Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2017

12615830 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 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.
12/615,830 11/10/2009 Guoping Wang 19006(1016.181) 1347
41052 7590 08/02/2017
CNH INDUSTRIAL AMERICA LLC
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW DEPARTMENT
700 STATE STREET
RACINE, WI53404
EXAMINER
TISSOT, ADAM D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2017 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):
napatent @ cnhind. com
vannette.azarian @ cnhind.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GUOPING WANG, KEITH WENDTE, CHARLES JOHNSON,
MARVIN PRICKEL, and JOHN POSSELIUS
Appeal 2015-007839
Application 12/615,830
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Guoping Wang et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—11 and 13—21, which are
the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies CNH Industrial America LLC, as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-007839
Application 12/615,830
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ disclosure “relates generally to agricultural implements
and, more particularly, to a steering system for an agricultural implement,
such as a towed planter, that can automatically steer the implement during
field operations or road transport.” Spec. 11.
Claims 1, 11, 19, and 21 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. An agricultural implement adapted to be towed by
a prime mover, comprising:
an implement frame supported by a pair of inner wheels
disposed between a pair of outer wheels and a hitch point for
hitching the frame to the prime mover, each inner wheel
pivotable about a pivot axis;
said implement frame supports a plurality of spaced apart
row units that deposit granular material onto a planting surface;
a steering sensor that measures angular position of the
inner wheels relative to their respective pivot axes, and provides
a first feedback signal;
a field implement sensor mounted to the frame and
operative to provide a field position feedback signal
corresponding to the position of the frame;
a steering controller including a microprocessor
operatively connected to the steering sensor and the field
implement sensor for receiving the first feedback signal and the
field position feedback signal and being configured to generate a
steering control signal in response thereto; and
a steering device operatively connected to the steering
controller and configured to receive the steering control signal
therefrom, the steering device turning the inner wheels according
to the steering control signal so as to steer the implement frame
relative to the prime mover during towing.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal 2015-007839
Application 12/615,830
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1—7 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Viaud (US 6,431,576 Bl, issued Aug. 13, 2002), Wilger
(US 4,709,857, issued Dec. 1, 1987), and Meier (US 7,410,004 B2, issued
Aug. 12, 2008).
II. Claims 8—11 and 13—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Viaud, Wilger, Meier, and McClure (US 7,373,231 B2,
issued May 13, 2008).
ANALYSIS
I: Obviousness of claims 1—7 and 21 over Viaud, Wilger, and Meier
Claims 1—7
As to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Viaud discloses, inter alia, a
steering sensor 62, 64, 66 (wheel position sensors 62, 64, 66) that measures
the angular position of wheels 22, 23 relative to their axes, and provides a
first feedback signal (citing Viaud, col. 3,11. 15—21, Fig. 5); a field
implement sensor 24 (sensor 24) mounted to a frame 16 and operative to
provide a field position feedback signal corresponding to the position of
frame 16 (citing id. at col. 2,11. 45—48, col. 3,11. 46—59); a steering controller
70 (control unit 70) including a microprocessor operatively connected to
steering sensor 62, 64, 66 and field implement sensor 24 for receiving both
feedback signals and configured to generate a steering control signal in
response thereto; and a steering device 26, 28 (positioning device 26, control
device 28) operatively connected to steering controller 70. Final Act. 2—3.
Appellants contend that, in Viaud, the output (line 44 or 50) of sensor
24 is connected to a cylinder, whereas the outputs of position sensors 62, 64,
66, and 68 are connected to control unit 70. Appeal Br. 10; see Viaud, Figs.
3
Appeal 2015-007839
Application 12/615,830
1,5. Appellants contend that the output of sensor 24 is merely hydraulically
connected to a cylinder, in contrast to claim 1 requiring the outputs of both
the steering sensor and the field implement sensor to be operatively
connected to a microprocessor of a steering controller. Id. Appellants also
contend that claim 1 further requires the steering controller to generate a
steering control signal in response to the outputs of the steering sensor and
field implement sensor, but, in Viaud, a signal corresponding to the position
of the frame is not provided to control unit 70, and, consequently, this
information is not used by a steering controller to generate a steering control
signal. Id.
The Examiner disagrees with Appellants’ position that sensor 24 does
not send a signal to the microprocessor because it is “merely hydraulically
connected to a cylinder.” Ans. 2—3; see Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner
explains that a sensor is an electrical device that generates electrical signals,
and an electrical signal from such sensor would be useless if it were “merely
hydraulically connected to a cylinder.” Id. at 3. The Examiner adds that
“[a]n electrical element itself cannot be ‘hydraulically connected.’” Id.
Figure 1 of Viaud depicts sensor 24 as including a cylinder 30, piston
and rod assembly 36, and chambers 42, 46. See Viaud, col. 2,11. 39-43, col.
3,11. 1—3. Lines 44, 50 connect chambers 42, 46 to chambers 43, 48,
respectively, of positioning device 26. See id. at col. 2,1. 66—col. 3,1. 3.
Viaud describes operation of sensor 24, as follows:
As a function of this steering angle, the sensor 24 transmits an
output value, that is, one of the lines 44 or 50 is supplied with
pressure by the piston 36 as it slides in the cylinder 30, whereby
one of the regions 44 [sic.] or 46 [sic.] of the positioning device
26 is supplied with pressure.
Viaud, col. 3,11. 51—55 (emphasis added), Fig. 1.
4
Appeal 2015-007839
Application 12/615,830
According to Examiner, this description:
cannot be interpreted as an electric output directly into a
hydraulic system, and must be understood as two separate
elements'. “the sensor 24 transmits an output value,” and as a
result “one of the lines 44 or 50 is supplied with pressure by the
piston 36 as it slides in the cylinder.” The field implement sensor
in Viaud, contrary to Appellant’s contention, must be sending the
electrical sensor signal to an electrical element that can use and
process such a signal to create the pressure changes in the
hydraulic system.
