Ex Parte Chico et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 12, 2012

11117353 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte PHILIPPE CHICO and PIERRE GIROD
____________________

Appeal 2009-014787
Application 11/117,353
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, Administrative Patent Judges.

WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014787
Application 11/117,353

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 8-
15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method of operating a vehicle brake
system having electric brakes. Claim 8, reproduced below, is the sole
independent claim and is representative of the claimed subject matter:
8. A protection method comprising:
providing a vehicle with a brake system comprising at least one
brake comprising at least one electromechanical actuator, the at
least one electromechanical actuator comprising a pusher
actuated by an electric motor to apply a force selectively onto
friction elements of the brake, and wherein the brake system is
configured to operate, at the request of the pilot of the vehicle,
in a controlled mode in which the pusher of the actuator is
actuated by the electric motor so as to apply a braking force
selectively to the friction elements in response to a braking
instruction or in a parking mode in which the pusher is locked
in a position so as to exert a parking force on the friction
elements in the absence of drive from the motor;
detecting whether the vehicle is at a standstill;
detecting whether the brake system is in the controlled mode;
detecting whether the pusher is controlled to apply a force on
the friction element; and
automatically switching the brake system, and without
intervention from a vehicle operator, from the controlled mode
to the parking mode when the brake system determines from
the detecting steps that the vehicle is at a standstill, the brake
system is in the controlled mode, and the pusher is controlled to
apply a force on the friction element.

Appeal 2009-014787
Application 11/117,353

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Crossman
Estaque
US 4,567,967
US 5,482,146
Feb. 4, 1986
Jan. 9, 1996
Kinder US 2003/0214185 A1 Nov. 20, 2003

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 8-9, 11-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Crossman and Kinder. Ans. 3.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Crossman, Kinder and Estaque. Ans. 3.

ANALYSIS
Claims 8-9, 11-15 – Obviousness – Crossman and Kinder
Appellants argue claims 8-9, and 11-15 as a group, with claims 9 and
11-15 standing or falling with claim 8. App. Br. 11. Claim 8 recites a
vehicle braking system “protection method” comprising using an
electromechanically actuated brake system that operates alternately in a
“controlled” mode and a “parking mode.” App. Br. 13 (Claims Appendix);
Spec. 1-3. The vehicle operator uses the system in the controlled mode to
stop the vehicle, and the system automatically switches from the controlled
mode to the parking mode when the vehicle is determined to be at a
standstill. Id.; Spec. 5. The Examiner found that Crossman discloses an
electromechanically actuated braking system that includes a holding device
or park brake but does not expressly disclose automatically switching the
Appeal 2009-014787
Application 11/117,353

4
system from a controlled mode to the parking mode at standstill. Ans. 3-4;
see Crossman, col. 5, ll. 9-19; col. 6, ll. 7-26; Fig. 2. The Examiner then
found that Kinder discloses a braking system that switches automatically
from controlled mode to parking mode when the vehicle is at a standstill,
and concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to
modify Crossman’s system with Kinder’s automatic switching to ensure
secure stoppage of the vehicle and to relieve burden on the operator. Ans. 3,
5 (citing Kinder, ¶ 0042).
Appellants argue that one skilled in the art would not be motivated to
modify Crossman in view of Kinder for a number of reasons. First,
appellants argue, Kinder teaches automatic activation of an “auxiliary”
holding brake device in response to the detection of a vehicle standstill state,
whereas Crossman does not teach the use of any auxiliary holding brake
device. App. Br. 9-10. However, the premise on which this argument is
based is not supported by the record. As the Examiner points out, Ans. 4-5,
Crossman does disclose a holding device designated as a “parking device”
utilizing separate components to maintain braking force while allowing
release of the service brake. Ans. 4-5 (citing Crossman, col. 6, ll. 7-26).
Appellants do not explain why a person of ordinary skill would have
considered this structure to be unsuitable for use with Kinder’s method of
automatically setting a parking brake when the vehicle is in a standstill state.
Second, Appellants argue that in the present invention, activation of
the parking mode automatically deactivates the controlled mode, whereas
Kinder does not require that parking-mode activation automatically
deactivates the controlled mode. App. Br. 20. But while Kinder may not
require this function in all embodiments, it is undisputed that such function
Appeal 2009-014787
Application 11/117,353

5
is disclosed. See App. Br. 9 (“Kinder teaches to activate the holding brake
mechanism 6 (Fig. 4, step 6), and to deactivate the service brake device 10
(Fig. 4, step 7) as ‘its braking forces are no longer necessary to maintain the
state of standstill’ (para. [0046]).” (emphasis added)); Kinder, ¶ 0045. That
Kinder discloses this function as optional does not take away from the fact
that Kinder discloses it.
Finally, Appellants argue that the claimed method avoids overheating,
which is not taught in Kinder. App. Br. 10. This argument is unpersuasive
because, as pointed out by the Examiner, claim 8 does not require that
overheating be avoided. Therefore, the argument is not commensurate with
the scope of claim 8. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982)
(limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for
patentability). We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-9, and 11-
15.
Claim 10 – Obviousness – Crossman, Kinder and Estaque
Appellants do not raise any additional arguments as to the
patentability of claim 10. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 10.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-15 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2009).

Appeal 2009-014787
Application 11/117,353

6
AFFIRMED

MP