Ex Parte Hasegawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 11, 2013

11382209 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte TETSUYA HASEGAWA, TOORU KOYAMA, and
GENICHI HATAKOSHI
____________________

Appeal 2011-007331
Application 11/382,209
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: GAY ANN SPAHN, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-007331
Application 11/382,209

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Tetsuya Hasegawa et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Wagner (DE 102 37 102 A1; pub. Feb. 26, 2004)1. The
Appellants’ representative presented oral arguments on October 8, 2013.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Sole independent claim 20, reproduced below, is representative of the
claimed subject matter:
20. A brake control system for a vehicle,
comprising:
first and second operating members;
a first brake system connected to the first
operating members;
a second brake system connected to the
second operating members; and
a control unit which performs interlocking
control of the first and second brake system[s] in
such a manner that:
when increasing brake force of the
first brake system, changing brake force of
the second brake system in accordance with
a predetermined distribution ratio;

1 The Examiner states that “[Wagner (]US 2005/0146207[; pub. Jul. 7,
2005)] is being used in the rejection since said US publication is the English
equivalent of said DE document.” Ans. 3. Thus, all references to Wagner
herein are also to the published US application.
Appeal 2011-007331
Application 11/382,209

3
when decreasing the brake force of
the first brake system, decrease the brake
force of the second brake system so as to
directly become zero regardless of the
predetermined distribution ratio.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Wagner shows, inter alia, a brake control
system comprising “a control unit 5 which performs interlocking control of
the first and second brake system[s] in such a manner that: . . . when
decreasing the brake force of the first brake system, decrease the brake force
of the second brake system so as to directly become zero regardless of the
predetermined distribution ratio as shown [by] line 30 of figure 2.” Ans. 4.
The Appellants argue that line 30 of Wagner’s Figure 2 does not show
“when decreasing the brake force of the first brake system, decreas[ing] the
brake force of the second brake system so as to directly become zero
regardless of the predetermined distribution ratio.” App. Br. 5-6. The
Examiner responds that the “‘predetermined distribution ratio’ is a very
broad limitation” and that “when a brake lever or a brake pedal is released,
the brake force would eventually become zero.” Ans. 4-5.
The Appellants reply that “despite the Examiner’s broad interpretation
of the ‘predetermined ratio’ . . . , the claimed invention requires that the
braking force of the second brake system decreases, regardless of the
predetermined distribution ratio” and that “the predetermined distribution
ratio can be any predetermined ratio, but the decreasing must be regardless
of that ratio.” Reply Br. 2-3. The Appellants further argue that “in Wagner,
the braking force increases in accordance with a predetermined distribution
ratio, and the braking force decreases in accordance with a predetermined
Appeal 2011-007331
Application 11/382,209

4
distribution ratio;” that “even if all braking forces go to zero, it is clearly
seen that the force decreases with a predetermined distribution ratio; not
regardless of the . . . predetermined distribution ratio;” and that “even if
‘predetermined distribution ratio’ is considered a broad feature, Wagner
does not disclose at least ‘decreas[ing] the brake force of the second brake
system so as to directly become zero regardless of the predetermined
distribution ratio’.” Id. at 4; see also id. at 7-8 and 9.
The Appellants’ arguments are persuasive. Wagner states that
“[s]traight lines 28-31 represent geometrical loci at which the braking force
distribution to the front axle and the rear axle takes place according to a
constant braking force ratio,” that “a braking force distribution is selected
corresponding to the slope of line 30,” and that “[i]n the event of vehicle
decelerations that are less than 0.8 g, the braking force at the rear axle
increases with the braking force at the front axle according to the slope of
line 30.” Wagner, paras. [0024], [0027], and [0028]. However, Wagner
does not indicate that its control unit 5 performs interlocking control of first
and second brake systems in such a manner that, when decreasing the brake
force of the first brake system, the control unit 5 decreases the brake force of
the second brake system so as to directly become zero regardless of a
predetermined distribution ratio, as required by independent claim 20. Thus,
Wagner does not support the Examiner’s finding by a preponderance of the
evidence.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed supra, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 20, and its dependent claims 21 and 22, under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Wagner.

Appeal 2011-007331
Application 11/382,209

5
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 20-22 is reversed.

REVERSED

Klh