Ans. 3 (emphasis added). The Examiner also finds that the signal from
sensor 24 is sent to the same microprocessor as the signal from the steering
sensor. Id. at 4.
We agree with Appellants that Viaud does not support the Examiner’s
position that sensor 24 “is an electrical device which provides an electrical
signal to the microprocessor.” Reply Br. 5—6. Sensor 24 is connected to
positioning device 26 via lines 44, 50, which supply pressure to positioning
device 26 as a result of piston 36 sliding in cylinder 30 of sensor 24. We
understand that the “output value” transmitted by Viaud’s sensor 24
corresponds to the pressure supplied to line 44 or 50. Viaud does not
otherwise describe that the “output value” is separate from, or precedes, the
supplied pressure. In addition, Viaud does not describe that the “output
value” is an “electric output” or an “electric signal,” or that positioning
device 26 includes any electrical element that could receive such electric
signal. Absent such disclosure, the Examiner’s position that Viaud’s sensor
24 must be sending an electrical signal to an electrical element is not
supported by sufficient evidence.
Referencing Figure 5 of Viaud, the Examiner states that “[t]he
microprocessor also receives an input from the field implement sensor [24]
5
Appeal 2015-007839
Application 12/615,830
via a ‘control device sensor’ [68].” Ans. 4 (citing Viaud, col. 3,11. 13—36,
Fig. 5). According to the Examiner, control device sensor 68 “has a
representation of the field implement deflection sensor [24] as an input to
the microprocessor . . . .” Id. The Examiner determines that for the control
unit of Viaud to be automatically activated when the implement is following
the vehicle along a curved path, “the microprocessor must receive signals of
both the wheel deflection and the vehicle-implement steering angle, or else
the microprocessor would not know when to activate and begin controlling
the wheel.” Ans. 5.
Appellants contest the Examiner’s finding that Viaud’s control device
sensor 68 supplies the position of the implement relative to the prime mover
as an input to the microprocessor. Reply Br. 6—7. Appellants contend that
Figures 3 and 4 of Viaud show that the angle between the implement and the
prime mover is constant, although the position of control device 28 has
moved. Id. at 7. Appellants contend that this shows the position of control
device 28 supplied to the microprocessor by control device sensor 68 does
not correspond to the angle between the implement and the prime mover. Id.
We agree with these contentions. We also note that Viaud’s control
unit 70 is connected to control device 28 via hydraulic control lines 72, 74,
and control device 28 is connected to positioning device 26 by pistons 40,
38. Viaud, col. 3,11. 5—12, Figs. 1, 5. Figure 5 of Viaud shows that wheel
position sensors 62, 64, 66 and control device sensor 68 are connected to
control device 70. Viaud does not disclose that sensor 24 is connected to
control device sensor 68 or control unit 70, such that control unit 70 receives
a field position feedback signal from sensor 24 via control device sensor 68.
6
Appeal 2015-007839
Application 12/615,830
The Examiner relies on Wilger to teach an implement frame including
outer wheels 14, 16 outside of inner driving wheels. Final Act. 3 (citing
Wilger, Fig. 1, col. 4,11. 17—26). The Examiner relies on Meier to teach a
steered implement frame 24 supporting a plurality of row units 51, 53. Id.
(citing Meier, Fig. 1, col. 4,11. 28—62, col. 7,11. 12—28). As such, the
Examiner’s application of Wilger and Meier does not cure the deficiencies
of the Examiner’s reliance on Viaud.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2—
7 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Viaud, Wilger, and Meier.
Claim 21
Claim 21 recites limitations similar to those in claim 1 discussed
above. Appeal Br. 21—22 (Claims App.). The Examiner’s findings and
reasoning for claim 21 are the same as for claim 1. Final Act. 2—3.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 21 as unpatentable
over Viaud, Wilger, and Meier.
II: Obviousness of claims 8—11 and 13—20 over Viaud, Wilger, Meier, and
McClure
Claims 8—10
The Examiner’s use of McClure to reject dependent claims 8—10 fails
to cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1. Final Act. 5.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8—10 as unpatentable
over Viaud, Wilger, Meier, and McClure.
Claims 11 and 13—18
Claim 11 recites limitations similar to those in claim 1 discussed
above. Appeal Br. 18—19 (Claims App.). The Examiner’s use of McClure
fails to cure the deficiencies of Viaud, Wilger, and Meier with respect to
7
Appeal 2015-007839
Application 12/615,830
claim 11. Final Act. 5. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 11, and claims 13—18 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over
Viaud, Wilger, Meier, and McClure.
Claims 19 and 20
Claim 19 recites, inter alia, “a towing angle sensor that measures
angular displacement between the implement frame and the prime mover
and provides a towing angle feedback signal” and
a steering controller including a microprocessor
operatively connected to the steering sensor and the field
implement sensor for receiving the towing angle feedback signal
and the wheel angle feedback signal, the steering controller
generating a steering control signal in response to the towing
angle feedback signal and the wheel angle feedback signal....
Appeal Br. 20-21 (Claims App., emphasis added. The Examiner does not
mention the claimed “towing angle sensor.” Final Act. 5. To the extent the
Examiner relies on Viaud’s sensor 24 to teach the claim limitations relating
to the “towing angle sensor,” Viaud’s disclosure with regard to sensor 24
also does not support such findings for claim 19. In addition, the
Examiner’s use of McClure does not cure the deficiencies of Viaud, Wilger,
and Meier with respect to the claimed subject matter. Final Act. 5.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 19, and claim 20
depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Viaud, Wilger, Meier, and
McClure.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—11 and 13—21 is reversed.
REVERSED
8