmitter circuitry 13 is provided for transmitting a set of
control signals to a receiver circuitry 16 installed in another location (id.). A
cable car, for example, can be rotated utilizing the instrumented glove (id.
115, Fig. 3). In another embodiment, control signals are sent to a controller
of a material handling manipulator hung from the ceiling. Id. 1 83, Fig. 15.
Tarnowski
3. Tarnowski discloses an enclosure for a personal electronic device
(Tarnowski, Abst.). Tarnowski recognizes that, to free up the user’s hands,
the personal electronic device can be worn (e.g., around the neck or wrist) or
affixed to clothing (e.g., on a belt or purse strap). Id. 116.
5
Appeal 2016-006637
Application 13/798,232
Gilliland
4. Gilliland discloses an electrical steering assist or material handling
vehicles (Gilliland, col. 2,11. 14—16), wherein Figure 20 is reproduced
below:
FI 6.20
.W.Wjjj;
y'
S' >
i
J
V'
Figure 20 discloses a material handling vehicle such as truck 100.
Figure 20 shows truck 100 which senses and follows honing beacon 300
provided on the person of the operator, wherein the truck is programmed to
remain a certain distance away from the honing beacon (Id., col. 15,11. 62—
66).
IV. ANALYSIS
Double Patenting
Appellants contend that although the Examiner concludes that the
present claims and claim 1 of Kraimer are “not patentably distinct from each
other because one of skill in the art would appreciate that a detachable
docking station can be easily implemented,” Appellants assert that “the
6
Appeal 2016-006637
Application 13/798,232
Examiner provides no support” other than “a general statement that
Tamowski teaches a docking area.” App. Br. 7 (citing Final Act. 3).
According to Appellants, “one skilled in the art would not be led to combine
the teachings of Tamowski with a supplemental remote control system for a
materials handling vehicle” {id. at 8). According to Appellants, “Tamowski
is non-analogous art to the claimed invention.” Id. Appellants contend “the
Examiner has not presented a line of reasoning as to why one skilled in the
art would easily recognize that the teachings of Tamowski can be used for a
supplemental remote control for a material handling vehicle.” Id.
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive.
Like the claimed invention, claim 1 of Kraimer recites “a wearable
wireless remote control device that is donned by an operator interacting with
said materials handling vehicle.” See Kraimer 1134 (claim 1). Although
the Examiner agrees that the application’s claim 1 (and thus claims 12 and
21) is not identical to Kraimer’s claim 1, because Kraimer’s claim 1 doesn’t
recite a “docking area,” the Examiner concludes the claims “are not
patentably distinct from each other” because “one of skill in the art would
appreciate that a detachable docking station can be easily implemented.”
Final Act. 3. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
combine the docking area of Tamowski into the invention of Kraimer “for
the purpose of presenting a configurable housing for an electronic device to
make it suited and easy to use for different operating modes.” Id. at 4. We
find no error with the Examiner’s conclusions.
Although Appellants contend that Tamowski is nonanalogous to the
claimed invention, the nonanalogous art test considers the threshold question
whether a prior art reference is “too remote to be treated as prior art.” In re
7
Appeal 2016-006637
Application 13/798,232
Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting In re Sovish, 769 F.2d
738, 741 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). A reference is analogous art to the claimed
invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the
claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the
reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even
if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention) (In re
Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
Here, Tamowski discloses providing a docking area/enclosure for an
electronic device to allow the device to be worm or attach to clothing, to free
up the user’s hands (FF 3), similar to Appellants’ claimed invention (FF 1).
Thus, we are unpersuaded that Tamowski is not from the same field of
endeavor as the claimed invention (a docking area/enclosure for an
electronic device) or is not reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the
inventor (freeing up the user’s hand). See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. That is,
we are unpersuaded that Tamowski is “too remote to be treated as prior art.”
See Clay, 966 F.2d at 658 (quoting Sovish, 769 F.2d at 741).
As explained by the Examiner, the proposed combination would
provide a docked configuration that would make the docked device “suited
and easy to use for different operating modes.” Ans. 4. That is, the
Examiner has provided an “articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
On this record, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
1 and, similarly, claims 12 and 21. See App. Br. 2, 11
8
Appeal 2016-006637
Application 13/798,232
35 U.S.C. 103
Although Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s reliance on
Kazerooni for teaching a “supplemental remote control system,” Appellants
contend “there is no teaching in Kazerooni of a supplemental remote control
system for a materials handling vehicle” (App. Br. 9 (emphasis added)).
According to Appellants, “the remote control device of Kazerooni is used in
connection with either: a turntable (22) for rotating a cable car (20); or a
materials handling manipulator (44), which is not a vehicle” (id. (citations
omitted)).
Although Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s reliance on
Gilliland for teaching a “material handling vehicle,” Appellants contend “the
mere teaching of a materials handling vehicle in Gilliland does not make up
for the lack of a teaching of a ‘supplemental remote control system for a
materials handling vehicle’” (id. at 12).
Appellants then traverse the combination of the references with the
teachings of Tamowski because “Tamowski is not analogous to the claimed
invention” (id. at 13). According to Appellants, Tamowski is used for
“video camera or digital camera, a GPS unit, an IR receiver/transmitter, a
web connection device, an MP3 player” and the like (id. at 14).
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellants’ contentions regarding the
Examiner’s rejections of the claims. We agree with the Examiner’s
conclusion that claims would have been obvious over the combined
references.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., 800
9
Appeal 2016-006637
Application 13/798,232
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, we find no error with the
Examiner’s reliance on Kazerooni (to which Appellants do not contest) for
disclosing and suggesting a “wearable wireless remote control device,” a
“detachably mountable communication device,” including a “wireless
transmitter” wherein activation of a controller causes the wireless transmitter
to wirelessly transmit a “request” to a “materials handling” device (Final
Act. 5 (citing claim 1)). That is, like Appellants’ claimed invention (FF 1;
see also Spec.l, 11. 21—23: “wearable remote control devices for use with
materials handling devices”), Kazerooni discloses a “wearable wireless
remote control device,” such as glove 10 that causes a wireless transmitter to
transmit controlling data to a “materials handling systems” (FF 2). We find
that the only clear teachings missing from Kazerooni of the contested
limitations, as argued by Appellants, is that the “material handling devices”
(Spec. 1,11. 21—23) comprise a “material handling vehicle” (claim 1).
However, we agree with the Examiner’s reliance on Gilliland for the
disclosure of a controllable “material handling vehicle” (Final Act. 6 (citing
claim 1)). Like Appellants’ material handling “vehicle” (FF 1), Gilliland’s
material handling vehicle/truck 100 receives a signal from a device worn by
an operator and is then programmed to move or remain a certain distance
(FF 4).
We also find no error with the Examiner’s conclusion that it would
have been obvious to combine the controllable material handling vehicle of
Gilliland with the wearable remote control device of Kazerooni “for the
purpose of reducing the operator operating effort” (Final Act. 6). We agree
with the Examiner that “an advantage of the [wearable] wireless
10
Appeal 2016-006637
Application 13/798,232
communication remote control device” of Kazerooni is to “make the
operator move around freely while controlling said object” (Ans. 5).
Here, we conclude that the modification of Kazerooni by including
the controllable material handling vehicle of Gilliland as a material handling
device to be controlled by the wearable remote control device of Kazerooni
would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention. That is, we find that combining the control of
Gilliland’s materials handling vehicle (FF 4) in addition to Kazerooni’s
control of materials handling devices (FF 2) is no more than a simple
arrangement of old elements, with each performing the same function it had
been known to perform, yielding no more than one would expect from such
an arrangement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007). The skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple
patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person
of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 420-21. Appellants have
presented no evidence that combining Gilliland’s control of materials
handling vehicles with Kazerooni’s remote control of material handling
devices was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the
art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” See Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 419—21). Nor have Appellants presented evidence
that the claimed combination of known elements would have yielded more
than expected results.
Furthermore, as discussed above, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
contention that “Tamowski is not analogous to the claimed invention” (App.
Br. 13). Although Appellants contend Tamowski is used for “video camera
11
Appeal 2016-006637
Application 13/798,232
or digital camera, a GPS unit, an IR receiver/transmitter, a web connection
device, an MP3 player” and the like {id. at 14), Appellants appear to view
the combination in a different perspective than that of the Examiner. Here,
the issue is whether the skilled artisan, upon reading Tamowski’s use of a
docking area/station, would have found it obvious to modify Kazerooni’s
wearable remote control device provide on a glove to include a docking
areas/station to dock the control device on the glove. We find such
combination is no more than a simple arrangement of old elements, with
each performing the same function it had been known to perform, yielding
no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. See KSR, 550
U.S. at 417
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1.
As to claim 12, although Appellants contend that none of the applied
references teaches “a docking area that is detachably mountable to said
garment” (App. Br. 17), we agree with the Examiner’s reliance on
Tamowski in finding “Tamowski teaches the detachable/attachable device,
and docking area worn or affixed to clothing” (Ans. 12; FF 3). Similarly, we
are unpersuaded with Appellants’ contention with respect to claim 21 that
the references do not disclose a “control” or “wireless transmitter” that is
“detachably mounted to a garment” (App. Br. 18—19).
On this record, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 12 and 21, and
claims 2, 10, 11, 19, and 20 depending respectively from claims 1 and 12
over Kazerooni, Tamowski, and Gilliland.
As to claims 3—9, although Appellants contend that Harrison’s remote
control device is not “detachably mounted to a garment” (App. Br. 20), as
12
Appeal 2016-006637
Application 13/798,232
the Examiner points out, Appellants are making “arguments against the
references individually” when the Examiner is also relying on Kazerooni for
at least suggesting the contested limitation (Ans. 14). With respect to claim
7, we do not find any error in the Examiner’s finding that “Kazerooni
discloses buttons installed on the glove, wherein the buttons are used to
operate the system.” (Ans. 16).
Appellants do not provide substantive arguments but rather merely
repeat the arguments above with respect to claims 13—18 (App. Br. 24—25)
and claims 22—27 {id. at 25—26). Thus, claims 13—18 and 22—27 fall with
claims 3—9 over Kazerooni, Tamowski, and Gilliland, in further view of
Harrison.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 12, and 21 on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting; and of claims 1—27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
13