Ex Parte Von Mezynski

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 14, 2016

13158983 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/158,983 06/13/2011
30689 7590 07114/2016
DEERE & COMPANY
ONE JOHN DEERE PLACE
MOLINE, IL 61265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
CHRISTIAN VON MEZYNSKI
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.
P20201-US 1575
EXAMINER
INGRAM, THOMAS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2016 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 CHRISTIAN VON MEZYNSKI
Appeal 2014-006545 1,2
Application 13/158,983
Technology Center 3600
Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 2--4 and 6-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellant's Specification ("Spec.," filed June 13,
2011), Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Nov. 21, 2013), and Reply Brief
("Reply Br.," filed May 8, 2014), as well as the Final Office Action ("Final
Action," mailed May 31, 2013) and the Examiner's Answer ("Answer,"
mailed Mar. 20, 2014 ).
2 According to Appellant, "[t]he real party in interest is Deere & Company."
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-006545
Application 13/158,983
According to Appellant, the invention "provid[ es J a system for
controlling [an] orientation of [an] implement illumination with respect to an
implement coupled to a utility vehicle." Spec. 2, 11. 5-7. Independent
claim 6, which we reproduce below as representative of the appealed claims,
is the only independent claim under appeal.
6. In a utility vehicle to which an implement is
removably coupled thereto, the utility vehicle having a vehicle
control unit and a light source mounted on the vehicle for
illuminating the implement, the light source having an
orientation and a light cone, and a control system for controlling
the light source, the control system comprising:
an actuator connected to the vehicle control unit, the
actuator adjusting at least one of the orientation and an opening
angle of the light cone;
an implement control unit mounted on the implement; and
a data bus connected to the vehicle control unit and to the
implement control unit, wherein the implement control unit
controls the implement and transmits to the vehicle control unit,
via the data bus, data regarding the implement, the vehicle
control unit controlling the actuator as a function of the data
transmitted by the implement control unit.
Appeal Br., Claims App.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 2--4, 6, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over DE 20 2004 004 805 Ul (iss. Sept. 8, 2005) ("DE '805")3
and Drummond (US 7 ,216,555 B2, iss. May 15, 2007).
3 All references to DE '805 throughout this Decision are to the English
language translation provided to Appellant by the Examiner on January 30,
2013, with a Non-Final Office Action.
2
Appeal2014-006545
Application 13/158,983
The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over DE '805, Drummond, and Nelson (US 2008/0228360 Al,
pub. Sept. 18, 2008).4
See Final Action 3-7; see also Answer 2.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 6, from which claims 2--4 and 7-9 depend, recites
an implement control unit that controls an implement. See Appeal Br.,
Claims App. The Examiner relies on DE '805's control unit 26 to teach the
claimed implement control unit. See, e.g., Final Action 4; see also, e.g.,
Answer 3--4. Further, the Examiner relies on DE '805's boom 12 to teach
the claimed implement. See id. at 4 ("[C]ontrol unit 26 can send a command
to have the headlights focused on the load carried by the implement.").
Inasmuch as the Examiner fails to establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that DE '805's control unit 26 controls boom 12, we do not sustain
the rejection of claim 6. See Appeal Br. 3; see also Reply Br. 3--4.
More specifically, although the Examiner relies on DE '805's
paragraphs 13 and 14 to teach that control unit 26 controls an implement
(see Final Action 4; see also Answer 3-5), neither paragraph describes
clearly that control unit 26 controls boom 12 or any other implement. See
DE '805 i-fi-f 13-14. Rather, as far as we can determine, the referenced
4 Although Appellant does not identify this rejection in the grounds of
rejection to be reviewed on appeal section of the Appeal Brief, Appellant
raises argument directed to claims 7 and 8. Compare Appeal Br. 3 with
id. at 3, 5. Because Appellant's argument directed to the rejection of claim 6
applies equally with respect to the rejection of claims 7 and 8, which depend
from claim 6, we address this rejection as well.
3
Appeal2014-006545
Application 13/158,983
portions of DE '805 disclose that control unit 26 controls headlights 18 and
actuator 20, on which the Examiner relies to teach the claimed light source
and actuator, respectively, to follow movement of a load supported by
boom 12. See id.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1, or the rejection of dependent claims 2--4 and 9.
Further, inasmuch as the Examiner does not establish that any other
reference remedies the deficiency in the rejection of claim 6, we do not
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 7 and 8.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 2--4
and 6-9.
REVERSED
4