Ex Parte Hilberer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2016

12065810 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/065,810 08/29/2008
23911 7590 07/29/2016
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eduard Hilberer
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.
037068.60051 us 3941
EXAMINER
BURCH, MELODY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2016 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 EDUARD HILBERER
Appeal2014-002736
Application 12/065,810
Technology Center 3600
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JILL D. HILL, and ERIC C.
JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Eduard Hilberer (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 7-20. 1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Claims 1---6 are canceled. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.).
Appeal2014-002736
Application 12/065,810
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claim 7, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject
matter, with the key disputed limitation italicized.
7. A method for controlling a pneumatic brake system of a
utility vehicle having a service brake and an electric parking
brake, wherein an electronic control unit controls the electric
parking brake, wherein, in an event of a circuit defect in the
service brake, braking of the moving utility vehicle is assisted
by the parking brake, and further wherein the electronic control
unit controls the electric parking brake to provide braking
assistance via venting spring-loaded cylinders of the parking
brake in accordance with a predefined time/pressure
characteristic curve.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bensch (US 2005/0029859 Al, pub. Feb. 10, 2005) and
Sharp (US 4, 179, 166, iss. Dec. 18, 1979). Final Act. 2; Ans. 2.
II. Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bensch, Sharp, and Stumpe (US 6,062,658, iss. May 16,
2000). Final Act. 3; Ans. 3.
III. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bensch, Sharp, and DE '113 (DE 4235113, Oct. 17,
1992). Final Act. 3; Ans. 4.
IV. Claims 10 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bensch, Sharp, Stumpe, and DE '113. Final Act. 4; Ans.
4.
2
Appeal2014-002736
Application 12/065,810
V. Claims 11and20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bensch, Sharp, and Okazaki (US 5,636,907, iss. June 10,
1997). Final Act. 4; Ans. 5.
VI. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bensch, Sharp, Stumpe, and Okazaki. Final Act. 5; Ans.
5.
VII. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bensch, Sharp, DE '113, and Okazaki. Final Act. 6; Ans.
6.
VIII. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bensch, Sharp, Okazaki, and Larson (US 2002/0036567
Al, pub. Mar. 28, 2002). Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 7.
IX. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bensch, Sharp, Stumpe, Okazaki, and Larson. Final Act.
7; Ans. 7.
X. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bensch, Sharp, DE '113, Okazaki, and Larson. Final Act.
8; Ans. 8.
OPINION
The dispositive issue in this case is whether the Examiner erred in
combining Bensch and Sharp in such a manner that the braking response
curve depicted in Sharp's Figure 5 would be used to control Bensch's
parking brake assistance "to provide a means of enabling brake pressure
decay in a controlled manner." Ans. 3.
According to Appellant, the curve B depicted in Sharp's Figure 5 only
discloses how "fluid pressure responds to actuation of the ABS pressure
3
Appeal2014-002736
Application 12/065,810
reducing hardware." Appeal Br. at 13 (emphasis added) (citing Sharp 6:44-
46 ("FIG. 5 shows a pressure/time curve which illustrates the effect the fluid
control means of FIGS. 3 and 4 has on the rate of decay of fluid pressure at
the brake.")).
Appellant also argues that gradual application of the parking brake is
the opposite of what one skilled in the art would consider desirable when the
parking brake is being used as a backup in a hill-assist braking system:
During hill-brake assist if there is a failure in the service brake
system which is performing the hill-brake function, there is no
need to slow the application of the parking brake at all - indeed,
the faster the parking brake is applied in the event of a hill-
holding service brake failure, the better. If anything, Bensch
teaches that in the event of a hill-brake function failure, the
immediate application of the parking brake is desired to prevent
vehicle roll-away - in other words, Bensch teaches away from
slowing parking brake application by controlling brake
application "in accordance with a predefined time/pressure
characteristic curve."
Appeal Br. 1 7.
The Examiner responds that Sharp is only relied on to disclose a
predefined time/pressure characteristic curve, which would be used with
Bensch's brake control application. Ans. 10. According to the Examiner,
the curve in Sharp's Figure 5 would be used by one skilled in the art "to
modify the brake application of Bensch to have been controlled using a
predefined time/pressure characteristic curve ... to provide a means of
preventing abrupt application of brakes which may cause jerking of the
vehicle passengers," which "would be desired even in a hill-holding
function." Id.
4
Appeal2014-002736
Application 12/065,810
Appellant replies that slowing the application of Bensch' s parking
brake is "exactly the opposite of the fast-as-possible response needed in an
emergency brake activation." Reply Br. 4.
We agree with Appellant that Sharp does not teach controlling a brake
application according to "a predetermined time/pressure characteristic
curve." Sharp's Figure 5 discloses only a pressure/time curve representing
the effect of the fluid flow control of Sharp's ABS system on a rate of
pressure decrease at a brake. See Sharp 6:44--57. The curve is not disclosed
as having any relation to control of the braking system.
Regarding whether one skilled in the art would have found it obvious
to employ Sharp's response curve to control parking brake application in
Bensch, Bensch specifically states that unintentional rolling of the vehicle
should be prevented if service brakes fail (see Bensch i-fi-1 46, 63), which one
skilled in the art would understand means that an immediate response would
be needed, rather than a response controlled via a pressure/time curve as
proposed by the Examiner. To the extent that Bensch also addresses
controlled, adjustable actuation of a parking brake if the parking brake is
engaged while the vehicle is moving (see Bensch i-fi-1 78, 80, 99), the
Examiner has not explained why one skilled in the art would expect Sharp's
brake line pressure response curves to be used to control parking brake
engagement in such a circumstance. We thus are not persuaded that one
skilled in the art would have found it obvious to employ Sharp's response
curve for parking brake control in such a circumstance.
For the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the pending
rejections, which are all based on the Examiner's combination of Bensch
5
Appeal2014-002736
Application 12/065,810
and Sharp, wherein Sharp's response curve would be used to control
Bensch' s parking brake actuation.
DECISION
The pending rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are REVERSED.
REVERSED
6