Ex Parte Noffsinger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 7, 2018

14221624 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/221,624 03/21/2014 Joseph Forrest Noffsinger
91959 7590 06/11/2018
GE GPO- Transportation- The Small Patent Law Group
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
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.
270094-3 us
(552-0215US)
CONFIRMATION NO.
1066
EXAMINER
WHITTINGTON, JESS G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/11/2018 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):
gpo.mail@ge.com
marie.gerrie@ge.com
lori.E.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH FORREST NOFFSINGER,
AJITH KUTTANNAIR KUMAR, JEFFREY MICHAEL FRIES,
JARED KLINEMAN COOPER, and STEVEN EHRET
Appeal2017-008783
Application 14/221,624
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES P. CALVE, RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Office Action
rejecting claims 1-23. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 General Electric Company is identified as the real party in interest and also
is the applicant pursuant to 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46. See Br. 3.
Appeal2017-008783
Application 14/221,624
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A system comprising:
one or more conductive bodies configured to be disposed
onboard a first vehicle system traveling along a route and to be
at least one of conductively or inductively coupled with the
route during travel along the route;
one or more processors configured to control supply of
electric current from a power source to the one or more
conductive bodies in order to electrically inject an examination
signal into the route via the one or more conductive bodies,
wherein the one or more conductive bodies also are configured
to sense one or more electrical characteristics of the route in
response to the examination signal being injected into the route,
and wherein the one or more processors are configured to
examine the one or more electrical characteristics of the route in
order to determine whether a section of the route is potentially
damaged based on the one or more electrical characteristics, the
one or more processors also configured to compare a location of
the section of the route that is determined as being potentially
damaged with one or more locations of one or more known
anomalies along the route in order to determine that the section
of the route is damaged, and wherein the one or more
processors are configured to, responsive to determining that the
section of the route is damaged by the one or more processors,
perform a secondary analysis of the potentially damaged section
of the route to at least one of confirm that damage has occurred
to the potentially damaged section of the route, identify a type
of damage that has occurred to the potentially damaged section
of the route, or assess a level of damage to the potentially
damaged section of the route.
Br. 18 (Claims App'x).
2
Appeal2017-008783
Application 14/221,624
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 9, 14--16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Clark (US 2002/0065629 Al, pub. May 30, 2002) (hereinafter
"Clark '629").
Claims 4, 7, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Clark (US 2002/0065610 Al, pub. May 30, 2002)
(hereinafter "Clark '610") and Bryan (US 5,987,979, iss. Nov. 23, 1999).
Claims 5, 6, 10-13, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Clark '610 and Trosino (US 6,064,428, iss. May 16,
2000).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Clark '610 and Panetta (US 2009/0193899 Al, pub. Aug. 6, 2009).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Clark '610 and Karg (US 2008/0105791 Al, pub. May 8, 2008).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 9, 14-16, and 20
Rejected As Anticipated by Clark '629
Appellant argues claims 1-3, 9, 14--16, and 20 as a group. Br. 11-16.
We select claim 1 as representative. 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv). Claims 2,
3, 9, 14--16, and 20 stand or fall with claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Clark '629 discloses a
system, as claimed, including one or more processors configured to compare
a location of a section of the route determined to be potentially damaged
with one or more locations of one or more known anomalies along the route
to determine if that section of route is damaged. Non-Final Act. 11 (citing
Clark '629 i-fi-f 145, 146); see Ans. 6-10.
3
Appeal2017-008783
Application 14/221,624
Appellant argues that Clark '629 does not describe comparing the
location of a potentially damaged section of a route with locations of known
anomalies such as insulated joints, unbonded rails, switches, or the like to
determine if the section of the route is damaged and to distinguish between
damaged rails and the known anomalies. Br. 15. Appellant also argues that
paragraphs 145-146 of Clark '629 describe a graphical user interface (GUI)
that can be used to compare data for different test runs of the same location
to provide a time history of a defect, but this GUI is not used to compare the
locations of anomalies to sections of the route that are identified as damaged
to determine whether the section of the route actually is damaged. Id. at 15-
16. Appellant asserts that using a GUI to compare data from different test
runs to provide a "time history" of a defect "does not use data from different
test runs to determine or verify that a section of a track is, in fact, damaged."
Id. at 16. Appellant further argues that the "time history merely provides an
operator with the ability to witness progression of the defect, but does not
verify a potentially damaged section of track actually is damaged." Id.
Finally, Appellant argues that even if the operators were examining test runs
to verify damage, which is not disclosed in Clark '629, the claims require the
processor of the system, not an operator, to determine a section of the route
is damaged. Id.
Resolution of this appeal turns largely on an interpretation of the term
"known anomalies." We interpret this limitation to mean any previously
identified damage or abnormality of a route, including damage or defects of
a rail along the route and conditions of the route that differ from a standard
track architecture and generate a different electrical signal than a standard,
undamaged track when examined with a test current.
4
Appeal2017-008783
Application 14/221,624
This meaning is consistent with the usage and understanding of the
term "anomaly" in the art. For example, Clark '629 uses the term anomaly
to refer to rail defects (e.g., transverse defects), rail failure (e.g., a shell or
stringer), and track defects generally that are noted by personnel watching a
track as it is tested. See Clark '629 i-fi-18, 10, 21. Similarly, Bryan, which is
of record in this appeal, describes a technique for monitoring anomalies in a
railway system to predict a possible defect in the system. Bryan, Abstract.
Bryan provides examples of anomalies as broken track, displaced gravel,
weak rail tie, cracked track, railroad ties or packing, and a defect in the track
or track assembly that requires a detailed inspection of the track and possibly
repair of the track to prevent track failure. Id. at 2:66-3:10, 4:10-22, 8:45-
51. Furthermore, Trosino discloses an automated track inspection vehicle
for inspecting track for anomalies, which includes anything that effects the
structure or the ability of trains to operate on a track such as loose spikes,
defective ties, blocking signals, and cracks in a rail. Trosino, Abstract,
1:40-52 (citing 49 C.F.R. Part 213)).
This meaning also is consistent with claim 1, which requires the one
or more processors "to compare a location of a section of the route that is
determined as being potentially damaged with one or more locations of one
or more known anomalies along the route in order to determine that the
section of the route is damaged." Claim 1 does not recite any other feature
of "known anomalies" beyond their use to determine if a section is damaged.
We agree with the Examiner that Clark '629 teaches a processor as
DAS 106, which compares a location determined to be potentially damaged
with known anomalies at that location, i.e., previously-detected defects, to
determine if a section of a route is damaged. Non-Final Act. 11; Ans. 8-10.
5
Appeal2017-008783
Application 14/221,624
Clark '629 teaches that data acquisition system (DAS) 106 of a rail
inspection system 100 uses a computer-based data processing system 170
with advanced data processing software and hardware to inspect rails with
ultrasonic and magnetic induction signals and compare the signals to data
from other test runs for the same location to "provide a time history of a
defect." Clark '629 i-fi-f 123, 145, Fig. 9. Whether an operator requests this
processing via GUI 181 (as Appellant argues (Br. 16)) or processing occurs
via an automated routine, DAS 106 processor compares a location that is
determined to be potentially damaged to a data base of known defects to
determine if a known defect exists for that location. Id. i-f 145. Clark '629
discloses that this processing allows tracking of the time history of a defect.
Id. In other words, processing determines if a known anomaly/defect was
detected for that location where a current test indicates potential damage
may have occurred. Existence of a known defect at a location confirms that
some damage exists at that section of the route, as claimed. Comparison of a
section of a track that is detected to be potentially damaged to a database of
known defects (anomalies) of that track determines whether a potentially
damaged section corresponds to a known defect and thus whether the section
of track actually is considered to be damaged as claimed. See Br. 15-16.
Appellant appears to interpret "known anomalies" as conditions of the
track that are not a defect in the rail or damage to the rail or track. See Br.
15 (arguing that Clark "never compares the identified location of the damage
to any known locations of anomalies, such as insulated joints, unbonded
rails, switches, or the like."). Claims 21-23, which depend respectively
from independent claims 1, 9, and 15 recite that known anomalies include
unbonded rails, insulated joints, or switches. Br. 22 (Claims App'x).
6
Appeal2017-008783
Application 14/221,624
This argument is not persuasive in view of the art understood meaning
of anomalies discussed above. Under the doctrine of claim differentiation,
reciting a feature in a dependent claim also creates a strong presumption the
feature is not encompassed by its independent claim. E.g., SanDisk Corp. v.
Kingston Tech. Co., Inc., 695 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("Where, as
here, the sole difference between the independent claim and the dependent
claims is the limitation that one party is trying to read into the independent
claim 'the doctrine of claim differentiation is at its strongest.').
The Specification lacks a lexicographic definition or disclaimer that
limits "known anomalies" in the manner that Appellant now argues. Instead,
the Specification describes a database that maps known anomalies "due to
causes other than damage" and "a database including identified signatures
associated with known non-damage anomalies, among others." Spec. i-f 20;
see also id. i-f 23 ("stored geographic data regarding known non-damage
anomalies"). In addition, the Specification also describes "other anomalies,
intentional or unintentional, [that] may impact a test current and result in
false alarms." Id. i-fi-15, 105. The Specification further describes a database
of locations of "known anomalies" including "known unbonded rails,
insulated joints, switch frogs, or the like." Id. i-f 106.
The Specification thus discloses "known non-damage anomalies" as
well as "other anomalies" that may be intentional or unintentional. Claim 1
recites "known anomalies," which we interpret under a broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification as abnormalities that may be
damage-related, defect-related, and other conditions that are not "damage"
but nonetheless are abnormalities in a track or rail that affect the condition or
integrity of a rail or track, i.e., they are a departure from a "normal" rail.
7
Appeal2017-008783
Application 14/221,624
The Specification's use of anomalies is consistent with the ordinary
use of that term in the industry to encompass both defects and damage to a
rail or track as well as other abnormal conditions that affect a rail or track.
We decline to limit claim 1 to only non-damage anomalies or to a particular
embodiment that may use "non-damage" anomalies when claim 1 recites
only "known anomalies" without limiting those anomalies to "non-damage
anomalies" and thus is broader than a non-damage anomaly embodiment.
Both Clark '629 and Appellant send signals into a route or track and
examine the signals to determine if a section is potentially damaged. Both
Clark '629 and Appellant seek independent means to determine whether a
section that is identified as potentially damaged based on detected signals is,
in fact, damaged. Clark '629 and Appellant compare a tested section with
previously detected defects or abnormal conditions (i.e., known anomalies)
for that section to determine if the section is damaged or not. A skilled
artisan would understand that identifying a potentially damaged section of a
route as corresponding to a known defect at that location determines that the
section is damaged and therefore allows tracking of that defect's/damage's
history via a time history. See Clark '629 i-f 145. In this regard, claim 1 does
not recite any limitations of what constitutes a "damaged" section.
Even if we read the term "non-damage" into "known anomalies" as
Appellant appears to do, Clark '629 detects rail "defects" or "flaws" that are
"non-damage" anomalies. Clark '629 discloses that manufactured rails may
include flaws or defects that grow over time. Id. i-fi-17-21. Detecting flaws
or defects is complicated by different rail size, shapes, curves, crossings, and
switches. Id. i-f 18. Hence, Clark '629 compares a potentially damaged rail
to known defects, if any, at that location to determine if the rail is damaged.
8
Appeal2017-008783
Application 14/221,624
Clark '629 also provides a time history of a defect when a potentially
damaged section of rail is determined to correspond to a known flaw at that
location so the flaw can be tracked and assessed over time. Id. i-f 145. Thus,
the progress of a flaw or defect can be tracked over time to determine if the
track has become "damaged" at that location as claimed. Id.; Ans. 9.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 9, 14--16, and 20.
Rejections of claims 4---8, 10-13, 17-19, and 21-23
Appellant does not argue the separate rejections of the dependent
claims other than to argue that the dependent claims are allowable based on
the allowability of independent claims 1, 9, and 15. See Br. 17. Because we
sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 15, as discussed above,
this argument is not persuasive and we also sustain the rejection of claims 4--
8, 10-13, 17-19, and 21-23.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-23.
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
9