CNH Industrial America LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 30, 2021

2020004734 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2021)

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.
15/442,031 02/24/2017 Brady Dorr Lewis 52896 (CNHA:0531) 1332
108468 7590 04/30/2021
CNH Industrial America LLC
500 Diller Avenue
New Holland, PA 17557
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CUONG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/30/2021 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):
barb.macmaster@external.cnhind.com
barbara.weaver@cnhind.com
napatent@cnhind.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRADY DORR LEWIS
Appeal 2020-004734
Application 15/442,031
Technology Center 3600
Before DANIEL S. SONG, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.
SONG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
CNH Industrial America LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-004734
Application 15/442,031

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a system and method for controlling an arm
of a work vehicle. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. An arm control system for a work vehicle, comprising:
a controller comprising a memory and a processor,
wherein the controller is configured to:
receive a signal indicative of a type of implement
coupled to an arm of the work vehicle;
enable movement of the arm between a lowered
position and a raised position while the type of
implement is an unrestricted-height implement; and
enable movement of the arm between the lowered
position and an intermediate position and block upward
movement of the arm beyond the intermediate position
while the type of implement is a restricted-height
implement;
wherein the arm is configured to position the
unrestricted-height implement at a first height while the
arm is in the raised position, the arm is configured to
position the restricted-height implement at a second
height while the arm is in the intermediate position, and
the second height is below the first height.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App., emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Takemura US 2005/0034336 A1 Feb. 17, 2005
Dal Dosso US 2015/0368080 A1 Dec. 24, 2015
Miura US 2015/0373545 A1 Dec. 24, 2015
Singh US 2016/0108602 A1 Apr. 21, 2016

Appeal 2020-004734
Application 15/442,031

3
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–7 and 9–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Singh in view of Miura and Dal Dasso. Final
Act. 4.
2. Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Singh in view of Miura, Dal Dosso, and Takemura. Final
Act. 8.
OPINION
Rejection 1: Claims 1–7 and 9–19
Claims 1–7 and 9–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Singh in view of Miura and Dal Dasso. Final Act. 4. The
Appellant argues that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness with respect to independent claims 1, 10, and 15. Appeal
Br. 7. In that regard, the Appellant argues the independent claims 1, 10,
and 15 together, correctly noting that the claims recite similar subject matter.
Appeal Br. 7; see also Ans. 3 (“Independent claim 1 is used as a
representation of appellant’s arguments because it covers similar features in
independent claims 10, and 15.”). Thus, we select claim 1 as representative.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
As to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Singh discloses an
arm control system having a controller, but fails to disclose that the
controller is “configured to[] receive a signal indicative of a type of
implement coupled to an arm of the work vehicle.” Final Act. 4. The
Examiner also finds that Singh fails to disclose the “wherein” recitation
pertaining to the arm being configured to position the unrestricted-height
implement and restricted-height implement at different heights. Final Act. 5.
Appeal 2020-004734
Application 15/442,031

4
The Examiner finds that both Miura and Dal Dosso remedy the
deficiencies of Singh, including “receiv[ing] a signal indicative of a type of
implement coupled to an arm of the work vehicle” as claimed. Final Act. 4
(citing Miura ¶¶ 73, 130; Dal Dosso ¶¶ 3, 17). In that regard, the Examiner
points out that Dal Dosso also “suggest[s] that an operator can limit/control
movements of an implement while it is under a restriction.” Final Act. 5
(citing Dal Dosso Figs. 6a, 6b). The Examiner concludes that:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to implement Singh et al. with Miura et al., and Dal Dosso et
al. to use computer/controller to set conditions sequentially (a
condition is required while satisfying another condition) to
control an implement of a work vehicle because changing a
required condition on a controller using software has been
notoriously done (including applications in vehicle fields).
Final Act. 5.
The Appellant argues that “the [E]xaminer has failed to indicate how
the cited references disclose receiving a signal indicative of a type of
implement coupled to an arm of the work vehicle,” and that “the cited
sections of Miura and Dal Dosso do not appear to disclose this element.”
Appeal Br. 7. We agree with the Appellant.
As the Appellant points out, the portions of Miura relied upon by the
Examiner “merely disclose that ‘[v]arious types of working units (in the
illustrated example, a cultivator) [15] can be attached/detached to/from the
three-point link mechanism [14]’,” and “do not appear to disclose receiving
a signal indicative of the type of working unit that is attached to the three-
point link mechanism.” Appeal Br. 7 (quoting Miura ¶ 130); see also Reply
Br. 4. Indeed, the Appellant is correct in further arguing that, although
Miura disclose the process of setting the limits, it “disclose[s] manually
Appeal 2020-004734
Application 15/442,031

