Ex Parte Brauner et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 21, 201611587819 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111587,819 08/28/2007 23911 7590 11/23/2016 CROWELL & MORING LLP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP P.O. BOX 14300 WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Horst Brauner 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. 095309.58393US 2725 EXAMINER KONG, SZE-HON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3661 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/23/2016 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): edocket@crowell.com tche@crowell.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HORST BRAUNER, LUTZ KIESSLING, HANS ROEHM, and WOLFGANG SCHINDLER Appeal2015-002965 Application 11/587,819 1 Technology Center 3600 Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 11-15, 17-21, 23-30, 33, and 34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Daimler AG. Br. 1. Appeal2015-002965 Application 11/587 ,819 BACKGROlH~D According to Appellants, "[t]he invention relates to a method for controlling at least one safety-related component of a motor vehicle ... , and a motor vehicle, in particular a passenger car, having at least one safety- related component which can be actuated by means of a control device." Spec. 1, 11. 7-13. CLAIMS Claims 11-15, 17-21, 23-30, 33, and 342 are on appeal. Claim 11 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 11. A method for reducing undesired triggering of at least one safety-related component of a motor vehicle that is controlled as a function of vehicle movement dynamics of the motor vehicle detected by sensors, actuation of the safety-related component being carried out as a function of at least one predefined and adaptable threshold value characterizing vehicle movement dynamics that are critical for driving safety in such a way that a risk of injury to a vehicle occupant, another party, or both the vehicle occupant and the other party in a collision is reduced, compnsmg: evaluating a driver-end power request by differentiating a first situation, in which said driver-end power request is produced in a voluntary and controlled fashion, from a second situation, in which said driver-end power request is produced in a random and uncontrolled fashion, based on a speed of accelerator pedal release, changing the threshold value as a function of a reduction in the driver-end power request, and avoiding undesired triggering of said at least one safety- related component by actuating the safety-related component 2 Claims 1-10, 16, 22, 31, and 32 have been cancelled. See Br. 8. 2 Appeal2015-002965 Application 11/587 ,819 Br. 8. only when vehicle movement dynamics, which result from the driver-end power request and are critical for safety, are evaluated as having been brought about in the random and uncontrolled fashion. REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejects claims 11-15, 17, 19-21, 23, 26, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fujii3 in view of Walenty4 and Matsumoto. 5 2. The Examiner rejects claims 16 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fujii in view of Walenty, Matsumoto, and Mueller. 6 3. The Examiner rejects claims 18, 24, 25, 27, 28, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fujii in view ofWalenty, Matsumoto, and Specht. 7 4. The Examiner rejects claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fujii in view of Walenty, Matsumoto, and Colemere. 8 5. The Examiner rejects claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fujii in view of Matsumoto and Gimmler. 9 3 Fujii, US 6,374,168 Bl, iss. Apr. 16, 2002. 4 Walenty et al., US 2003/0074125 Al, pub. Apr. 17, 2003. 5 Matsumoto et al., US 7,580,785 B2, iss. Aug. 25, 2009. 6 Mueller, US 6,293,361 Bl, iss. Sept. 25, 2001. 7 Specht, US 6,394,495 B 1, iss. May 28, 2002. 8 Colemere, Jr., US 5,835,008, iss. Nov. 10, 1998. 9 Gimmler et al., US 6,278,911 Bl, iss. Aug. 21, 2001. 3 Appeal2015-002965 Application 11/587 ,819 DISCUSSION With respect to independent claim 11, Appellants argue only that the art does not suggest "the act or operation of differentiating situations with voluntary and controlled driver-end power requests from situations with random and uncontrolled requests." Br. 5. However, we agree with the Examiner that Fujii teaches or suggests such a differentiation. See Ans. 3. Although the Examiner indicates in the rejection that Fujii does not expressly disclose such a differentiation, Fujii discloses evaluating the speed of accelerator pedal release to determine if it was a voluntary action, i.e. Fujii discloses that the CPU 'judges whether the driver performs the ... action." See Fujii, col. 8, 1. 47---col. 9, 1. 21. Fujii discloses making such a determination in order to determine if an emergency situation exists. Id. Thus, we find Fujii teaches differentiating emergency situations and normal driving situations, and thus, that Fujii at least suggests differentiating situations as claimed. See Ans. 3--4. Based on the foregoing, we find that Appellants have not pointed, with particularity, to any error in the rejection before us. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 11. Appellants do not present separate arguments with respect to dependent claims 12-15, 17-21, 23-30, and 33, and thus, we sustain the rejection of those claims for the same reasons. With respect to claim 34, Appellants argue only the art "fails to suggest altering the Fujii system in such a way as to meet the 'changing a threshold value' limitations in claim 34." Br. 6. However, Appellants only address Walenty and Gimmler in their arguments, while the rejection relies on Matsumoto for teaching changing threshold values for triggering safety relevant components. See id.; see also Final Act. 10-11; Ans. 4--5. Thus, 4 Appeal2015-002965 Application 11/587 ,819 Appellants have not presented specific argument directed to the Examiner's findings with respect to Matsumoto's disclosure of changing threshold values. See Final Act. 10-11; see also Ans. 5. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 34. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the rejections of claims 11-15, 17-21, 23-30, 33, and 34. 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 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation