11148870 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 16, 2010)

Ex Parte Lange

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 16, 2010

11148870 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 16, 2010)

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. 11/148,870 06/09/2005 Arthur F. Lange A1732 9487 27055 7590 09/17/2010 DAVID R. GILDEA MENLO PATENT AGENCY LLC 435 HERMOSA WAY MENLO PARK, CA 94025 EXAMINER DAGER, JONATHAN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3663 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/17/2010 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 ARTHUR F. LANGE ____________ Appeal 2009-007869 Application 11/148,870 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before: LINDA E. HORNER, JOHN C. KERINS, and FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-007869 Application 11/148,870 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Arthur F. Lange (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-10 and 31-33. Claims 11-30 are withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention is an apparatus that uses global positioning system (GPS) locations for dynamically adjusting a farm implement side-to-side to match a predetermined geographic path. Spec. 1:10-12. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A farming apparatus for guiding an implement in a turn between swaths, comprising: a GPS receiver for determining a GPS position for a farm implement propelled by a powered vehicle; and a turn computer including a turn path calculator configured to determine a turn path based on an end position of a first swath and a start position of a second swath; and a GPS cross track error (XTE) calculator configured to compare said GPS position to said turn path for providing a GPS XTE, said GPS XTE for steering said vehicle along said turn path. THE REJECTIONS Appellant seeks review of the following Examiner’s rejections: 1. Rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Mailer (US 6,876,920 B1, issued Apr. 5, 2005). Ans. 4. 2. Rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mailer and Dix (US 2006/0142936 A1, issued Jun. 29, 2006). Ans. 9. Appeal 2009-007869 Application 11/148,870 3 3. Rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mailer, Dix, and Nielsen (US 6,131,062, issued Oct. 10, 2000). Ans. 10. 4. Rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mailer and TRI-R INNOVATIONS, INC (pictures of Robotic Driver® Model IV, January 2, 1990). Ans. 11. 5. Rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mailer, TRI-R INNOVATIONS, and Kagawa (US 6,185,492 B1, issued Feb. 6, 2001). Ans. 12. 6. Rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mailer, TRI-R INNOVATIONS, Kagawa, and Hrazdera (US 2005/0055147 A1, issued Mar. 10, 2005). Ans. 13. 7. Rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mailer and Hrazdera. Ans. 14. 8. Rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mailer and Flann (US 7,228,214 B2, issued Jun. 5, 2007). Ans. 16. ISSUE Appellant argues that Mailer does not disclose a GPS cross track error calculator configured to compare the GPS position to the turn path for providing a GPS XTE for steering the vehicle along the turn path as called for in independent claim 1. Br. 22-25. The issue presented by this appeal is: Does Mailer disclose a GPS cross track error calculator configured to compare the GPS position to the turn path for providing a GPS XTE for steering the vehicle along the turn path? Appeal 2009-007869 Application 11/148,870 4 ANALYSIS Independent claim 1, which is the sole independent claim on appeal, is directed to a farming apparatus for guiding an implement that includes a GPS cross track error calculator configured to compare the GPS position to the turn path for providing a GPS XTE for steering the vehicle along the turn path. As claimed, the turn path is the route from the end position of a first swath to the start position of a second swath. Appellant’s Specification describes swaths 11 and 111 as each having rows 13A-E created by an implement 130 pulled behind a powered vehicle 14. Spec. 24, ll. 1-7; fig. 10. We interpret claim 1 to call for the GPS cross track calculator to compare the GPS position of the farming apparatus to the route from the end position of a first swath to the start position of a second swath. Mailer discloses a guidance assist system 10 that includes a central processor 19, a position sensor 23, a visual display 25, a data entry unit 27, and a mechanized steering assist unit 21. Mailer, col. 4, ll. 10-14; fig. 2. Mailer’s system 10 can assist in directing a tractor 5 either back and forth along parallel waylines (“the parallel line embodiment”), or alternatively, along waylines that form concentric polygons (“the concentric polygons embodiment”). Mailer, col. 1, l. 66-col. 2, l. 6; col. 3, ll. 65-66; figs. 1 (parallel lines), 1A (concentric polygons). In operation of the parallel line embodiment, as tractor 5 nears the end of a wayline (e.g. wayline 47), the operator selects a left turn, right turn, or a turn back2, triggering the microprocessor 19 to select the next wayline to be 2 A turn back, or vehicle reverse (54), is a return to the previously finished wayline, beginning at the waypoint that ended the previous pass. Mailer, col. 5, ll. 59-60, col. 6, ll. 10-13; fig. 4. Appeal 2009-007869 Application 11/148,870 5 followed and the direction the tractor is to move along that wayline. Mailer, col. 5, ll. 56-64. For example, as the tractor 5 approaches waypoint B (the end point of wayline 47), the operator selects the turn left command, causing microprocessor 19 to set the current wayline to wayline 51 (the line immediately left of the tractor 5 at that point). Mailer, col. 5, ll. 56-57, 64- 67; fig. 4. Then microprocessor 19 “will compare the positional data from position sensor 23 with wayline 51,” and corresponding steering commands are sent to steering assist unit 21. Mailer, col. 5, l. 67 – col. 6, l. 3; fig. 4. Thus, in the parallel line embodiment, Mailer’s GPS cross track calculator (microprocessor 19) does not compare the GPS position of the farming apparatus (tractor 5) to the route from the end position of a first swath (wayline 47) to the start position of a second swath (wayline 51). Rather, Mailer’s GPS cross track calculator (microprocessor 19) compares the GPS position of the farming apparatus (tractor 5) to the next swath (wayline 51). Mailer, col. 5, l. 67 – col. 6, l. 3; fig. 4. In operation of the concentric polygons embodiment, the end waypoint of one wayline is also the beginning waypoint of the next wayline. Mailer, col. 6, ll. 18-23; fig. 1A.3 Thus, in the concentric polygons embodiment Mailer’s GPS cross track calculator (microprocessor 19) does not compare the GPS position of the farming apparatus (tractor 5) to the route from the end position of a first swath (waypoint 42B) to the start position of a second swath (waypoint 42B). Rather, because the end position of a first swath and the start position of a second swath are a single 3 For example, waypoint 42B is the end waypoint of direction vector (wayline) 44A, and is also the starting waypoint for the next direction vector (not labeled) which is defined by waypoints 42B and 42C. Appeal 2009-007869 Application 11/148,870 6 point, there is no route for comparison because a single point cannot define a route. Neither of Mailer’s embodiments anticipates claim 1. Claims 2, 5, 32, and 33 depend, directly or indirectly from independent claim 1, and also are not anticipated by Mailer by virtue of that dependence. Claims 3, 4, 6-10, and 31 also depend from independent claim 1. While the rejection of these claims (rejections 2-8) add other references, each rejection relies upon the same underlying finding that Mailer discloses a GPS cross track error calculator configured to compare the GPS position to the turn path for providing a GPS XTE for steering the vehicle along the turn path. For the reasons explained in the analysis of claim 1, supra, this finding is incorrect, and these rejections are also in error. CONCLUSIONS Mailer does not disclose a GPS cross track error calculator configured to compare the GPS position to the turn path for providing a GPS XTE for steering the vehicle along the turn path as called for in claim 1. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-10 and 31- 33. REVERSED Appeal 2009-007869 Application 11/148,870 7 mls DAVID R. GILDEA MENLO PATENT AGENCY LLC 435 HERMOSA WAY MENLO PARK CA 94025