5
setting an upper limit of the boom height.” Appeal Br. 7–8 (citing Miura
¶¶ 213, 222–224); see also Miura Figs. 18(a)–18(e).
The Appellant is also correct that the portions of Dal Dosso relied
upon by the Examiner merely disclose that various types of attachments and
material handling equipment may be used with the disclosed forklift, and
fails to disclose “receiving a signal indicative of the type of attachment
mounted on the carriage.” Appeal Br. 8; Dal Dosso ¶¶ 3, 17; see also Reply
Br. 3. Based on our review, it is not apparent how either Miura or Dal
Dosso discloses “receiv[ing] a signal indicative of a type of implement
coupled to an arm of the work vehicle” as found by the Examiner.
The initial findings with respect to the deficiencies of Singh
notwithstanding, the Examiner responds that Singh “obviously suggest[s]
about receiving a signal indicative of a type of implement.” Ans. 3 (citing
Singh ¶ 40). However, as the Appellant points out, the cited paragraph of
Singh “teaches that sensors may be used to monitor the position and/or
orientation of various components,” and does not “provide any indication
that the sensors are used for ‘recognition’ of the implement.” Reply Br. 2;
see also Singh ¶ 40. It is not apparent, nor does the Examiner adequately
explain, how the disclosed sensors of Singh that allow for positioning or
orienting the arms and/or monitoring of the implement satisfy the limitation
at issue.
The Examiner further asserts that “[i]t would have been well-known
to one of ordinary skill in the art . . . to implement Singh et al., with Miura et
al., or Dal Dosso’s disclosure for a certain requirement to use certain
implement for different assignments which has been a required practice in
the field,” and that “this has been a clear articulated reasoning to support the
Appeal 2020-004734
Application 15/442,031

6
legal conclusion of obviousness to prevent any obstruction/accident while
performing an assignment.” Ans. 8. However, the evidentiary basis for the
Examiner’s assertion, and articulated reasoning for the obviousness
conclusion, are lacking. Based on our review, the art does establish limiting
movement of an articulating arm of a working machine to account for safety
and capacity. However, in contrast to the Examiner’s findings, the art does
not disclose a controller configured to “receive a signal indicative of a type
of implement coupled to an arm of the work vehicle” as recited by claim 1,
and the articulated rejection does not adequately address this deficiency in
the art applied in the rejection.
The Examiner further asserts Miura or Dal Dasso “also suggest[s] a
type of implement for/associating a certain assignment (e.g., using ID
registration of implements for that recognition: a bucket, a snow plow, a fork
lift, a trench digger[,] etc.).” Ans. 8. Although the prior art does disclose
using different implements, the ID registration referred to by the Examiner
as disclosed in Miura pertains to allowing/establishing data communication
between a mobile terminal and the control device, and it is not apparent, nor
does the Examiner adequately explain, how such a disclosure is relevant to
the limitation at issue. See Miura Abst.
Therefore, in view of the above, we agree with the Appellant that the
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to independent claim 1, and we reverse this rejection of claims 1–7
and 9–19. The Appellant’s further arguments directed to the “wherein”
limitation pertaining to the controller enabling movement of the arm are
moot. Appeal Br. 8–12.

Appeal 2020-004734
Application 15/442,031

7
Rejection 2: Claims 8 and 20
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Singh in view of Miura, Dal Dosso, and Takernura. Final
Act. 8. The Appellant relies on dependency on either independent claim 1 or
15 for patentability of the rejected claims, correctly noting that the
Examiner’s application of Takemura “does not obviate the deficiencies of
Singh, Miura, and Dal Dosso.” Appeal Br. 12. Accordingly, we reverse this
rejection as well.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9–19 103(a) Singh, Miura,
Dal Dasso
1–7, 9–19
8, 20 103(a) Singh, Miura,
Dal Dasso,
Takemura
8, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED