Ex Parte LaFergola et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 11, 2016

12647624 (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/647,624 12/28/2009
26710 7590 05/13/2016
QUARLES & BRADYLLP
Attn: IP Docket
411 E. WISCONSIN A VENUE
SUITE 2350
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-4426
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joseph Victor LaFergola
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.
780139.00240 2301
EXAMINER
HATCHER, DEIRDRE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/13/2016 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):
pat-dept@quarles.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH VICTOR LaFERGOLA,
VICKI HABERMAN, MICHELLE SWINDELL BERRYMAN,
ALFREDO GONZALO APONTE and VALERIE MARIE JENCKS 1
Appeal2014-000492
Application 12/647,624
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
MARK A. GEIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
GEIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-30. Final Act. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to "a system for managing a fleet
1 Appellants indicate that the real party in interest is Raymond Corporation.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2014-000492
Application 12/647,624
of material handling vehicles, such as lift trucks; and more particularly to a
system for reporting on the performance of that fleet and the operators of
the industrial vehicles." Spec. i-f 2. Claims 1 and 8 are illustrative and
recite (most relevant limitations emphasized):
1. A system, for managing a plurality of material handling
vehicles at a facility, comprising:
a communication interface on each material handling
vehicle which transmits data regarding vehicle operation;
a communications system that receives the data from each
communication interface; and
a computer system comprising a processor, user input
device and a monitor having a screen on which information is
displayed, and being connected to the communications system
for processing the data from each of the material handling
vehicles and presenting reports on the screen, the computer
system operating in a plurality of report modes that comprises
an impact report mode presenting reports about collisions of
material handling vehicles with objects, a maintenance report
mode presenting reports about maintenance and service
performed on the material handling vehicles, a verifY report
mode presenting data about inspections performed on the
material handling vehicles, and a metrics report mode presenting
reports about amounts of work performed by the material
handling vehicles, and an overview report mode presenting an
overview report that contains separate graphs each summarizing
report information from a different one of the impact,
maintenance, verify, and metrics report modes;
wherein the computer system transitions from the
overview report mode to another report mode that is selected in
response to activation of the user input device, each of the
impact, maintenance, verifY, and metrics report modes has a
summary display mode with a graph that presents data compiled
from the plurality of material handling vehicles at the facility, a
list display mode with a table that individually lists data about
each one of at least some of the plurality of material handling
vehicles, and a trend display mode containing a graph that
presents a trend line of data during a defined time period,
2
Appeal2014-000492
Application 12/647,624
wherein the summary display mode, list display mode and the
trend display mode is selectable in response a user activating the
user input device to select an element presented on the screen.
8. A system, for managing a plurality of material handling
vehicles at a facility, comprising:
a communication interface on each material handling
vehicle which transmits data regarding vehicle operation;
a communications system that receives the data from each
communication interface; and
a computer system comprising a processor, user input
device and a monitor having a screen on which information is
displayed, and being connected to the communications system
for processing the data from each of the material handling
vehicles and presenting reports on the screen, the computer
system operating in a plurality of report modes that comprises
an impact report mode presenting reports about collisions of
material handling vehicles with objects, a maintenance report
mode presenting reports about maintenance and service
performed on the material handling vehicles, a verifY report
mode presenting data about inspections performed on the
material handling vehicles, and a metrics report mode presenting
reports about amounts of work performed by the material
handling vehicles, and an overview report mode presenting an
overview report that contains separate graphs each summarizing
report information from a different one of the impact,
maintenance, verify, and metrics report modes;
wherein the computer system transitions from the
overview report mode to another report mode that is selected in
response to activation of the user input device, each of the
impact, maintenance, verifY, and metrics report modes has a first
display mode with a graph that presents data compiled from the
plurality of material handling vehicles at the facility, and in
response to activating the user input device to select an element
presented on the screen in the first display mode, the computer
system transitions to a second display mode that presents
information pertaining to only one material handling vehicle
designated by the element.
3
Appeal2014-000492
Application 12/647,624
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 11-15, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, and
29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wellman (US
2008/0154712 Al; pub. June 26, 2008), Douglas (US 2003/0069648 Al;
pub. Apr. 10, 2003), and Buchanan (US 2011/0107265 Al; pub. May 5,
2011).
The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wellman, Douglas, Buchanan, and Kelly (US
2008/0097944 Al; pub. Apr. 24, 2008).
