Ex Parte Steckel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 18, 2016

11768307 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111768,307 0612612007
7590
Striker, Striker & Stenby
103 East Neck Road
Huntington, NY 11743
10/18/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thilo Steckel
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.
4109 2823
EXAMINER
TRAN,BAOG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
10/18/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THILO STECKEL, HEINZ-HERMANN WIPPERSTEG, and
HANS-PETER GROTHAUS
Appeal2015-005574
Application 11/768,307
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 7, 10 through 16, and 18 through 25. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-005574
Application 11/768,307
TI'~VENTION
The invention is directed to a device for configuring data for the
control of a mobile agricultural working machine. See Specification 6.
Claim 19 is representative and reproduced below:
19. A device for data configuration and provision for
mobile agricultural working machines, comprising:
a mobile agricultural working machine configured
with a control and evaluation unit; and
a computer server, separate from the working
machine, controlled by a manufacturer of the working
machine to operate a website at which an individualized
and editable data record comprising machine-specific data
is maintained for the working machine;
wherein the manufacturer pre-assigns the working
machine a machine-specific ID address in an
individualized manner using the working machine's control
and evaluation unit at the time the machine is delivered to
a recipient of the working machine such that the
individualized and editable data record is accessible at the
website by at least the working machine via the ID address
thereby enabling exchange of the machine-specific data by
at least the working machine and the manufacturer; and
wherein the individualized and editable data record
enables the recipient to use the machine-specific data to
optimize the working machine's working sequences within
a process chain.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claim 7, 10 through 16, and 18 through 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Buchholz (U.S.
2
Appeal2015-005574
Application 11/768,307
2007/0109984 1A .. I; l\1ay 17, 2007) and Sieminski (2003/0093159 Al; l\1ay
15, 2003). Final Act. 7-15. 1
ISSUES
Appellants argue on pages 10 through 19 of the Appeal Brief the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 19 and 21 is in error. These
arguments present us with the issues:
a) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Buchholz and
Sieminski teaches the limitations of the independent claims?
b) Did the Examiner err in by not providing an adequate motivation to
combine the teachings of Buchholz and Sieminski?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. The Examiner has provided a
comprehensive response to each of Appellants' arguments on pages 2
through 10 of the Answer. We have reviewed the Examiner's responses and
the evidence relied upon, agree with the Examiner's findings, and are not
persuaded of error by Appellants' arguments. Specifically, the Examiner
finds that Sieminski teaches an irrigation controller which meets the claimed
agricultural working machine. Answer 2-3. The Examiner finds the
irrigation controller has, unique identifier, which the Examiner equates to
the claimed "ID address," that is used in connection with a separate server to
1 Throughout the opinion we refer to the Appellants' Appeal Brief, dated
July 21, 2014; Final Office Action dated March 25, 2014; and the
Examiner's Answer, mailed March 11, 2015.
3
Appeal2015-005574
Application 11/768,307
address the irrigation controller. i\~nsvver 3--4. Further, the Examiner finds
that Buchholz teaches a device which can be used in agriculture environment
and is preconfigured, requiring minimal user setup, which meets the claimed
"configuring the working machine with an editable machine-individualized
data record." Answer 5---6. We concur with the Examiner's findings and are
not persuaded by Appellants' arguments, which cite insufficient evidence to
support the assertions that the Examiner is in error. Further, Appellants'
arguments directed to the lack of motivation to combine the references is not
persuasive. The Supreme Court has stated that "[t]he obviousness analysis
cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching,
suggestion, and motivation." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
419 (2007). The Examiner has provided a reasoned rationale on page 11 of
the Final Action. Accordingly, Appellants' have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner's rejection and we sustain the Examiner's rejection.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 7, 10 through 16, and
18 through 25.
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
4