The Examiner rejected claims 7, 22, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Wellman, Douglas, Buchanan, and Moore (US
2011/0107241 Al; pub. May 5, 2011).
The Examiner rejected claims 9, 10, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Wellman, Douglas, Buchanan, Ehrman (US 7, 171,3 81
B2; iss. Jan. 30, 2007), and Johnson (US 2009/0072977 Al; pub. Mar. 19,
2009).
The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wellman, Douglas, Buchanan, and Ehrman.
The Examiner rejected claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wellman, Douglas, Buchanan, and Vyas '468 (US
2004/0073468 Al; pub. Apr. 15, 2004).
The Examiner rejected claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wellman, Douglas, Buchanan, and Vyas '791 (US
2007/0078791 Al; pub. Apr. 5, 2007).
4
Appeal2014-000492
Application 12/647,624
Claim 1
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Wellman teaches the claimed impact report
mode, maintenance report mode, verify report mode, metrics report mode,
overview report mode, summary display mode, and trend display mode.
Final Act. 2--4. However, the Examiner acknowledges, "Wellman does not
explicitly disclose" certain limitations of claim 1 and relies on the teachings
of Douglas for the same. Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner finds that Douglas
teaches a list display mode and the ability of the computer system to
transition from the overview report mode to another report mode that is
selected in response to activation of a user input device, and wherein the
summary display mode, list display mode and the trend display mode is
selectable in response to a user activating the user input device to select an
element presented on the screen. Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner also
provides a reason for the combination of Wellman and Douglas. Final Act.
5. Nevertheless, the Examiner finds that "Wellman in view of Douglas does
not explicitly disclose" other limitations of claim 1 and relies on the
teachings of Buchanan for the same. Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that
Buchanan teaches an overview report that contains separate graphs each
summarizing report information from each different report mode. Final Act.
5. The Examiner also provides a reason for combining "the teachings of
Wellman in view of Douglas with the teachings of Buchanan." Final Act. 5-
6.
Appellants challenge the Examiner's findings arguing that the
Examiner has not identified any combination of references that teaches or
5
Appeal2014-000492
Application 12/647,624
discloses each of the report modes being displayed in the manner claim 1
requires. Appeal Br. 9-11; see also, e.g., id. at 10 ("The general statements
about reports being generated in Wellman fail to render obvious the specific
report modes with each one having the particular display modes recited in
claim 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6."). We agree.
The Examiner's apparent response to the foregoing argument is that:
The difference in the manner in which the information is
displayed and organized on the user interface does not establish
the invention's nonobviousness. In other words, it would be
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the data collected
and reports generated in the Wellman reference can be displayed
and organized in any number of configurations or arrangements
(including using a listing of all equipment as taught by Douglas),
and merely changing the way data is displayed does not render a
claim non obvious.
Ans. 27. However, the Examiner's statements are insufficient to support a
conclusion of obviousness. The Examiner's articulated reason fails to
address why or how one of skill in the art would have reached the claimed
invention, as it merely suggests that the claimed invention may be one of
"any number of configurations or arrangements" one of skill in the art may
have considered. See id. Consequently, the Examiner's speculative
rationale has not provided a factual basis, or any reasoning supported by
rational underpinnings, demonstrating that the prior art as combined by the
Examiner discloses or suggests summary, list and display modes that express
information about material handling vehicles in the specific way claim 1
requires. See KSR Int'!. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). For
example, the Examiner acknowledges that the combination of Wellman and
Douglas does not disclose the recited overview report mode having graphs
that summarize information from each report mode. Final Act. 5; see also
6
Appeal2014-000492
Application 12/647,624
App. Br. 7. The Examiner relies on Buchanan for this. Final Act. 5
(referencing Buchanan i-f 139 and Fig. 10); Ans. 24 (referencing Buchanan i-f
23). However, the Examiner does not elaborate as to how Buchanan's
dashboard of a graphic user interface displaying financial, advertisement,
and sports news renders "the claimed overview report mode, that contains
other kinds of data related to managing a plurality of material handling
vehicles, obvious to one of ordinary skill in that technical field."2 App. Br.
9.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1 and claims 2-7 which depend directly or indirectly
therefrom.
Claim 8
The Examiner relies upon Wellman for various teachings with respect
to claim 8, but finds that Wellman does not explicitly disclose, inter alia: "in
response to activating the user input device to select an element presented on
the screen in the first display mode, the computer system transitions to a
second display mode that presents information pertaining to only one
material handling vehicle designated by the element." Final Act. 10; Ans.
10 (emphasis omitted). For this teaching, the Examiner relies on Douglas,
2 The Examiner states that the goal of Buchanan is "to provide an attractive
and customizable and user-friendly interface" (Ans. 23) and also "Buchanan
teaches the use of an overview report mode where the data from different
report modes can be displayed [] simultaneously in separate graphs" (Ans.
24). However, the Examiner does not explain how Buchanan's user-friendly
interface (or dashboard view) makes obvious the limitation of the "overview
report mode presenting an overview report that contains separate graphs
each summarizing report information from a different one of the impact,
maintenance, verify, and metrics report modes."
7
Appeal2014-000492
Application 12/647,624
stating: "Douglas also teaches that additional information may be obtained
about each piece of equipment, or asset, by clicking on a display icon for
that object and launching additional more detailed screens. This 'drill down'
methodology may be used throughout the interface (see [a]t least Douglas
para. 80)." Final Act. 10; Ans. 10.
Appellants argue that Douglas does not teach or suggest a system
where "every one of the four basic report modes contains a first display
mode with a graph of data from numerous vehicles from which the user can
[] transition directly to a second display mode showing data for only one of
those vehicles." Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 2-3.
Rather, Appellants contend, "the Douglas reference provides a menu listing
all the available equipment reports and to transition from one type of report
to another, the user must return to the report menu, shown in Figure 8 (Fig.
8, last 4 lines of i-f 0093)." Appeal Br. 12.
As an initial matter, we review the language of claim 8 to determine
whether or not claim 8 requires that user be able to "directly" transition to a
second display mode as Appellants argue. The relevant claim language is
"in response to activating the user input device to select an element
presented on the screen in the first display mode, the computer system
transitions to a second display mode .... " Appeal Br. A-3, Claims App.
(emphasis added). A key question is whether the emphasized language
requires that a single action transitions the system from a first to a second
display mode. The articles "a" or "an" mean "one or more," absent clear
evidence to the contrary. See KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, 223 F.3d
1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Here, Appellants evidence a clear intent to
limit "an element" to a single element - an element presented on the screen
8
Appeal2014-000492
Application 12/647,624
in the first display mode. Appellants' Specification describes the process by
which a user selects an element in a first display mode which causes
transition to a second display mode and, when in the second display mode,
the user can select an element in the second display mode which causes
transition to a third display mode. See, e.g., Spec. i-fi-184--89. In other words,
it is the selection of a single element in the first display mode that causes the
transition from the first display mode to the second display mode.
Appellants' Specification is consistent in its description of such a direct
transition from a first to a second display mode. See, e.g., Spec. i-f 12. In our
view, the foregoing is sufficient to demonstrate that Appellants' recitation of
"an element" in the disputed limitation of claim 8 is properly construed as a
single element. 3
In light of our construction, we agree with Appellants that Douglas
does not teach or suggest the disputed elements of claim 8. Douglas
explains that its system may generate "various summary reports of location
and status information" and that "[a] user may obtain specific information by
selecting a report that meets their needs." Douglas i193 (referring to Figures
8-11 ). As shown in Figure 8 of Douglas, one may select from such "various
summary reports" via a menu. Id. at Fig. 8. We do not find in Douglas any
disclosure that one can directly transition from a first display mode of a
report to a second display mode of a report. Rather, our reading of Douglas
is that a user must leave a first display and access one of the various
summary reports at Figures 8-11 of Douglas before the user can see
different displays of information regarding the material handling vehicles.
3 We note also that claim 8 concludes by referring to "the element," which is
singular.
9
Appeal2014-000492
Application 12/647,624
See id. iii! 80, 93; see also id. Fig. 8. As argued by Appellants, this is in
contrast to claim 8' s requirement that user may select an element presented
on the screen in the first display mode to transition to a second display mode
that presents information pertaining to only one material handling vehicle
designated by the element.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 8 and claims 9-22 which depend directly or indirectly
therefrom.
Claim 23
Claim 23 includes a limitation similar to the limitation discussed
supra with respect to claim 8. Similarly, the Examiner relies upon Douglas
to disclose that limitation. See Ans. 34--35. For the same reasons stated
with respect to claim 8 supra, we also do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 23 and claims 24--30 which depend directly or indirectly
therefrom.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-30.
REVERSED
10